# 100-400L Version II ain't comin' either!



## RS2021 (Jan 25, 2013)

Though periodic rumors keep us guessing, I just don't see 100-400L update coming anytime soon, for reasons similar to the ones I listed for the 14-24L earlier, granted only point #2 really holds for the tele: 

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=12297.0

_ Canon simply may not see the release of an updated 100-400L II in its best interest right now. _ 

The current 100-400L is a good zoom; they still sell a ton of them; and increasing its IQ any more could potentially cut into other new entries and higher priced lenses... including their yet to arrive in real life "200-400L + 1.4Ex". They would want you to upgrade into the higher price rung if you are that eager and willing. 

Remember, Canon has left a lot of lenses from early years as they are... this zoom is rather new in that context.

I have given up, though I naively thought that it will be coming and I can replace the push-pull, and may be get more complete/full weather sealing. 

A rumor here hailed earlier: "2013: year of the 400 lenses?" And I say, only if you are 420-friendly.  If you want a 100-400L get it now, no point waiting. I don't see such a lens showing up, regardless of the rumors that keep us on our toes.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 25, 2013)

But just in case...if you're going to buy one now, consider used. I see them frequently on CL for ~$1,000 or a bit less.


----------



## RS2021 (Jan 25, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> But just in case...if you're going to buy one now, consider used. I see them frequently on CL for ~$1,000 or a bit less.



+1 mine was used and I don't regret it... at that time it saved me at least ~400. Prices have come down a tad, so bargains are good on the used market now.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 25, 2013)

Its been rumored for about 7 years now. No one makes a lens that is even close to its performance in this price range. There are many lenses that need upgrading, but the cost is the obstacle. I saw Canon mention this in a CES interview, improving lenses raises the cost by a large amount.


----------



## brad-man (Jan 25, 2013)

Ray2021 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > But just in case...if you're going to buy one now, consider used. I see them frequently on CL for ~$1,000 or a bit less.
> ...




What don't you like about your present copy? I purchased this used around 7 months ago and couldn't be happier with it. Granted, it would be nice to have the updated IS, but I'm completely satisfied with the sharpness. A new version would certainly cost _well_ over $2k, probably over 2.5...


----------



## RS2021 (Jan 25, 2013)

brad-man said:


> Ray2021 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



The post was more for those considering the lens but waiting fruitlessly for an update that is unlikely to come soon. I mention the push pull and full weather sealing which one would anticipate in a newer version, but I am pretty ok with mine. The thrust of the post was not to wait for an update if you need this zoom range.


----------



## brad-man (Jan 25, 2013)

Ray2021 said:


> brad-man said:
> 
> 
> > Ray2021 said:
> ...




Got it. Couldn't agree more. With the recent drop in price, now is definitely the time to purchase. Canon's next release will probably be a 50mm f/2 IS anyway


----------



## AlanF (Jan 25, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> But just in case...if you're going to buy one now, consider used. I see them frequently on CL for ~$1,000 or a bit less.



Don't buy without testing first. There are some very good copies but also some very bad ones. My purchased used copy is as sharp in the centre as the 400 L f/5.6 prime but I had earlier tested a new one that was definitely soft.


----------



## WPJ (Jan 26, 2013)

brad-man said:


> What don't you like about your present copy? I purchased this used around 7 months ago and couldn't be happier with it. Granted, it would be nice to have the updated IS, but I'm completely satisfied with the sharpness. A new version would certainly cost _well_ over $2k, probably over 2.5...



really with canon recent history I put the 100-400l II at 6k


----------



## FunPhotons (Jan 26, 2013)

How do you know what is in Canon's best interest? I can tell you that their Marketing departments are have a tough time deciding, why do any of us have a better handle? Certainly refreshing the lens would lead to renewed sales for upgraders, and new sales to people like me who are happy to wait for a version II. 

At any rate I don't see how you can say the 100-400 is a competitor to the new 200-400 1.4, in price, focal reach or IQ. If you can't wait any longer then by all means pick up a current gen 100-400, but don't try to justify it by deciding what Canon marketing will or won't do.


----------



## RS2021 (Jan 26, 2013)

FunPhotons said:


> How do you know what is in Canon's best interest? I can tell you that their Marketing departments are have a tough time deciding, why do any of us have a better handle? Certainly refreshing the lens would lead to renewed sales for upgraders>>
> <<<..If you can't wait any longer then by all means pick up a current gen 100-400, but don't try to justify it by deciding what Canon marketing will or won't do.



Hope, as they say, springs eternal


----------



## bvukich (Jan 26, 2013)

I'd pay $3000 (maybe even $3500) for a new 100-400... if it were constant f/4.


----------



## RS2021 (Jan 26, 2013)

I'd pay ~$2400 if they make it similar to their more recent 70-300L starting out at f4 but variable as you zoom if only to keep the price down...and full weather-sealing and IS updated to match the newer 70-300L ...hopefully not the push pull ...nothing ground shattering as the current lens IQ isn't a dog...but tweaks and updates would be nice. But i am not holding my breath.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 26, 2013)

Many of us like the push-pull because it retracts to a small, size which is convenient for packing for travel. It's not the sharpest of lenses, and I keep mine for vacations where I am limited by suitcase space and weight so I can't take my preferred primes. Again, even though f/5.6 makes it somewhat slow, the saving of weight is important if you travel light. Overall, the lens is a good compromise if you want a convenient, small relatively light telephoto zoom. I'd buy an upgrade.


----------



## RS2021 (Jan 27, 2013)

Freelancer said:


> yeah because if you interested in a 1400 euro lens you could just buy the better 11000 euro lens. :
> 
> i guess a ton of potential 100-400mm buyer will just buy the 200-400mm instead... 8)



Actually, it would be the other way around. If the new 100-400L II zoom is upgraded in IQ significantly (considering it is already a good performer) you are easiliy in the zone of other primes in the focal length range...and the 200-400 zoom is not the only lens in question. Canon has kept several low priced older primes for more than a decade in this range, and while they are not sexy or new, given no new R&D or production line upgrades are needed for these as would be with a newer product, they are steady revenue generators. 

People who will foot the bill for higher priced primes (may be not the 11K zoom customer, I agree) but somewhere in the midrange will pause and consider the lower priced high IQ competitor with the versatility of a zoom vs the smidge of IQ or f/stop they may garner by paying 3 or 5K more. 

If the IQ and IS improve with the new 100-400L II and they will have to, at least a tad, to justify a newer version, this is not such a far fetched notion.


----------



## weekendshooter (Jan 28, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> But just in case...if you're going to buy one now, consider used. I see them frequently on CL for ~$1,000 or a bit less.



http://www.lensrentals.com/buy/canon/canon-100-400mm-f4.5-5.6l-is-serial-number-524613

With a 3-day return period; I love LR! I consider their used lenses a safer purchase than new, seeing as they have much more sophisticated equipment and methods for testing the quality of lenses. They keep a huge database full of data on each model of lens; any lens that doesn't perform up to par gets repaired/returned.


----------



## Brand B (Jan 28, 2013)

So do their numeric ratings on used individual lenses reflect the units' cosmetic and mechanical condition, or its optical performance or a combination of both?


----------



## Random Orbits (Jan 28, 2013)

Brand B said:


> So do their numeric ratings on used individual lenses reflect the units' cosmetic and mechanical condition, or its optical performance or a combination of both?



Primarily cosmetic/mechanical. However if you click on a specific item, it has a some imaging (optical) metrics. Some lenses have higher resolution than others even though they are the same cosmetic condition (overall numeric rating as well) and go for the same price.


----------



## J.R. (Jan 28, 2013)

Ray2021 said:


> Freelancer said:
> 
> 
> > yeah because if you interested in a 1400 euro lens you could just buy the better 11000 euro lens. :
> ...



While I agree with the broad propositions above, there is no reason canon can't release a II version for $4K/5K just like the 70-200 variants. Why the assumption that the current lens will be phased out?


----------



## leecheeyee (Jan 29, 2013)

I am waiting it with 2000USD offer.


----------



## kirispupis (Jan 29, 2013)

I think they can definitely improve the optics and AF speed of the existing model. I used to own a copy but found the 70-200/2.8 II + 2x III was close enough in performance to make it unnecessary to carry around two large lenses. My guess is a new version will get rid of the push-pull, improve the optics + AF, and add the newest IS. Ideally it will also function decently with a 1.4x extender on a body that can AF at F8.

I expect the price on such a lens to be about $3k. The current 100-400 and the 70-200/2.8 I both sold at nearly the same price (70-200/2.8 was a bit pricier). Therefore I wouldn't expect a new 100-400 to drastically exceed the 70-200/2.8 II.

I would certainly be in the market for such a lens and am currently holding some of my budget in hopes they will come out with something (I would jump on a 400/5.6 IS if they came out with that instead). I can't afford $11k for the 200-400, nor can I even afford the 300/2.8 II or any of the other big primes. If I had the money I would certainly buy a 600/4 II, but given my current situation a new 100-400 is a reasonable compromise. I suspect there are many other buyers like I.


----------



## bjd (Feb 7, 2013)

kirispupis said:


> I think they can definitely improve the optics and AF speed of the existing model. I used to own a copy but found the 70-200/2.8 II + 2x III was close enough in performance to make it unnecessary to carry around two large lenses.


I have the 70-200/2.8 II and its not long enough, so I was looking at the 100-400. I'll be keeping the 70-200 anyway. Your suggestion also came up as a possibility.
I'm a pure amateur so a new 100-400 may be too expensive for me anyway. Do you still stick to your guns concerning the quality using the 2xIII? Certainly price, space, weight makes it very attractive as a solution.

Cheers Brian


----------



## kirispupis (Feb 7, 2013)

To be honest I have since moved away from this combo. I used my 300/4 at the zoo this Sunday and it was far and away better. You can see the photos here - http://www.flickr.com/photos/calevphoto/sets/72157632685342696/

I also have the 400/5.6 now - which I mount on a monopod to reduce the shaking - and suspect it will become the longer term replacement. This is what I will likely take on an upcoming trip to Australia. The nice thing about it is, unlike the 300/4, it takes extenders decently. The quality with a 1.4x is roughly the same as the 70-200/2.8 II + 2x III - so once Canon releases the f8 AF firmware for the 5D3 I will have a longer solution - though I plan to stay mostly at 400/5.6.


----------



## kirispupis (Feb 7, 2013)

Thought I would just clarify this more. I still find that the 70-200/2.8 II + 2x III is roughly equivalent to the 100-400. The 100-400 is a tiny bit sharper, but nothing very noticeable. The AF capabilities are roughly the same.

However, at 400mm a 400/5.6 smokes both of them - both in image quality and AF quickness. The 300/4 is another possibility. Due to the F4 aperture it focuses much easier. I have had more problems at 400mm with the lens searching and have to often use the focus limiter + spot focus when animals are surrounded by branches that try to grab focus. It obviously has fewer problems when my subject is in the open.

The 300/4 has fewer problems in AF here - presumably because on the 5D3 more focus points are used with an F4 aperture lens. Another advantage of the 300/4 is it focuses much closer - so it's almost like a telephoto macro lens.

For now I have my 70-200/2.8 II and 400/5.6 both always in my bag. I removed my 2x III extender from the bag in favor of my 1.4x. At some point I may sell the 300/4 because the 70-200/2.8 II + 1.4x is very competitive with it, but I'll probably wait for some time to truly see which one I favor. I'll eventually sell the 300/4 when I have enough to buy the new 200-400/1.4x - but both the release of that lens and saving enough money for it are far away.


----------



## RS2021 (Feb 7, 2013)

Native 400 in the zoom is better in my hands than the 70-200II+ 2xIII. 

I find with the extender, the image clearly softens and the contrast goes down... Of course it can be bumped up in post but depends on what is acceptable to you. The images can be more than acceptable to some...


----------



## bjd (Feb 7, 2013)

Ray2021 said:


> Native 400 in the zoom is better in my hands than the 70-200II+ 2xIII.
> 
> I find with the extender, the image clearly softens and the contrast goes down... Of course it can be bumped up in post but depends on what is acceptable to you. The images can be more than acceptable to some...


I guess that my main worry would be what effect it has on AF in my 5DIII. Of course the straight 400 5.6 is also an alternative. Decisions, decisions.
Thanks for all your thoughts.
BJD


----------



## kirispupis (Feb 7, 2013)

The AF of the 5D3 + 70-200/2.8 II is blazingly fast. When you add the 2x extender is slows down to about the speed of the 100-400.

So far from what I can tell the AF of the 400/5.6 is very quick - or at least far quicker than the 100-400 or 70-200/2.8 II + 2x III.

In both cases you can significantly improve the AF by using the focus limiter switch.


----------

