# Canon EF 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS "Soonish" [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 14, 2011)

```
<div id="fb_share_1" style="float: right; margin: 0 0px 0 10px;"><a name="fb_share" type="box_count" share_url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=7842" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php">Share</a></div><div><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript"></script></div><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=7842"></a></div>
<strong>Finally on its way?

</strong>I was told today that a new EF 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS will be making its debut â€œsoonishâ€. It will be after the EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x is officially announced.</p>
<p>It could be tested at Euro 2012 before being announced.</p>
<p><strong>Features</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Ring zoom (not push/pull)</li>
<li>Latest IS System</li>
<li>82mm Filter Size</li>
<li>Weather Sealed</li>
<li>Slightly heavier than the current model</li>
<li>Slightly faster f/4 at 100mm (Current is f/4.5)</li>
<li>Retail around $2800 USD</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>CRâ€™s Take</strong>

A few folks want an EF 400 f/5.6L IS, Iâ€™d think this sort of product would fill the void. Iâ€™d expect it to be optically awesome.</p>
<p>This comes from a pretty solid source, though lenses are always hard to nail down.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 14, 2011)

We've been burned by this rumor before. I'll believe it when I see it...but if I do see it, I'll buy it straight away.


----------



## wickidwombat (Nov 14, 2011)

wow I think i might find it hard to resist buying that but i have sooo many lenses already, dunno if i can handle carrying that one around too


----------



## Meh (Nov 14, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> I'll believe it when I see it...but if I do see it, I'll buy it straight away.



Ditto. Per my previously stated buying criteria.


----------



## docsmith (Nov 14, 2011)

Add me to the list. Price is a little higher than I'd hope, but if the optics where there I'd get one.


----------



## bvukich (Nov 14, 2011)

Meh said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I'll believe it when I see it...but if I do see it, I'll buy it straight away.
> ...



Ditto on the Ditto.

The original is quite good, but updated IS, coatings, and twist zoom, should make it downright awesome.


----------



## tron (Nov 14, 2011)

I knew it! About one week ago I had sent an email to a friend saying that I may have caused this inadvertently by ... ordering the current 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS!!!
Seriously now, a few minutes after ordering it I saw in this site another announcement about a patent for a new 100-400!!! However no complaints. 
I bought the lens 1310 euro which translated is just a little below 1800$. Prices are different in Europe and this was the lowest price ever!
Even so the price is way lower that the mentioned 2800$. This would translate to more than 2000 euros in Europe and it is too much for amateur use. In addition, I have an appointment with some ducks...


----------



## LukieLauXD (Nov 14, 2011)

Just when you thought they couldn't make it any heavier. I have a 100-400 and it's really annoying to carry it for longer than 30 minutes. (I'm a high school student.)

And I hate the pulling zoom thing. WITH A PASSION. 

PASSION. :|


----------



## Meh (Nov 14, 2011)

LukieLauXD said:


> Just when you thought they couldn't make it any heavier. I have a 100-400 and it's really annoying to carry it for longer than 30 minutes. (I'm a high school student.)
> 
> And I hate the pulling zoom thing. WITH A PASSION.
> 
> PASSION. :|



High school students with such great gear are not allowed to complain  Just kidding, of course you can complain.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Nov 14, 2011)

LukieLauXD said:


> Just when you thought they couldn't make it any heavier. I have a 100-400 and it's really annoying to carry it for longer than 30 minutes. (I'm a high school student.)
> 
> And I hate the pulling zoom thing. WITH A PASSION.
> 
> PASSION. :|


I'm no longer a high school student (which is not to say my health went straight downhill, but this is a good point in your life to work on strength training) and the 120-300mm f/2.8 OS is annoying to carry for longer than an hour...you just gotta find a good tripod foot to use as a handle. That lens is 6.5 pounds, by the way.

Other than that, good grief - the price is nearly the same as that 120-300mm f/2.8. All things considered, I'm happier with a teleconverter (though minimum focus distance is lousy and the 2X is really needed to get a good set of equivalent focal lengths for birding, but degrades IQ and aperture unfortunately) and the faster lens.

I'm sure that it will blow the Sigma out of the water, but you have to wonder if the price tag could be right. This lens is projected coming in around $1200 more than the typical list price of the 100-400mm, and even after a discount for "real sales" it looks like a heavy purchase; you're saving only $300 off that Sigma and still getting nowhere near the same maximum aperture (although the maximum focal length is a big win, that essentially disappears when comparing to a 2X TC combination with the Sigma, albeit at further price costs and the IQ reduction, of course).

I will have to wait and see what the pricing and consensus is before I come to a final conclusion. Ultimately it does look like it more or less fits the pattern of the 70-300mm L IS - underemphasize the importance of wide aperture and underperform on price - though if your camera can hack it the maximum apertures on these lenses probably do represent a good tradeoff on glass required and price, at least for what Canon pays. On the other hand, the 70-300mm L IS was essentially carving out its own niche - if the 100-400mm is released at this price, it will be a hard sell for the mere fact that the current lens is already close to current "L" standards.


----------



## dr croubie (Nov 14, 2011)

I got the 70-300L over the current 100-400L basically because of the new design, much better IS, and slightly better IQ in parts (although I would have been a lot better off with the extra 3-400mm in trade for more weight). I've used the pushpull and didn't mind it so badly, half the time I pushpull my 70-300L when I hold by the front barrel.
But if there's a 100-400L mk2, where is the 70-300L going to sit? For the small group of people who absolutely *must* have both 70-100 and 200-300 in one L lens?
If the 100-400L mk2 is priced less than halfway between 70-300L and 70-200/2.8ISmk2, then the 70-300L may as well be dead...


----------



## docsmith (Nov 14, 2011)

Well, $2,800 is certainly more than the half way point between those two lenses. Canon has shown no fear of populating the same range of focal lengths with a variety of lenses setting different prices points with each (70-200 mm). I don't see the 100-400 L "II" (not really a II because of the change in aperture range) killing the 70-300....hurting, maybe yes....but not killing. I see the primary differentiators being price, weight, size, and that 70-100 mm range. And considering that many general purpose lenses end at 55 mm, I see the 55-100 mm range as a big gap....

Honestly, I think this, if it happens, will be a great move by Canon. The current 100-400 L still sells well and I think many of us would happily spend a little more for better IS, weather sealing and slightly better optics.


----------



## Gcon (Nov 14, 2011)

Will it take the 1.4x or 2x extenders?


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Nov 14, 2011)

dr croubie said:


> But if there's a 100-400L mk2, where is the 70-300L going to sit? For the small group of people who absolutely *must* have both 70-100 and 200-300 in one L lens?


It appears to me (not having compared weights and measures, of course...) that the 70-300 will continue on not just for its more applicable portrait range (yes, 70mm is wider than 100mm) but also for its more compact size and probably a smaller weight. I am with you on this point - there isn't a whole lot differentiating the two, but price and a photographer's needs will hopefully determine which is the better choice. As you might say, an abundance of riches (and they are rich). The problem of discerning between similar but different options is not a completely terrible problem to have.

What would be really interesting would be for Canon to look into fast telezooms (like my Sigma!) or even longer zooms (again like Sigma, i.e. 500 or 550mm options, or longer).


----------



## pj1974 (Nov 14, 2011)

Should this CR2 rumour become reality, I can see an improved Canon 100-400mm L being very popular with a variety of shooters. I believe particularly those who are looking for a flexible, high quality telezoom to capture a variety of wildlife (eg from birds to wildlife in games parks, etc). 

I have the Canon 70-300mm L, and love that lens. One of the things I really like about the lens is it's zoom range : portability aspect. While I would love a 100-400mm L, I was 'put off' by the bulk and impracticality for transport, having handled the current 100-400mm L zoom and some of the similar Sigma lenses (eg 120-400mm, 150-500mm). When I go travelling (locally or further afield), this is usually what I take in my LowePro shoulder bag: Canon 7D body, 15-85mm and 70-300mm L lenses. It's a great travel kit.

The 'soonish' in the rumour is an interesting aspect. : I could imagine if it was released soon, a lot of the new 100-400mm lenses would be used for the major 2012 sports (eg Olympics). However I know there will be people who don't necessarily need the 400mm (or who, like me - are happy 90% of the time cropping at 300mm to obtain pleasing results).

I'm aware there are people who are considering the 70-300mm L which has some of these features / benefits compared to the current 100-400mm L ie improved IS, zoom mechanism, alleged slightly improved AF & IQ. If a new 100-400mm L comes out, it may be *the * lens they are after if it 'borrows' or migrates those features from the 70-300mm L.

Should the alleged price $2800 USD in the CR2 rumour is accurate for the 100-400mm L, purchasers will be 'paying for this' in the upgrade over the existing 100-400mm L.  I paid AUD$1600 for my lens soon after it was released, and I'm very happy with it. My copy has stellar IQ corner to corner: sharp, contrast, very low CA, etc.

My thoughts are that I wouldn't be surprised if the folks at Canons put out the 70-300mm L, and kept a very close eye on the sales, to determine the 'last minute tweaks & production' to a new 100-400mm L design / model they had in the pipeline already. 8)

If I would want to get really REALLY super serious into birding (or wildlife) photography - even as a hobby - and felt it wouldn't be too selfish, the 200-400mm f/4 with built in 1.4x teleconverter, (thus also being a 280-560mm f/5.6) presents a much more desireable lens to me because of the additional reach, still at aperture 5.6. It would match my 7D very well. However at this stage I have no plans to buy such an expensive and large lens.

These are interesting times. Thanks Canon Rumours for what you share, and for this forum. More choice can't be a bad thing. Horses for courses, and I do hope any new 100-400mm L would make for many happy photographers! 

Paul


----------



## Lawliet (Nov 14, 2011)

dr croubie said:


> But if there's a 100-400L mk2, where is the 70-300L going to sit? For the small group of people who absolutely *must* have both 70-100 and 200-300 in one L lens?



Don't think in focal length, but in volume and weight. In your average non wildlife/sports situation convenience might be the more important factor. You don't have to look for a bag that can hold a 70-300L, but the 70-200/2,8 is about the largest lens I'd put into a general purpose bag/pack.
The 70-300L fits nicely as an everyday solution, whereas the 70-200s(+TCs) and/or x00-400s require more effort.

As for the sports season - perhaps seeing lots of 200-400/4s would be more likely, that's if Canon can supply them.


----------



## wtlloyd (Nov 14, 2011)

Gcon said:


> Will it take the 1.4x or 2x extenders?




Not on the 1DX..... :


----------



## KyleSTL (Nov 14, 2011)

Canon Rumors said:


> A few folks want an EF 400 f/5.6L IS, Iâ€™d think this sort of product would fill the void. Iâ€™d expect it to be optically awesome.


At a rumored cost of nearly 3 times the amount, how exactly does this 'fill the void' of an IS 400mm f/5.6 replacement. The whole point of the 400 5.6 is affordable super tele. In most amateurs minds I would venture to say $2800 is not 'affordable'.


----------



## kirispupis (Nov 14, 2011)

The big question I have about this lens is if it starts at F4 instead of F4.5, does that mean AF will still work with a 1.4 extender on the 5D2, 1D-X, etc. - even at 400mm?

I owned the current 100-400 and sold it awhile back. It wasn't a bad lens. It was of decent sharpness, though the AF was on the slow side. The main reason I sold it is I didn't see the sense in carrying it around any longer once I bought the 70-200 2.8 II + 2x III. That combination is much more versatile so I sold the 100-400.

However if the newer lens has the following I would certainly consider picking it up given that the 200-400 and other bigger primes will be out of my price range.
- Not only can have AF will a 1.4 extender, but still has decent image quality and AF.
- Improved image quality from current model
- Significantly improved AF

If it does have these things, then IMHO it is worth a look. Otherwise I will not bother with it.


----------



## aldvan (Nov 14, 2011)

The present 100-400 is my favorite lens, something I have permanently screwed on my 1Ds. I am one of the few ones that like the push-pull and I carry without any problem 1Ds+100-400 hanging at my neck all the day long during 20 miles mountain hiking. The 100-400 is also a sturdy gear. I had it rocket launched from my backpack in Beijing last year and it needed just a new YA2-3629 zooming ring and barrel. No glass was minimally damaged, although the cinetic energy due to the heavy weight was huge.
Do I think to trade it for a new 100-400? Sincerely I don't know, for the same reason I'm not thinking to trade my Land Rover Defender for the next DC-100. There are some features that don't appraise a new customer that will disappear in the third millennium design but difficult to leave for people used to them, like the controversial push-pull zoom. You can accept to leave them for a relevant step ahead. I'm not sure to be willing to pay a gap bigger than 1500$ for a 4/5.6 instead of a 4.5/5.6. If I should be a new customer for this focal lenght, I would be more than happy for the news, but this is not my situation...


----------



## Heidrun (Nov 14, 2011)

If it is with Internal Focus and don`t get bigger when im zooming. Then this is a one i want very much


----------



## Doodah (Nov 14, 2011)

I am still waiting for some wide to normal (prime and zoom) lenses from Canon.


----------



## J. McCabe (Nov 14, 2011)

Why would the front element's size be increased to 82mm ?

77mm would be more than enough (400mm / 5.6 = 71.4mm), and bigger element increases both the price of the lens and of the required filters.


----------



## briansquibb (Nov 14, 2011)

The 70-300L is a great lens. Hopefully the new 100-400 will follow along that path. It will be interesting to see if it will take an extender.


----------



## Heidrun (Nov 14, 2011)

briansquibb said:


> The 70-300L is a great lens. Hopefully the new 100-400 will follow along that path. It will be interesting to see if it will take an extender.



Agree. 100-400 on a 7 D mk II eventually. That will with a 1,4 converter give me a in reality 224 - 896 mm zoom. Could i ask for more in landscape photos


----------



## lol (Nov 14, 2011)

Change from push-pull to twist zoom is not unexpected but still a disappointment to me. Latest IS and sealing are no surprise.

Increased weight? That's more interesting because in the other big white updates of recent past, haven't they been reducing weight? What are Canon putting into the lens to need this weight? More elements for further optical correction perhaps? Possibly related to that the filter size update...

Price again isn't too surprising to me. Since when has a significantly updated replacement lens not cost a lot more than the previous model?

The only question for me is do I get it, should it happen? I have the 100-400L already and its two weaknesses I'd like to fix are IS and weather sealing, which is where I got the 70-300L to fill in. It would be nice to get 400 back on the new one, but is the cost of the zoom handling downgrade worth it? Anyway, no point worrying about it until it officially exists and we can buy it.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Nov 14, 2011)

I've tried a number of 100-400 IS L's over the years and i've had mixed observations. There are soft copies and there are copies with mis focussing AF. Wide open, i've found it a little soft at the short end but very sharp at the long end. So i used stop down to f5.6 across the whole focal range and then i found that it was excellent and very sharp. It vignetted a bit and the out of focus areas were a little harsh. Very strong contrast and vibrant colours too. I did feel that it was a little shorter than the claimed 400mm, which seemed to get shorter as the focus point got closer (no suprises really....most zooms do this).
A good copy is a delight and amazingly versatile. But with every copy i've tried, I've been rather underwelmed by the AF speed. It's pretty redestrian and I'm pretty sure I could manually focus better than most copies i've tried. 
Where can Canon improve this lens? Pretty much in every aspect to some degree. Yes it's handling can be improved, vignetting can be reduced (the reason for the 82mm filter threads I'm guessing), there's always room for a sharpness tweek, AF speed improvement is a must as is AF accuracy. The IS system was a revolution in it's day....but things have really moved on...just play with a 70-200\2.8 L IS II to see that. So a newer and fresher IS system would be fantastic...4 stops...very nice. I hope Canon put the tripod mount in a more sensible place. Racked out to 400mm and the tripod mount is so far from the objective lens, it can't be doing much to reduce camera vibration. The 400mm f5.6 L prime has it's tripod mount nice and central and it really works well there. I'd hope that the focal length really would be 400mm and that it wouldn't reduce significantly as the focus point get closer (the achillies heel of the new 70-300L). 
Is it a lens that I'd purchase? Most probably, I'd sell my 400mm f5.6 L in a flash as long as it's results are comparible. Great IQ, fast AF speed, versatility and IS are the key points. Lets hope it ticks all these boxes...then again, Canon aren't going to make any mistakes with such a key lens in their range.

Gareth Cooper


----------



## Cropper (Nov 14, 2011)

Finally ! ItÂ´s about time, IÂ´ve been waiting for this one for soooooooooo long.

This is great news, even if that "Soonish" probably translates to end of 2012 at best.


----------



## dstppy (Nov 14, 2011)

Heidrun said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > The 70-300L is a great lens. Hopefully the new 100-400 will follow along that path. It will be interesting to see if it will take an extender.
> ...


You could ask that they don't hamstring the AF with an "upgrade"


----------



## richy (Nov 14, 2011)

LukieLauXD said:


> Just when you thought they couldn't make it any heavier. I have a 100-400 and it's really annoying to carry it for longer than 30 minutes. (I'm a high school student.)
> 
> And I hate the pulling zoom thing. WITH A PASSION.
> 
> PASSION. :|



The more you carry it the easier it gets. Handholding mf gear got me used to it (alongside rugby and american football at college) but the 100-400 is a midweight lens. You may be lucky enough to get your hands on a 300 or 400 2.8, they are heavy  Just get plenty of practice and maybe do a bit of training and you'll not notice the weight and will be able to focus totally on the pictures. 

Re the 100-400 II, I agree with most of the comments, price would require stellar optics, weather sealing, 4 stop is, and even then its close to the siggy in price. As much as I like siggy is canon can come in around 2400 street (after the 9 month ish price drop) I'll have one. There have been so many rumors about this lens though! 

The 70-300L is great, but if its going to be 5.6 I want at least 400mm out of it. A 150-450 5.6 would be awesome, maybe even 500 at the long end. That would be worth 3-4k anyday!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 14, 2011)

kirispupis said:


> The big question I have about this lens is if it starts at F4 instead of F4.5, does that mean AF will still work with a 1.4 extender on the 5D2, 1D-X, etc. - even at 400mm?



No, it will not, at least with Canon teleconverters. It doesn't matter if it's f/5.6 at the short end, with the variable aperture the firmware will not allow AF. 



J. McCabe said:


> Why would the front element's size be increased to 82mm ?
> 77mm would be more than enough (400mm / 5.6 = 71.4mm), and bigger element increases both the price of the lens and of the required filters.



Better IQ, presumably - less vignetting and increased corner sharpness. The 16-35mm f/2.8L MkI uses 77mm filters, the MkII uses 82mm filters, and even though the larger front element obviously isn't required, the latter has much better IQ.


----------



## AJ (Nov 14, 2011)

The 70-200/2.8 IS mk2 managed to improve performance without increasing front element size. Ditto for 300/2.8 and 400/2.8. I don't see why they'd have to do it with a 100-400. FWIW, comparison with ultrawides isn't valid, optical design is very different. As such there must be another reason for the increased size.

In theory, a 82 mm front element would allow 500 mm at f/6.3.

A 100-500/4-6.3 would be pretty exciting, and worth the high price tag if it performs at the long end.
And yes it would autofocus even at f/6.3


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 14, 2011)

Makes sense. Plus, looking at the data for the current 100-400mm, it doesn't have more than 1 stop of vignetting at any point, which isn't really an issue that needs correcting. 

Personally, I'm fine if it does have an 82mm filter size, since I've got two other lenses which use it, so I've got a CPL and a 10-stop ND in that diameter. But I agree - there should be no need for it.

At least the patent confirms that it's an extending zoom design. I don't mind a ring zoom vs. push-pull (although I have no problem with the current design), but I would have a problem with an internal zoom for a new 100-400mm.


----------



## Lee Jay (Nov 14, 2011)

Gcon said:


> Will it take the 1.4x or 2x extenders?



If it would take a 1.4x AND they'd release a high-pixel-density 1.6-crop body (i.e. 7D Mark II) that could focus at f/8, Canon might get several thousand of my dollars.


----------



## Justin (Nov 14, 2011)

Lee Jay said:


> Gcon said:
> 
> 
> > Will it take the 1.4x or 2x extenders?
> ...



Agreed. 21-24 mpx 1.6 crop, 8 fps 7D2 paired with this lens would make a great kit.


----------



## AprilForever (Nov 14, 2011)

Justin said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Gcon said:
> ...



In times past, I spurned the 100-400 in favour of a 300 f4; perhaps, I may look to this in the future. I now have a 300 2.8, which I use extensively, but a 100-400 would be nice for a second camera...


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 14, 2011)

dr croubie said:


> I got the 70-300L over the current 100-400L basically because of the new design, much better IS, and slightly better IQ in parts (although I would have been a lot better off with the extra 3-400mm in trade for more weight). I've used the pushpull and didn't mind it so badly, half the time I pushpull my 70-300L when I hold by the front barrel.
> But if there's a 100-400L mk2, where is the 70-300L going to sit? For the small group of people who absolutely *must* have both 70-100 and 200-300 in one L lens?
> If the 100-400L mk2 is priced less than halfway between 70-300L and 70-200/2.8ISmk2, then the 70-300L may as well be dead...



I don't think it will kill off the 70-300L because:

1. The 70-300L is way smaller and lighter. A major reason people get 70-300L, or 70-300 IS non-L or 70-200 f/4 IS is because they want a small, light little lens that is a great walk-around and fine for travel where maybe do some serious shooting and then some snap shooting and then stop in for lunch at some cafe and then run around more for hours all day long. The small ones can even be tucked away in a cargo pants pocket if need be. The 100-400L is simply too large a lens to be a tiny little compact tele-zoom.

2. On APS-C I don't think it makes much difference and the starting at 100mm may even be just as well, but on FF I find the starting at 100mm instead of 70mm to be a big deal. I use a 70- lens as one of my main workhorse lenses in addition to just a little light travel zoom and I find that 70mm is often just wide enough for many short tele-landscape photos when using a FF body but 100mm just doesn't quite do it. If you use a 100- lens then you almost have to have some sort of 28-75/24-70/105 type zoom with you too and maybe need to do lots of lens swapping (and most of those can get a bit rough at the edges on FF) plus a high quality wider lens and then suddenly you are carrying three, sizable, lenses around at once.

3. If the 70- lens will be a main workhorse lens and not merely a little travel lens than you may want better quality than the 70-300 IS non-L or Tamron 70-300 VC.

4. There is also the $1500 vs $2800 which is not an inconsiderable difference.

That said for a compact, full-on wildlife lens where you want some flexibility and not quite the weight or expense of the 300 2.8 and reach really matters then the 100-400 IS sounds pretty awesome. If you don't want or can't with the super-tele plus 70- lens pairing the 100-400 IS is the ideal safari-type lens too.

So just as, currently, the 70-200 2.8 IS II and the 100-400L have little to do with the 70-300L neither will the new 100-400L IMO (other than for a very few who got scared off the old IS and tech in the current 100-400L).


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 14, 2011)

J. McCabe said:


> Why would the front element's size be increased to 82mm ?
> 
> 77mm would be more than enough (400mm / 5.6 = 71.4mm), and bigger element increases both the price of the lens and of the required filters.



Perhaps because it retains f/4 a bit longer, maybe it has a touch less vignetting, maybe it makes it a bit easier to get decent corner performance without using even more fancy elements. I'm not really sure but guessing some mix of that sort of stuff.

The 70-300L also has an unusually large filter size for an f/4-f/5.6 70-300 lens.

Hopefully it is not simply a weight to avoid using more expensive fluorite whle they still charge fluorite prices and give us more weight though hah.


----------



## nowinaminute (Nov 14, 2011)

I tried 4 copies of the 100-400mm but none were any good, one was sharp on the left side and soft on the right, another sharp at the bottom and not the top (!) and the other two were generally soft.

I gave up and got the 70-300mm and it was pin sharp first copy I tried!

Now I bet this new version of the 100-400mm will be the lens I always wanted but It looks like there is going to be a major price hike so I'll stick to what I have I think! Around 1K is the most I could justify spending, I'm not a wealthy man and it takes a LOT of saving and with a new baby it will be a long long time before such an indulgence would be possible again! Maybe one day when this lens has been around a while I will be able to sell my 70-300 and buy the new 100-400 without there being much price difference but it's going to be something to gaze at longingly for the foreseeable future!

I predict it will be a stunner, with even lenses like the lowly 55-250 giving great sharpness I can't imagine this being anything but borderline prime sharp.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 14, 2011)

It certainly can be better, but mine is pretty good. The attributes I like are the close focusing, and the small size when telescoped in. It fits nicely in my camera bag. The push pull doesn't bother me, but a twist zoom is better.

I'd be disappointed with one that had a 15 ft minimum focus distance, and was too long to easily put in my camera bag with my other lenses. Thats one of the reasons I don't like the 400mm f/5.6, its a great lens, but takes up too long of a storage space.

If they can keep it shorter like the 100-300mm L and have a similar close focus distance, I'd go for it. It likely would not accept TC's if it was configured like the 100-300L either.


----------



## richy (Nov 15, 2011)

I was curious re the filter size. Firstly, I have no idea re lens design, I loved the article on this site about it but beyond reading that I have no clue so this is just ramblings  The filter side normally relates roughly to the front element size but a increase in filter size could just be to reduce vignetting from the filters rather than specifically a larger front element. I picked two lenses and compared the filter size between manufactures. All 35mm full frame lenses.

*50mm f1/1.4*

Leica 50mm f/1.4 SUMMILUX-M 46mm
Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM 77mm
Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM 58mm
Zeiss 50mm f/1.4 Planar T 58mm
Nikon 50mm f/1.4D AF 52mm
Sony 50mm f/1.4 55mm

*100mm 2.8 macro lenses
*
Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM 58mm
Sony 100mm f/2.8 55mm
Tokina AT-X 100mm f/2.8 PRO D 55mm
Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L IS 67mm

There is quite a bit of difference between lenses! The same differences occur with 300 2.8 lenses although it is tougher to get all the info as they are usually drop in filters. However, after looking at patents it is often the case that lenses are not actually the exact ratings advertised. Sometimes a f2.8 is a 2.9 or a 3.0, sometimes a 50mm is a 47 mm etc. Just as happens with motorcycle engines some rounding / wishful thinking / marketing occurs. Until canon release the lens (fingers crossed!) we won't know for sure. They could have increased the front element size just as sigma did with their 50mm, they could just be moving the filter thread further out to reduce the impact of using filters. Canon increased the front element size and filter size on their L versions of the 100 2.8 macro and the 70-300 over the non L versions. Both lenses improved image quality. Again, I do not design lenses  but it seems like a modest increase does help! It is also not a huge increase, we arent talking 105mm screw in filters here so the costs arent insane. It would be a pita to have to carry an additional set of cpl and different rings for the nd grad system. 

I just wish they would hurry up and release it!


----------



## Steve Campbell (Nov 15, 2011)

What is this about AF not working with teleconverters? I am planning to pick up the Canon 1.4 TC III soon to use with my 70-200 f4 IS and 300L f4 IS. Will AF work? I have a 5DII and a 7D.


----------



## richy (Nov 15, 2011)

Steve Campbell said:


> What is this about AF not working with teleconverters? I am planning to pick up the Canon 1.4 TC III soon to use with my 70-200 f4 IS and 300L f4 IS. Will AF work? I have a 5DII and a 7D.



Yes, should work fine with both lenses and bodies. However a x2 tc that reports to the camera would not retain af on those bodies (1 series prior to the 1dx would retain af at f8 on the center point).

A 1.4tc makes the f4 lenses f5.6 lenses. You may lose cross sensors which would work as horizontal only (can't remember specifically for those bodies) but you would retain af, albeit at reduced speed. 

The 100-400 v1 is f5.6 at the long end which means other than a 1.4tc on a 1 series body it will not autofocus with a 1.4 or 2.0 tc. There is a further expection, taping some pins or using a non reporting tc should retain af although the reliability likely won't be ideal. Long story short, you should be fine!


----------



## Steve Campbell (Nov 15, 2011)

richy said:


> Steve Campbell said:
> 
> 
> > What is this about AF not working with teleconverters? I am planning to pick up the Canon 1.4 TC III soon to use with my 70-200 f4 IS and 300L f4 IS. Will AF work? I have a 5DII and a 7D.
> ...



Thanks for the advice. I had heard that the 300 f4 IS worked well with the 1.4 TC and the 70-200 would take it also.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 15, 2011)

Here are compatibility charts for the 1.4x extender and the 2x extender (note that where it states 1D series, that doesn't apply to the 1D X).


----------



## tron (Nov 15, 2011)

Heidrun said:


> If it is with Internal Focus and don`t get bigger when im zooming. Then this is a one i want very much



I am afraid that in that case the size will be rather big. Just compare the size of a 200/2.8 against the size of a 70-200 f/2.8 zoom or, even worse, think 100-400 fully extended!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 15, 2011)

tron said:


> Heidrun said:
> 
> 
> > If it is with Internal Focus and don`t get bigger when im zooming. Then this is a one i want very much
> ...



Exactly. But in this case, I suspect Heidrun will be disappointed. Even though the CR2 rumor is for a ring zoom rather than push-pull, the 100-400mm patents (both the new ones) indicate an extending zoom.

I'm glad - one of the great features of the current 100-400mm is its 'compact' (relative to the 400/5.6, at least) storage size. That means it fits nicely in a bag that can also hold a 70-200/2.8 zoom - convenient! For me, if it's an internal zoom, meaning a lens about as long as the current 100-400mm when extended, it will not be of interest to me at all. Fortunately, that's unlikely based on the patents. I expect the physical design to be reminiscent of the newish 70-300mm zoom (white extending barrel).


----------



## Justin (Nov 15, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > Heidrun said:
> ...



Like you, I expect a similarly designed lens. White barrel, black ring around the end, smaller white barrel extending tube.


----------



## tron (Nov 15, 2011)

If only its price was compact too... Back in the good old days when an updated lens was introduced at about the same or at a just higher price, one could find the older versions for less. Now when Canon introduces newer versions the prices are so higher that some might consider themselves lucky to find the previous model.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 15, 2011)

richy said:


> I was curious re the filter size. Firstly, I have no idea re lens design, I loved the article on this site about it but beyond reading that I have no clue so this is just ramblings  The filter side normally relates roughly to the front element size but a increase in filter size could just be to reduce vignetting from the filters rather than specifically a larger front element. I picked two lenses and compared the filter size between manufactures. All 35mm full frame lenses.



I tend to highly doubt it is to reduce filter vignetting on such a long focal length lens.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 15, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > Heidrun said:
> ...



The original 100-300L (push-pull) wasn't any shorter when at minimum setting than the new 70-300L (twist) from what I recall (of course true 70mm vs 100m). A twist zoom can be external zoom or internal zooming.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 15, 2011)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> The original 100-300L (push-pull) wasn't any shorter when at minimum setting than the new 70-300L (twist) from what I recall (of course true 70mm vs 100m).



I didn't even know there was a 100-300mm f/5.6L! What an odd lens - looks like Canon took the consumer-grade 100-300mm f/5.6 (which is different than the newer 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM lens), and simply added L-level optical elements and a red ring, otherwise keeping the same consumer level build. 



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> A twist zoom can be external zoom or internal zooming.



Of course it can. But in this case, the 100-400mm patent specifies: _Lens Length 228.18 â€“ 288.12mm_, which clearly indicates an extending design. FWIW, the retracted length is about 1.5" longer than the current 100-400mm, which is going to be a pain in the butt (for me), as it means the new 100-400mm will likely not fit in a Lowepro Toploader Pro 75 AW or similar cases.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 15, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > The original 100-300L (push-pull) wasn't any shorter when at minimum setting than the new 70-300L (twist) from what I recall (of course true 70mm vs 100m).
> ...



yup, that pretty much sums it up

people called it the Meat Grinder 

slow and very, very noisy non-USM AF

It was my first L lens, I thinkit sold for like $900 or so new when it came out. I got one for about $300 used back in 2005 or 2006.

One thing it managed was having excellent large scale contrast at 300mm, something that none of the rest ever managed until the Tamron VC and the new 70-300L. Although it had the contrast at 300mm I don't think it had the sharpness of the new L at that long end. The lack of IS was a bit troublesome, the slow and noisy AF not so hot and the f/5.6 even at 100mm a bit rough though. The fluorite element in it, for a long time, had it far an away the best super-compact 300mm quality you could get. I eventually traded it away for 70-300 IS since I decided a bit faster AF and IS just managed to outdo the lesser 300mm large scale contrast. The new 70-300L means no compromises either way, it's definitely better than either of the lens (and tamron) in pretty much every last way.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 15, 2011)

From what I recall the 100-300L had a similar optical design to the 100-400L, although the IS in the 100-400L meant for some differences in the formula. The MTF charts, I believe, were incredibly similar. The 100-400L was sort of a scaled up version that was allowed to be variable aperture and had IS and modern L build added in.


----------



## Heidrun (Nov 15, 2011)

The more i think about it. The more i think this. If they instead of 100-400 produce a zoom with 200-500 f.5,6 L is. Because now i just put a 2 X converter on my 70-200 f.2,8 L is mk II. So the 100-400 is in the middle of nowhere for me


----------



## pj1974 (Nov 16, 2011)

The 'old' 100-300mm f5.6 and 100-300mm f5.6 L were 'decent' for their day, with the L receiving good compliments for raw optical quality. However the focus (slow, noisy) was often complained about. Their size meant that it was handy as a travel zoom also. I think the current 100-400mm L is quite different in most aspects to the above two lenses, though certainly some optical aspects could have been carried across (the 100-400 having variable aperture, IS, 100mm extra, much longer lens housing, etc.)

The 100-300mm f4.5-5.6 USM improved the focus on both 100-300mm f5.6 lenses, but sadly is lacking in IS - and the optical quality at the long end left more to be desired, especially wide open (not very sharp, and very low contrast). I bought this lens (my first 'tele zoom' lens) - and knowing it's limitations, I was able to get a lot of good photos (eg stopping down between f8 and f11, and using some clever post processing). It has great AF (fast and accurate), good build quality and is of a convenient size.

When I stepped up to the 70-300mm f4-5.6 L USM IS there was an improvement in every area over the 100-300mm f4.5-5.6 USM (except for size, weight and price)! That is:

 the usefulness of the IS can't be overstated for many applications (eg wildlife)
 the AF is even quicker and I'd say a touch more consistent / accurate
 build quality is 'tank like' (solid, super smooth focus and zoom rings, and FWIW I prefer the focus ring closer to the camera body, and the zoom further away - I know some other people differ)
 much reduced CA (the 100-300mm had lots of noticeable purple CA at the tele end)
 faster aperture and retained longer in the zoom range (it's almost like a 70-200mm f4 IS with an extra 100mm)
 30mm more zoom range on the wide end
 (and this is the most important one to me) - a huge increase in optical quality at 300mm f5.6, where from corner to corner its super sharp and has lots of contrast.

I hope that any replacement to the Canon 100-400mm L would take the above good qualities of the Canon 70-300mm L, and apply them - to be a popular lens for many photographers. To me, it's going to be 'too big' as a tele-zoom travel lens, and not really long enough for the 'super serious' birding. The alleged price (of $2800 USD) is a considerable jump from the $1600 for the 70-300mm L.... Certainly though, many people will be prepared to pay for it, if it delivers the goods (look at how popular the 70-200mm f2.8 II is!)

Paul


----------



## richy (Nov 16, 2011)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> richy said:
> 
> 
> > I was curious re the filter size. Firstly, I have no idea re lens design, I loved the article on this site about it but beyond reading that I have no clue so this is just ramblings  The filter side normally relates roughly to the front element size but a increase in filter size could just be to reduce vignetting from the filters rather than specifically a larger front element. I picked two lenses and compared the filter size between manufactures. All 35mm full frame lenses.
> ...



Very true, it would only potentially be at the 100mm end, but that's something like a 23 degree fov. I guess its just to improve overall iq and reduce normal vignetting wide open.


----------



## NXT1000 (Nov 16, 2011)

it sound great, but what about making the 70mm-400mm instead of 100mm, i am losing the ability to shoot close up on my full frame camera. Other than that, i think it will be a very popular lens.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 16, 2011)

dilbert said:


> The size of the front element is not what determines the f-stop.



No, but f-stop puts a lower bound on front element size, because the front element must be sufficiently large to fill the iris diaphragm with light.


----------



## JR (Nov 16, 2011)

With the current 100-400L model, what is the minimum shutter speed you need at 400mm with IS to get a decent keep rate for your picture? I assume it would be less then 1/400. Maybe 1/200 with the current IS? Any thoughts as to how much of an improvement a new IS version would make using these parameters?

I was always afraid that at 400mm and f5.6, even with IS it must not be always obvious to get great shot on a cloundy day?


----------



## richy (Nov 16, 2011)

JR said:


> With the current 100-400L model, what is the minimum shutter speed you need at 400mm with IS to get a decent keep rate for your picture? I assume it would be less then 1/400. Maybe 1/200 with the current IS? Any thoughts as to how much of an improvement a new IS version would make using these parameters?
> 
> I was always afraid that at 400mm and f5.6, even with IS it must not be always obvious to get great shot on a cloundy day?



I believe it has a 2 stop IS system, therefore 1/100 @ 400mm assuming you don't need faster to stop subject motion and that the IS is a full 2 stops at 400mm.

Should the new one have a 4 stop system that would drop to 1/25 roughly. Its not an exact science with IS. As you say its more a 'good percentage of keepers' thing rather than guaranteed crystal shots.


----------



## Meh (Nov 16, 2011)

JR said:


> With the current 100-400L model, what is the minimum shutter speed you need at 400mm with IS to get a decent keep rate for your picture? I assume it would be less then 1/400. Maybe 1/200 with the current IS? Any thoughts as to how much of an improvement a new IS version would make using these parameters?
> 
> I was always afraid that at 400mm and f5.6, even with IS it must not be always obvious to get great shot on a cloundy day?



IS improves blur due to camera shake which depends a lot on the person holding the camera. If you've got shaky hands to start with, been up all night drinking, and had 7 cups of coffee... then you'll need a much faster shutter even with IS.

The rule-of-thumb of 1/focal length is the minimum hand-holding shutter speed. I've also heard of 1/2L as a better guideline for the average person with average hand steadiness.

IS in the 100-400L claims a 2 stop improvement. So if for you minimum hand-holding shutter speed is 1/400 then with the IS turned on it should be 1/100.


----------



## lol (Nov 16, 2011)

The 1 / focal length guide applies to 35mm equivalent focal length, so for crop sensor it does get that bit worse. In practice I'm ok down to say around 1/80 at 400mm on crop sensor, hand held, unsupported. Another stop or so with some support e.g. leaning on something.

Have been using the 70-300L more recently, and you can definitely feel the extra IS on that in challenging situations.


----------



## Meh (Nov 16, 2011)

lol said:


> The 1 / focal length guide applies to 35mm equivalent focal length, so for crop sensor it does get that bit worse.



Why would that be true? Not questioning your personal experience but what's the technical reason for that. Possibly because with a crop-body you're standing further away for the same framing, so the angle of view is less, and vibrations due to hand shake would then cross a greater angle. Ok, true assuming same framing which is the case 99% of the time.


----------



## richy (Nov 16, 2011)

Meh said:


> lol said:
> 
> 
> > The 1 / focal length guide applies to 35mm equivalent focal length, so for crop sensor it does get that bit worse.
> ...



It's roughly true in my experience but not specifically due to it being a cropped sensor (as far as I can tell), more that cropped sensors see higher pixel densities (a 5d2 would be about 8mp as a crop with the same density but a 7d would be around 45-47mp as a full frame). In digital medium format, as sensors mp counts have increased drastically that requirement for better technique to avoid blur has increased along with it. I find with the same 50mm lense I need 1/60 on the 5d2 but 1/90 on a 7d for a high keeper rate, However 1/60 is about right for my 50mm on my rz67. If 1/fl holds true on a 6x7 like it does on 35mm it should also hold true for apsc. I guess if canon made a 45mp full frame sensor (sony probably have a 45mp apsc in the works ;-) ) it would probably need better technique or a faster shutter speed. By 'better technique' I refer to methods such as a tripod, IS, holding breath etc, I'm being clumsy with the wording, been awake too long, I mean just taking steps to avoid operator induced blur.
I found (as many did) the 7d to be more demanding than the 10d, 20d or 40d in that respect.


----------



## AJ (Nov 16, 2011)

dilbert said:


> The size of the front element is not what determines the f-stop.



It pretty much does for telephoto lenses. e.g. the 200/2.8 has a 72 mm front element.

For normal and wide lenses the front element is not what decides f-stop. This critical lens element is towards the rear.

If this lens is indeed a 100-400/4-5.6 with a 82 mm front element then the extra front element size may ease vignetting at the short end. I doubt it would do much for the long end.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 16, 2011)

Meh said:


> lol said:
> 
> 
> > The 1 / focal length guide applies to 35mm equivalent focal length, so for crop sensor it does get that bit worse.
> ...



Because the 1/focal length approximation derives from the relationship between the angular motion and the angle of view. Thus, at wide angles, where a given amount of angular motion represents only a small fraction of the angle of view, the effects of camera shake are less likely to have an impact on the image. Since the crop factor reduces the angle of view, you need to account for that in the 1/focal length approximation.


----------



## Cropper (Nov 16, 2011)

Just read on another website that both the 500 II and the 600 II delivery dates have been postponed indefinitly. The formal anouncemment of the 200-400 x1.4, scheduled to occur on February 2011 with a realease date during this year, has also been postponed indefinitly.

In light of these information I wonder what might the definition of "Soonish" be for Canon. :-(


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 16, 2011)

Cropper said:


> Just read on another website that both the 500 II and the 600 II delivery dates have been postponed indefinitly.



Link? No one has told B&H, who still list December for estimated availability of the 500L II.


----------



## WildBill (Nov 16, 2011)

here's a link: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=1439&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=facebook


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 16, 2011)

Thanks! Bummer...especially since the 500/4 IS MkI is now officially discontinued, and not available from retail outlets anymore. IIRC, the exact same thing happened with the 300/2.8 IS II and 400/2.8 IS II - d/c'd the MkI then the MkII was delayed several months.

Makes one really question 'soonish' - even if we see a prototype 'soonish' the announcement will be delayed, then the announcement will occur but the release will be delayed, then delayed again. C'mon, Canon, get it together! If they don't have the 500L and 600L II lenses in peoples' hands in time for the Olympics, they're going to take a big hit.


----------



## Meh (Nov 16, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> Meh said:
> 
> 
> > lol said:
> ...



Essentially that's the logic I walked myself through but it is relative to the "same framing" I think. If the camera is in the same position the APS-C image is nothing more than a crop from the FF image circle that the lens renders on the focal plane and the effect of angular motion imparted by shake can not be greater in the crop area than it is in the rest of the FF image.

One thing is different however; circle of confusion is smaller on an crop sensor because we enlarge more for any given print size. Is that the actual physical phenomenon at play... when the angular motion that occurs during the exposure is larger than the CoC we begin to see the blur?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 16, 2011)

JR said:


> With the current 100-400L model, what is the minimum shutter speed you need at 400mm with IS to get a decent keep rate for your picture? I assume it would be less then 1/400. Maybe 1/200 with the current IS? Any thoughts as to how much of an improvement a new IS version would make using these parameters?
> 
> I was always afraid that at 400mm and f5.6, even with IS it must not be always obvious to get great shot on a cloundy day?



I've used mine hand held at 1/25 sec out my back window. contrast was poor, but the image was usable, even if not in the excellent range. It amazed me that it did so well at such a slow shutter speed.

I saw our baby goats pllaying king of the mountain on our horse, and the camera had my 100-400 on it, so I just took the image less than a second before the horse rolled. No time to properly set up for the shot.

1/25sec, f/11, ISO 800. Obviously, if I had time, I'd have set a wide aperture, faster ISO, and had a faster shutter.







The other day, our young baby goats ambushed the horse as he walked by their 3 ft high house where they were playing, and one jumped on his back while he was standing by them. He immediately started walking so no chance to get the camera. The horse loves his goats, and they love him.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 16, 2011)

Meh said:


> Essentially that's the logic I walked myself through but it is relative to the "same framing" I think. If the camera is in the same position the APS-C image is nothing more than a crop from the FF image circle that the lens renders on the focal plane and the effect of angular motion imparted by shake can not be greater in the crop area than it is in the rest of the FF image.



The effect of the angular motion on the image circle is no different, true. But the image is being sampled from a smaller area of the image circle with a crop sensor. 

The AoV will affect the magnitude of the impact of camera shake. Let me illustrate: A 400mm lens on FF has a diagonal AoV of 6Â°12', so if your angular motion (camera shake) occurs within arcs of 30", then that motion represents 0.135% of the diagonal angle of view. But, that same 400mm lens on APS-C has a diagonal AoV of 3Â°52'. So, the same amount of camera shake (sensor size won't affect how shaky your hands are!) represents 0.216% of the diagonal AoV.


----------



## Meh (Nov 16, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> Meh said:
> 
> 
> > Essentially that's the logic I walked myself through but it is relative to the "same framing" I think. If the camera is in the same position the APS-C image is nothing more than a crop from the FF image circle that the lens renders on the focal plane and the effect of angular motion imparted by shake can not be greater in the crop area than it is in the rest of the FF image.
> ...



Math is correct (I presume, I didn't check it) but without the additional criterion of enlarging the crop area to the same viewing size, I could apply your math to a software crop of a FF image (same lens, same camera) and come to the same conclusion which would be incorrect because the blur must be the same throughout the entire FF image.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 16, 2011)

Meh said:


> I could apply your math to a software crop of a FF image (same lens, same camera) and come to the same conclusion which would be incorrect because the blur must be the same throughout the entire FF image.



Correct. If you cropped in software, the reduced angle of view would still mean a relatively greater impact of the existing blur, which might take it from below threshold to above threshold for detectability. In the same way, cropping an image in post affects sharpness and DoF.


----------



## Meh (Nov 16, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> Meh said:
> 
> 
> > I could apply your math to a software crop of a FF image (same lens, same camera) and come to the same conclusion which would be incorrect because the blur must be the same throughout the entire FF image.
> ...



I may just be quibbling, or I perhaps I'm just wrong, but I'm not comfortable with your phrasing. It's not the cropping per se that causes these effects. Rather, it is the greater enlargement of the smaller image (usually to achieve the same viewing size) and that is what the CoC is a measure of.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 16, 2011)

Sorry, yes - for the same final output/reproduction size (i.e. back to the CoC, in a way).


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 16, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> Meh said:
> 
> 
> > lol said:
> ...



If you want to even up blur as percent of total image then apply the crop factor.

If you want to get what you can out of the sensor then you need to use factors relating only to pixel density and crop could end up needing less shutter speed than FF in rare cases (10D vs 5D2).


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 16, 2011)

WildBill said:


> here's a link: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=1439&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=facebook



Wow, they look to be aiming to miss the London games.
I think the rumors that the disaster hurt things way more than anyone lets on were true.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 16, 2011)

Let me put it this way - *Canon's* viewpoint is that the crop factor impacts the 1/focal length rule. With a 200mm lens on a 5DII in Av mode and Auto ISO, the camera will maintain 1/200 s (reciprocal of focal length) and increase the ISO, and only after hitting ISO 3200 will the shutter speed begin to drop lower than 1/200 s. In the same situation on a 7D, the camera will maintain 1/320 s (reciprocal of 1.6 x focal length) until ISO pegs at 3200.


----------



## Lee Jay (Nov 17, 2011)

Meh said:


> One thing is different however; circle of confusion is smaller on an crop sensor because we enlarge more for any given print size. Is that the actual physical phenomenon at play... when the angular motion that occurs during the exposure is larger than the CoC we begin to see the blur?



Bingo.


----------



## tral (Nov 22, 2011)

Figures. I just bought one in August. Love it, but really do wish it had a twist zoom instead of push/pull. 



JR said:


> With the current 100-400L model, what is the minimum shutter speed you need at 400mm with IS to get a decent keep rate for your picture? I assume it would be less then 1/400. Maybe 1/200 with the current IS? Any thoughts as to how much of an improvement a new IS version would make using these parameters?
> 
> I was always afraid that at 400mm and f5.6, even with IS it must not be always obvious to get great shot on a cloundy day?



I've used it in some adverse lighting conditions and been able to use shutter speeds as slow as 1/30 at 400mm and get usable results, but not the *best* keep rate. Settling for 1-stop darker photos for lightening in post or balancing that change with ISO, I got consistently great results with 1/60. 

When I bought it, I expected to only be able to use it in blazing sunlight. But I've used it in all kinds of circumstances now, and have been really happy with the results. 

Edit:
Here is an example. This was taken on my backup camera, a Rebel XTi. 400mm, F5.6, 1/50. This is a shot of the woman as reflected in a mirror. I can't take credit for the image myself, it was taken by one of my contract photographers during the course of our shoot that day. Very reasonable quality coming from an older entry-level camera, a long lens, and less-than-ideal lighting.


----------

