# 70-400/ f4.0-5.6 Zoom ... Canon, where are you?



## AvTvM (Feb 20, 2013)

while Canon is dragging its feet to replace the outdated 100-400/4.5-5.6, Sony goes ahead with a 70-400mm F4-5.6 G SSM II lens announced today.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/02/20/sony-lenses-50mmzeiss-70-400mm

The specs look good http://www.dpreview.com/products/sony/lenses/sony_70-400_4-5p6_gssmii/specification 
Only slightly larger and heavier than the Canon 100-400, but faster at the short end - f/4.0. Same 77mm filter diameter. Rotary zoom design. 

Canon ... WAKEUP CALL!


----------



## RS2021 (Feb 20, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> while Canon is dragging its feet to replace the outdated 100-400/4.5-5.6, Sony goes ahead with a 70-400mm F4-5.6 G SSM II lens announced today.
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/02/20/sony-lenses-50mmzeiss-70-400mm
> 
> The specs look good http://www.dpreview.com/products/sony/lenses/sony_70-400_4-5p6_gssmii/specification
> ...



Don't know about faster...by 100mm they both could be at f4.5.... Case in point is Canon's own 70-300L ...starts at 70mm instead of 100mm ... But by ~103mm or so is the same f4.5 100-400 aperture. So Sony at ~100mm could be at f4.5.

And one could argue it is Sony who finally woke up as Canon has had that zoom on the market for more than a decade...if anything, Sony is the one catching up here! And whats more, even Sony opting for the white barrel smacks of a Canon imitation....as they say, imitation is the best form of flattery.  

What is marginally added is the 30mm on the lower focal length range. 

The proof will be in the pudding: image quality, build, etc.


----------



## RS2021 (Feb 20, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> while Canon is dragging its feet to replace the outdated 100-400/4.5-5.6, Sony goes ahead with a 70-400mm F4-5.6 G....
> 
> Canon ... WAKEUP CALL!



Yeah, like we are all going to abandon Canon's whole system for Sony because Sony released a similar zoom that Canon released over 10 years ago :


----------



## Menace (Feb 20, 2013)

Wonder how big is the demand for the Sony offering?


----------



## rs (Feb 20, 2013)

And I wonder who would prefer to use that Sony lens with an electronic viewfinder over the Canon 100-400 mounted on a DSLR?


----------



## zim (Feb 20, 2013)

Yip, just what Canon need another 70 to something zoom, they are so poor in that market segment


----------



## well_dunno (Feb 20, 2013)

Ray2021 said:


> And one could argue it is Sony who finally woke up as Canon has had that zoom on the market for more than a decade...if anything, Sony is the one catching up here! And whats more, even Sony opting for the white barrel smacks of a Canon imitation....as they say, imitation is the best form of flattery.



Sony had the version 1 of this lens on the market for a couple of years now though. Flattery remaining all the same regardless 

Cheers!


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 20, 2013)

I do not care for color of the lesnes, or 70mm vs. 100mm at the short end or for any Sony lens, since it won't mount on my Canon camera. 

All I want is an improved Canon EF 100-400/4.0-5.6 L IS Mk. II ... rotary zoom design, fully sealed, better IS, better image quality at a similar price to the current 100-400. 

I will not buy the old push-pull one version. And if the Sony 70-400 is really good IQ-wise, I may get the Canon lens sooner rather than later.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 20, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> Canon ... WAKEUP CALL!



Why don't we wait and see how this lens performs optically before shouting at Canon? After all, Nikon has an 80-400mm lens, and the 'outdated' Canon 100-400L beats it soundly from an IQ standpoint. 



AvTvM said:


> All I want is an improved Canon EF 100-400/4.0-5.6 L IS Mk. II ... rotary zoom design, fully sealed, better IS, better image quality at a *similar price to the current 100-400*.



Up to that last point, I thought you were sincere. If you really think an MkII version of the 100-400 will come out anywhere close to the price of the current version, we all need some of what you're smoking….


----------



## Studio1930 (Feb 20, 2013)

Personally, I don't understand the desire for such large range zooms. The more range you add, the less likely it is to be a clean lens. At some point you just need to change lenses. That is the whole point of an SLR; you can change lenses. What is next, a 10-800mm? :


----------



## Dylan777 (Feb 20, 2013)

Studio1930 said:


> Personally, I don't understand the desire for such large range zooms. The more range you add, the less likely it is to be a clean lens. At some point you just need to change lenses. That is the whole point of an SLR; you can change lenses. What is next, a 10-800mm? :



I'll take one ;D ;D ;D


----------



## preppyak (Feb 20, 2013)

Studio1930 said:


> Personally, I don't understand the desire for such large range zooms. The more range you add, the less likely it is to be a clean lens. At some point you just need to change lenses. That is the whole point of an SLR; you can change lenses. What is next, a 10-800mm? :


Actually, the point of a lens like that is that the things you shoot with it (birds, wildlife, outdoor sports) contain subjects that move a lot and might be 10ft from you one minute and 50ft from you the next. Changing lenses doesn't solve the issue, and for some of them (let's say on a Safari or shooting a mother bear and her cubs) getting closer is perhaps not the best idea.

Pretty much all zooms, except those on the very extreme ends (ultra-wides and fast super-tele), make a 3-4x zoom. Your 70-200's, 70-300's, 24-70, etc. Don't see too many people complaining about the tradeoffs of a 3x zoom in their new 24-70 or 70-200. And even the current 100-400 is pretty good optically, it just uses a different style zoom and could probably stand for some weight-saving technology that Canon has updated their other lenses with.


----------



## Lurker (Feb 20, 2013)

> next, a 10-800mm?



Sold!, wait does that come with a built in 1.4x TC?


----------



## Menace (Feb 21, 2013)

Studio1930 said:


> What is next, a 10-800mm? :



Lol. I'll take two


----------



## Studio1930 (Feb 25, 2013)

preppyak said:


> Studio1930 said:
> 
> 
> > Personally, I don't understand the desire for such large range zooms. The more range you add, the less likely it is to be a clean lens. At some point you just need to change lenses. That is the whole point of an SLR; you can change lenses. What is next, a 10-800mm? :
> ...



I've been shooting subjects like that (close and then far) for years. The solution is to use two bodies with two different lenses on them. Photographers have been using this standard setup for ages for close and then far subject matters such as field sports. I would rather shoot with a great prime and then a great zoom on two bodies rather than use a mega zoom with lower quality. 

Again, that is my personal preference and the quality of the mega zooms is getting better all of the time (just not enough to entice me right now).


----------



## RMC33 (Feb 25, 2013)

Studio1930 said:


> preppyak said:
> 
> 
> > Studio1930 said:
> ...



Couldn't agree more. Depending on the situation I sometimes will carry 3 bodies if my location permits and I want to get a large variety of shots. I routinely keep my 200 f/2 or 400 f/2.8 on one 24-70 or 70-200 on a 2nd and an 8-15 fish on a third. This is location dependent, Edge of a 600m Half-pipe (long) I use 3 so when my subject is at the top I can get the images I want and as they advance towards me I can swap down to shorter lengths while maintaing the high (640+ Prefer 1/1000) shutter speeds I want. If I shoot DH or Super G I keep my 400 and 200 as the action is BLAZING fast and focus pre-sets are a must (and Canon does not make a 200-400... yet!).


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 25, 2013)

Studio1930 said:


> I've been shooting subjects like that (close and then far) for years. The solution is to use two bodies with two different lenses on them. Photographers have been using this standard setup for ages for close and then far subject matters such as field sports. I would rather shoot with a great prime and then a great zoom on two bodies rather than use a mega zoom with lower quality.



My personal preference is having to buy and carry only ONE camera at a time. 
A 100-400 Tele-Zoom bears no resemblance to a 28-300 "super zoom", bridging WW to tele range. 
The current 100-400 L is optically quite decent already if you manage to get a good copy. 
It could certainly be improved optically by about the same margin as the old 24-70 L compared to the new 24-70 II. Actually it should be easier, since it is a pure tele-zoom.


----------



## RS2021 (Feb 25, 2013)

Studio1930 said:


> That is the whole point of an SLR; you can change lenses. What is next, a 10-800mm? :



You are behind times...Sony already made it and I think I saw one in the assorted mixed-bin, right next to the _Extended Version _ of _Matrix Trilogy _ at Walmart.


----------



## Studio1930 (Feb 25, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> Studio1930 said:
> 
> 
> > I've been shooting subjects like that (close and then far) for years. The solution is to use two bodies with two different lenses on them. Photographers have been using this standard setup for ages for close and then far subject matters such as field sports. I would rather shoot with a great prime and then a great zoom on two bodies rather than use a mega zoom with lower quality.
> ...



This won't apply to everyone, but professionals such as myself would rather shoot with two bodies and two lenses so that a backup body is already with you. No time to run back to the car for that spare body when the action is happening right there in front of you at that moment. Shooting with one body is just not an option for some situations so using two lenses on two bodies just makes sense.

Just providing a view of a professional and why mega zooms are often not practical since you might already need two bodies anyways. Many wedding photographers do this as well since having that second body on you allows you to not miss that important, non-repeatable, moment in the event that a body breaks (easy enough to swaps lenses from each body at that point). One body with one mega zoom won't work for you in that case.

(Again, depending on what you are shooting this may not apply to you.)


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 26, 2013)

Studio1930 said:


> This won't apply to everyone, but professionals such as myself would rather shoot with two bodies and two lenses so that a backup body is already with you.



I realize that for many professionals 2 bodies is standard / "best practice". 
It does not apply to me personally. Especially when I want to have reach up to 400mm. 
Never brought a 100-400 to a wedding. 

I do not consider a 100-400 a "mega-zoom". To me a 4x telezoom is a quite benign, even conservative zoom-lens class that has been around for 20+ years. 

My usage of a 100-400 would primarily be for all sorts of "outdoor sports/activities" and for all sorts of "wildlife" - from zoo to National Parks/Safari. 

In additon to a few prime lenses I currently use 3 zooms (on 7D): 10-22, 17-55, 70-200/2.8. I do not consider purchase of a 400 prime lens. I want one additional, handholdable longer Tele-Zoom ... and 100-400 would be perfect. But I will stay clear of the current dinosaur Canon 100-400, which is outdated in every way - from its push-pull design to its image quality which is ok, but not great by today's standards and its 2-stops-at-best-IS whcih is substantially inadequate in 2013. 

Basically I want a 100-400 II that matches my 70-200/2.8 L IS II in every respect. Build, sealing, IS, IQ - all the way to 400mm. At 400/5.6 it should be every bit as good as the current 400/5.6 ... and no, I do not believe this to be possible only in a 200-400/4.0 @ 12,000 Euro.

So, Canon .. get to work. It's time to deliver.


----------



## RS2021 (Feb 26, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> Basically I want a 100-400 II that matches my 70-200/2.8 L IS II in every respect. Build, sealing, IS, IQ - all the way to 400mm. At 400/5.6 it should be every bit as good as the current 400/5.6 ... and no, I do not believe this to be possible only in a 200-400/4.0 @ 12,000 Euro.
> 
> So, Canon .. get to work. It's time to deliver.



I thought Neuro explained this nicely already for you...even using crayons and stuffed toys...still not there?


----------



## Omar H (Feb 26, 2013)

Well...good for Sony users...but I wouldn't change ship because the other brands came out with something newer, different, etc. And I don't even have a lot of equipment yet, but still the grass will always seem greener on the other side. 

There's a lot of threads out there of photographers yelling for an updated 100-400mm L. From what we've seen, it's unlikely that we'll see something. The day will come, but speculating about it is not taking us anywhere (Canon doesn't seem to take the hint, and they won't as this one continues to sell).

As for the push-pull, I used to hate the idea just as anybody, until I got to really use one. I don't mind it one bit. But that has been my experience, others can attest differently.


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Feb 26, 2013)

zim said:


> Yip, just what Canon need another 70 to something zoom, they are so poor in that market segment


Yep, totally agree. I've been so frustrated for so long about their lack of good lenses in this range that I have considered selling all my stuff and move to any other brand as long it's not Canon.

This could be the pickiest post I have ever seen on CR. Not you, the OP I mean of course.


----------



## Hillsilly (Feb 26, 2013)

While one lens won't encourage anyone to change, it is interesting to see Sony covering all of the key focal lengths that are of interest to most enthusiasts. Sony already has a couple of interesting longer lenses - 300 and 500mm. By having a quality range of lenses, they're removing a major impediment to changing systems. Plus, from the Minolta days, they've also got a few more designs up their sleeve. Overall, I'm surprised they don't do better in the enthusiast sports and wildlife photography market. At least they are (hopefully) keeping Nikon and Canon on their toes.


----------



## viggen61 (Feb 26, 2013)

Ray2021 said:


> Don't know about faster...by 100mm they both could be at f4.5.... Case in point is Canon's own 70-300L ...starts at 70mm instead of 100mm ... But by ~103mm or so is the same f4.5 100-400 aperture. So Sony at ~100mm could be at f4.5.



I looked at a bunch of xx-300s with variable apertures that start wider than f/4.5, and all of them were at or below f/4.5 by 105mm or (usually) less, including Canon's "L" zooms (28-300 f/3.5-5.6L & 70-300 f/4-5.6L). The lens spec list at The-Digital-Picture will show you what f/stop the lens reports at what focal lengths.

So, the Sony offering is very likely to be no different in that regard.


----------



## hoodlum (Mar 4, 2013)

Canon will need to respond soon with Nikon announcing their new 80-400 on Thursday and releasing it in Japan the following week.


----------



## RS2021 (Mar 5, 2013)

hoodlum said:


> Canon will need to respond soon with Nikon announcing their new 80-400 on Thursday and releasing it in Japan the following week.



We have covered this in the forum many times....Canon, especially being the top dog, will not feel obligated to match "focal length for focal length" what Nikon offers given the market structure. People capable of buying mid to higher end lenses or zooms will not ditch their whole canon systems because nikon introduces this or that lens or an excellent zoom...

Such tit for tat happens at the entry level product lines even in the canon world where the consumer is not yet committed to a system and can be swayed to chose one over the other.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 5, 2013)

Studio1930 said:


> Personally, I don't understand the desire for such large range zooms. The more range you add, the less likely it is to be a clean lens. At some point you just need to change lenses. That is the whole point of an SLR; you can change lenses. What is next, a 10-800mm? :



At F1.4 through the whole range....... heck, I'd even settle for f2.8 

how about 24-1200mm, f3.4 to f6.5, ... and a tilt-swivel screen? Look at the powershot SX50..... it's not a full frame sensor so let the bashing begin


----------



## Daniel Flather (Mar 5, 2013)

_New-generation 70-400mm F4-5.6 G SSM II telephoto zoom – *with 4x faster autofocus* and improved optical performance_


Marketers love the numbers.


----------



## Radiating (Mar 5, 2013)

The MTF data on this lens indicates it has worst in class performance, along with being the most expensive. It is worse than the 15 year old 100-400mm from Canon, continuing the long tradition of mediocre Sony lenses.

If you want a really good lens get the brand new Nikon 80-400mm f/4.5-f/5.6

It's MTF data indicates it is way way way better than the current Canon 100-400mm

http://nikonrumors.com/2013/03/04/nikkor-80-400mm-f4-5-5-6g-ed-vr-lens-announcement.aspx/

In fact the MTF data indicates the new Nikon lens is actually as good as the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 II wide open at f/4.5-f/5.6


----------



## AlanF (Mar 5, 2013)

What remarkable MTFs. I'd run out and buy that immediately if Canon produced it. Come to think of it, it might be worthwhile buying the Nikon plus a crop body for holiday shoots when I can't take my big Canon gear as it is so, so much better than the 100-400.


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 5, 2013)

Shame on you, Canon! Geriatric ward still sound asleep. 
Not able to stick a new 4-stop IS into the current 100-400 and even less so to come up with a newly-designed, excellent 100-400 f/4.0-5.6 IS L II ... matching the new Nikon's MTF. 

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/03/05/Nikon-launches-AF-S-Nikkor-80-400mm-4p5-5p6G-ED-VR-telezoom
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/7205672840/editors-opinion-nikons-new-af-s-nikkor-80-400mm-f45-56-g-ed-vr


----------



## mrsfotografie (Mar 5, 2013)

Hmm, I couldn't care less about the 70 mm position to be honest. I rather have a somewhat limited zoom range in favor of image quality. 

That said, buy the Canon 100-400 while you can, it's (relatively) cheap - a MkII will definitely set you back more. I like the push/pull design for motorsports especially, being able to chase the subject as it rapidly comes closer. 

I must say though that I've used my 100-400 less since I've paired the 70-200 F2.8 IS MkII to a 1.4 TC. The latter offers F/4 and better IQ throughout the range (98-280mm). 

Still, benefit of the 100-400: reach, compactness (at 100 mm) and light weight. The 70-200 + TC is a lot heavier, something that counts on a long day of shooting. I wonder what the added gearing of a rotary zoom 100-400 would add to the weight...


----------



## Lawliet (Mar 5, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> Not able to stick a new 4-stop IS into the current 100-400



In a way they did just that, plus an 0.7TC in the lens design to obscure it. Lets assume the 200-400 eventually becomes available to paying customers the actual utility of a new 100-400 would be reduced again, as in either 300mm is enough or I'd prefer closer to 5-600mm. With the high MP numbers common cropping is much easier then dealing wit a to narrow FOV.


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 5, 2013)

Lawliet said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Not able to stick a new 4-stop IS into the current 100-400
> ...



The 200-400 is not available. And it is not affordable for 99% of non-Pro photogs. It is therefore NO alternative to a newly designed, excellent 100-400 II ... at a price not higher than the new Nikon 70-400.


----------



## Random Orbits (Mar 5, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> The 200-400 is not available. And it is not affordable for 99% of non-Pro photogs. It is therefore NO alternative to a newly designed, excellent 100-400 II ... at a price not higher than the new Nikon 70-400.



If the Canon releases a better version, be ready to fork out at least as much... 2700.


----------



## J.R. (Mar 5, 2013)

Random Orbits said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > The 200-400 is not available. And it is not affordable for 99% of non-Pro photogs. It is therefore NO alternative to a newly designed, excellent 100-400 II ... at a price not higher than the new Nikon 70-400.
> ...



At least as much ... you are joking ... right?

Canon will end up charging upwards of 50% of the price of the 200-400mm lens. 

The current 100-400 sells well and delivers good IQ at a very good price but I'm eagerly waiting to see the IQ delivered by the new Nikon. Unless the difference in the IQ is substantial, Canon's price advantage will be enormous. 

Canon seems to be thinking - If it ain't broke, don't fix it!


----------



## psolberg (Mar 5, 2013)

why must everybody think that when Nikon/Sony/anybody does anything, canon needs to follow. that's not called leading.



> We have covered this in the forum many times....Canon, especially being the top dog, will not feel obligated to match "focal length for focal length" what Nikon offers given the market structure



which is why canon put out a 200-400 zoom 8)



> If you want a really good lens get the brand new Nikon 80-400mm f/4.5-f/5.6
> 
> It's MTF data indicates it is way way way better than the current Canon 100-400mm



off course it is. the 100-400 was never a good IQ performer, it was just without much competition during the decade of canon dominance. But the world has changed, Nikon/sony combined have greater market share, and so seeing sony and Nikon put out a pair of outstanding optics should surprise nobody.

we live in times of great choice for all. mirrorless dominated by companies that had been written out, the giants struggling to hold on to market share! who would have thought!


----------



## Lawliet (Mar 5, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> It is therefore NO alternative to a newly designed, excellent 100-400 II



It doesn't need to, it just closes the proverbial box.
With more attractive alternatives up- and downward plus sides that make a lateral breakthrough difficult we're looking at a limited audience with lots of options.
About the same dilema the 24-70/4 faces, but from more angles.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Mar 5, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> Shame on you, Canon! Geriatric ward still sound asleep.
> Not able to stick a new 4-stop IS into the current 100-400 and even less so to come up with a newly-designed, excellent 100-400 f/4.0-5.6 IS L II ... matching the new Nikon's MTF.
> 
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/03/05/Nikon-launches-AF-S-Nikkor-80-400mm-4p5-5p6G-ED-VR-telezoom
> http://www.dpreview.com/articles/7205672840/editors-opinion-nikons-new-af-s-nikkor-80-400mm-f45-56-g-ed-vr



So go ahead and switch to Nikon already. They're a reputable company that makes good products. You obviously prefer theirs to Canon's, so what on Earth is keeping you as a Canon customer?

b&


----------



## Random Orbits (Mar 5, 2013)

psolberg said:


> why must everybody think that when Nikon/Sony/anybody does anything, canon needs to follow. that's not called leading.



Canon is following it's own plan. Lenses take years to develop and bring to market. What is being released now has been identified and funded years ago.

Since 2010, Canon has released the following FF lenses:

70-200 f/2.8L IS II
70-300L
8-15L
300L II
400L II
500L II
600L II
24-70 f/2.8L II
24 IS
28 IS
40 pancake
24-70 f/4L IS

Most of the lenses in the longer focal range have been updated recently, and it doesn't take an oracle to see that Canon will be replacing older lenses, shorter focal lenses and lenses that have more competition over the next few years. Canon gains nothing for not bringing out a better design that they can sell for more profit than an existing model.


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 5, 2013)

TrumpetPower! said:


> So go ahead and switch to Nikon already. They're a reputable company that makes good products. You obviously prefer theirs to Canon's, so what on Earth is keeping you as a Canon customer?



hehehe .. the usual fanboy crap, wehn they up against the wall.
No I do not want to switch to Nikon. I want a new, improved EF 100-400/f 4.0 (!) - 5.6 L IS II with MTF like the new nikon and at a price not higher but preferably lower than the new Nikon. To go along with the other Canon stuff I got. 
And no, I will not buy the current 100-400 L with its old 1.5 EV stop IS and its outdated push-pull design and its only so-so IQ (by 2013 standards, it's not 1993 any longer!) . No matter, how "relatively cheap" this old clunker may be.


----------



## marinien (Mar 5, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> TrumpetPower! said:
> 
> 
> > So go ahead and switch to Nikon already. They're a reputable company that makes good products. You obviously prefer theirs to Canon's, so what on Earth is keeping you as a Canon customer?
> ...



Where is my Canon EF 100-400 f/4-5.6 L IS Mk I??? ;D


----------

