# EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS Replacement Coming in November [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 24, 2014)

```
<p>We’re told that demo versions of the upcoming replacement for the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS have hit select photographers hands for field use.</p>
<p>The new design resembles the EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS with a thin focus ring at the base, and a wider zoom ring near the front element. The aperture range for the lens will remain at f/4.5-5.6. Another mentioned feature is in the lens hood for the lens. It sounds like there will be a retractable opening near where a filter would be, so you could turn your circular polarize easily if you needed to.</p>
<p>As with anything regarding this oft rumoured lens, we take things with a grain of salt. That being said, things are lining up with a lot of consistent information.</p>
<p><em>Hoping to hear more soon.</em></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## K-amps (Oct 24, 2014)

Finally!

I hope it can take 1.4x & 2x mk. iii TC's without rear element crashing into the TC mount during autofocus like the 70-300L.


----------



## Maximilian (Oct 24, 2014)

With this lens and all the grains of salt one should have gone into the salt mining business. 
Could have been profitable. 8)

And maybe it'll be really time for fairy tales and unicorns


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 24, 2014)

Oooo ooooh a CR2 rumor for the 100-400L MkII. Where have I seen one of those before? Oh, yes...it was way back in October, 2010. 

In the meantime, I've missed so many shots like this:


----------



## Marauder (Oct 24, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Oooo ooooh a CR2 rumor for the 100-400L MkII. Where have I seen one of those before? Oh, yes...it was way back in October, 2010.
> 
> In the meantime, I've missed so many shots like this:




LMAO!


----------



## Click (Oct 24, 2014)

LOL ;D


----------



## tcmatthews (Oct 24, 2014)

Of course there is one coming some day. I will still will not believe it until it is officially on the Canon website. Besides I got tired of waiting. I have a Tamron 150-600 on order.

Lets face it rumors of flying pigs are more likely.


----------



## msatter (Oct 24, 2014)

Next year the 100-500. ;-)

Update: for Canon it would not be a pig but a Pegasus.


----------



## docsmith (Oct 24, 2014)

Well, of course it is coming in November....I ordered the Sigma 150-600S. It will be announced just after my 30 day return window expires.


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 24, 2014)

Canon Rumors said:


> We’re told that demo versions of the upcoming replacement for the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS have hit select photographers hands for field use.



... which might in result in Canon dumping the prototypes again if their test audience isn't happy and fixing the problems would mean blowing the lid off the budget/ acceptable price tag.

I guess this lens is bound to make a lot of people unhappy, either it will be very expensive (but good with with tcs, crop and upcoming higher mp ff) or it will have an affordable price which means it won't outclass its predecessor - and a bit more sharpness and 100mm more reach vs. the 70-300L isn't revolutionary unless you're set upon using a tc all the time.


----------



## LSV (Oct 24, 2014)

Yes!! November ... 2114? Oh, never mind.


----------



## slclick (Oct 24, 2014)

that reminds me, we haven't heard much about a Mkii 400 f/5.6 in a while. Methinks if there is one in the works, they won't release it anytime near the 100-400.


----------



## Tugela (Oct 24, 2014)

So, this is the lens that the year is about for Canon? ;D


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 24, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Oooo ooooh a CR2 rumor for the 100-400L MkII. Where have I seen one of those before? Oh, yes...it was way back in October, 2010.
> 
> In the meantime, I've missed so many shots like this:



A+


----------



## PureClassA (Oct 24, 2014)

Well they called it "Year of the Lens" ... but I like your unicorn ;D

Hey we had the 16-35 f4 too this year .... which I love. 2014 Year of the Lens.... never said all L lens hahaha! 2015 Year of the Body? Photoplus next week. Hopefully they show their cards there like they did with the 1DX.


----------



## Plainsman (Oct 24, 2014)

Time has passed this lens by - it is two years to late.

The 150-600 zoom is the new kid on the block and the imminent Sigma S version could be a very good lens.

But then.......nothing to beat Canon quality control is there?

But really the 100-400 should have been brought out the same time as the Nikon 80-400 which by some accounts isn't all that brilliant.


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Oct 24, 2014)

Is it DO? I thought it was going to be DO as per that interview.


----------



## ewg963 (Oct 24, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Oooo ooooh a CR2 rumor for the 100-400L MkII. Where have I seen one of those before? Oh, yes...it was way back in October, 2010.
> 
> In the meantime, I've missed so many shots like this:


Cute


----------



## Maximilian (Oct 24, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


>


Wasn't it supposed to be pink? *lol*
Thanks, Neuro, for that wonderful summary of this topic


----------



## Maximilian (Oct 24, 2014)

Mitch.Conner said:


> Is it DO?


Hopefully not! 8)


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 24, 2014)

Maximilian said:


> Mitch.Conner said:
> 
> 
> > Is it DO?
> ...



The new DO system supposedly has vast improvement over the old 70-300 attempt - and if it works, it means less weight and length for the same image quality. With a lens the size of a 100-400L, what's not to like about it?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 24, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > Mitch.Conner said:
> ...



What's not to like is "supposedly". Also, there's not too much weight reduction, although the length decrease is nice.


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 24, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> What's not to like is "supposedly". Also, there's not too much weight reduction, although the length decrease is nice.



After their first botched DO attempt, imho Canon will only release a new generation if all possible criticisms (except for the price ) are eliminated. And they'd better hurry up as Sigma and similar are catching up building traditional high-iq lens designs...


----------



## Omni Images (Oct 24, 2014)

yey ! .... hopefully not a DO ... or it might end up being a doh...


----------



## racebit (Oct 24, 2014)

The 400 5.6 prime beats them all, canon 100-400, sigma zooms, whatever.


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 24, 2014)

racebit said:


> The 400 5.6 prime beats them all, canon 100-400, sigma zooms, whatever.



A midrange zoom isn't supposed to "beat" a prime because unless you're focal length limited. With the zoom you can get the optimal sensor coverage meaning less noise and more sharpness because of less nr. With a prime, what do you do if your subject decides to get near you? Quickly switch to the 300L, 200L and 100L?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 24, 2014)

racebit said:


> The 400 5.6 prime beats them all, canon 100-400, sigma zooms, whatever.



Not mine, and not the various test lenses. For all practical purposes, they are the same, except for the IS and close focusing of the 100-400.


----------



## dgatwood (Oct 24, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > Mitch.Conner said:
> ...



Agreed. I'd kill for a 100–400L that wasn't any longer than my 70–300L (or even better, smaller than that) without sacrificing too much quality.


----------



## tcmatthews (Oct 25, 2014)

The biggest problem with DO is the price. It could put it outside of the reach of many potential buyers. If the quality is there and it handles the Extenders well many will buy it instead of the new 150-600mm flavor of the month. Now if they added a DO and did not increase the price as much as in the past that is a different story. But I suspect that it could cost over 3k for a 100-400L DO. As it stands non-DO could be 2.5K at release. 

Many prefer the native option and will settle for a 100-499.


----------



## Bennymiata (Oct 25, 2014)

I love my 100-400L.
The new one would need to be significantly better for me to replace it with the version.


----------



## LJ3Jim (Oct 25, 2014)

Assuming it focuses quickly and accurately, I'm in. My 100-400 usually focuses well, but sometimes it hunts (both with my 70D and 5D3). My newer lenses don't do that. I'm guessing the new 100-400 will have modestly better IQ, and better IS. I will miss the push-pull, though.


----------



## rdalrt (Oct 25, 2014)

I would love a new 100-400. Been waiting for one for awhile. I would find it useful for a lot of stuff I do. Only reason I don't already own the current version is I can't stand the push/pull design. Hope the rumours about the new one having a zoom ring are true. If so, I will be on the pre-order list when announced.


----------



## jarrodeu (Oct 25, 2014)

rdalrt said:


> I would love a new 100-400. Been waiting for one for awhile. I would find it useful for a lot of stuff I do. Only reason I don't already own the current version is I can't stand the push/pull design. Hope the rumours about the new one having a zoom ring are true. If so, I will be on the pre-order list when announced.


Really? I love the push pull. In fact, if the replacement is not push pull and is not significantly better, I won't be upgrading mine. If it is significantly better, well then I will have a difficult decision to make.


Would it cost a significant amount to make both a traditional and a push pull design? I would assume that they could use the same glass elements, same IS, same focusing, with the main difference being the frame/shell? Or am I way off? I know nothing of lens design.

Jarrod


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Oct 25, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> racebit said:
> 
> 
> > The 400 5.6 prime beats them all, canon 100-400, sigma zooms, whatever.
> ...



Walk backwards?

I don't own any primes yet, so that's just my working theory as of the moment. As soon as I own some primes I can properly answer your question and back it up with the scientific method.


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Oct 25, 2014)

To be clear to all, when I asked if it was DO, I wasn't hoping that it's DO. To be honest, I don't care one way or another AS LONG AS THE IQ IS THERE.

I was merely remembering the announcement from September 17 of this year that more DO lenses are coming - and in the same announcement talking about the 100-400 replacement.... and then in the same announcement also mentioning that Canon has a patent on a 100-400 DO zoom.

*Canon Rumors link here:*  Canon Confirms Replacement of 100-400 Coming, More DO & EF-M Lenses

*CNET Source link here:* *Canon Reveals Details For Future Telephoto Lens Line*
_A new 400mm supertele is just the beginning. Canon also says it plans a replacement for its 100-400mm zoom and new compact models using *diffractive optics*._


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 25, 2014)

The Tamron is $1,069. This lens is 2/3 as long. So, it will be $712.66. CR2.

You're welcome.


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 25, 2014)

Plainsman said:


> Time has passed this lens by - it is two years to late.
> The 150-600 zoom is the new kid on the block and the imminent Sigma S version could be a very good lens.



It's nine years too late, and it will still be worth probably twice what the Tamron and Sigma C cost. As for the Sigma S, it's too big and too heavy to hand hold 10 hours a day, which is what I will do with this lens.


----------



## racebit (Oct 25, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> racebit said:
> 
> 
> > The 400 5.6 prime beats them all, canon 100-400, sigma zooms, whatever.
> ...



I never run into a situation where the bird did not fit with the 400 prime. But I am not the waiting type, I am the walking type, and shoot whatever appears. So, the 400 prime is perfect, light and fast focusing.
If the bird is still, it always fits the image, no matter how close. If the bird is flying very close, it moves too fast for me to be able to frame it, and zooming will only make the process slower, not to mention the AF would be slower too. It is better to shoot farther, as the focus will be better, and still close enough to get zero image degradation.


----------



## racebit (Oct 25, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> racebit said:
> 
> 
> > The 400 5.6 prime beats them all, canon 100-400, sigma zooms, whatever.
> ...


And focusing speed?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 25, 2014)

"It sounds like there will be a retractable opening near where a filter would be, so you could turn your circular polarize easily if you needed to."

Pretty cool. I could sure use that with the 70-300L.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Oct 25, 2014)

Mitch.Conner said:


> To be clear to all, when I asked if it was DO, I wasn't hoping that it's DO. To be honest, I don't care one way or another AS LONG AS THE IQ IS THERE.
> 
> I was merely remembering the announcement from September 17 of this year that more DO lenses are coming - and in the same announcement talking about the 100-400 replacement.... and then in the same announcement also mentioning that Canon has a patent on a 100-400 DO zoom.
> 
> ...



Well, you will note that the 100-400 and the DO lenses are mentioned as separate matters. 



> The 100-400mm zoom is a good example. Canon introduced it in 1998 with its first-generation image stablization technology, which counteracts some camera shake, and still sells it for $1,700. But a new model is in the works, said Canon technical advisor Chuck Westfall in an interview here at the Photokina show Monday. "It's definitely on the boards for replacement," he said, though declining to say when.
> 
> In addition, Canon is working to spread a technology called diffractive optics, or DO, into more lenses, he added -- maybe even cheaper lenses.



CR mentioned these as separate matters, but then added the information about the patent anecdotally- which confused some and started a couple of threads. I would have said I don't think the 100-400 II will be a DO, but then I am not sure there is a 100-400 II to begin with!

[In any case, just because Chuck Westfall mentioned a 100-400 replacement, do not start planning a bank robbery. He specifically mentioned (without being asked) how they were working on AF illumination in the 5DIII, which never materialized. So Canon USA has little idea about what Canon Inc. does.]


----------



## Gooniesneversaydie11 (Oct 25, 2014)

I would bet that this rumor has some legs. Think about it. Doesn't anyone think that its strange that they didn't announce a long telephoto L lens to go with the new 7D launch? They announced a moderately improved kit lens (most people buying a 7D Mark II at $1799 is most likely not interested in a kit lens, but its there to help reel in that "Gizmodo-reading" demographic ) and they also announced a pancake. Do either of these two lenses build on the strengths of the 7D Mark II? Not at all. If the 7D MKII is truly aimed at sports and wildlife shooters, then Canon would be stupid to not release an update (or all around new ) long telephoto that is in the more reasonably priced category. Everyone knows the importance of a lens. Why would canon release a 7D MKII only to have people use the same 100-400 that they have been whining about for years and let the weakest link diminish the performance of their new powerhouse action camera?

My guess is that Canon had some issues with this lens that set back the development and rather than hold up the 7D MKII they figured they could release the camera and then have the lens out in time for the Holidays.


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 25, 2014)

Mitch.Conner said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > racebit said:
> ...



How fast can you walk backwards? Most of my subjects approach at 100-200mph.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 25, 2014)

Plainsman said:


> Time has passed this lens by - it is two years to late.
> 
> The 150-600 zoom is the new kid on the block...



Indeed, and like much of America's youth, the 'new kids' are big and overweight. The retracted 100-400L is the size of a 70-200/2.8, a very convenient size for a 400mm lens. Considering the optical improvements going from original to MkII of the 70-200/2.8 IS, a new 100-400 should be excellent. Mount a 1.4x TC behind it, you'll have a 140-560mm f/8 lens that will AF on recent higher-end bodies, deliver great IQ, and be a heck of a lot more portable than those "I'm not fat, I'm big-boned" new kids.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Oct 25, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> > Time has passed this lens by - it is two years to late.
> ...



The only problem will be the price. Canon will ask for an arm and a leg for it, and that makes it really difficult to balance a telephoto lens, IS or no IS.


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Oct 25, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Mitch.Conner said:
> 
> 
> > Marsu42 said:
> ...



Take up sprinting?

I'm joking.


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 25, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Plainsman said:
> ...



Wait for a good deal. I bought my 70-200/2.8L IS II for $1,974 from B&H when they were normally $2,499.


----------



## dufflover (Oct 25, 2014)

Woooo CR2. But yes possibly too little too late and I expect a price of low $2k akin to the 70-200 II. I do expect it to be bloody sharp though like the 70-200 II too though.

The only way I'd buy it is if it keeps the original 100-400 properties (namely collapsible to 70-200 size) and I happen to stumble upon some extra cash to upgrade my current 100-400. But it'd be an impulse though as I already have a bigger gun (so to speak) with the Sigma 120-300 (+TCs) and possibly the 150-600 depending how that turns out.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 25, 2014)

LJ3Jim said:


> Assuming it focuses quickly and accurately, I'm in. My 100-400 usually focuses well, but sometimes it hunts (both with my 70D and 5D3). My newer lenses don't do that. I'm guessing the new 100-400 will have modestly better IQ, and better IS. I will miss the push-pull, though.


 
I've never had my 100-400 hunt with any Canon DSLR. Yours may have a problem if it does.


----------



## PureClassA (Oct 25, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> LJ3Jim said:
> 
> 
> > Assuming it focuses quickly and accurately, I'm in. My 100-400 usually focuses well, but sometimes it hunts (both with my 70D and 5D3). My newer lenses don't do that. I'm guessing the new 100-400 will have modestly better IQ, and better IS. I will miss the push-pull, though.
> ...



100-400 is one of Canon's best sellers. Though we have no real test data (i dont think) on the new Sigs, but I can't image that S model for $2k will even remotely be a dud. Sure it's bigger and heavier, but to tripod folks, it may prove largely irrelevant if it performs superbly. No one seems to care much that the ART primes are notably heavier than their nikon and canon peers. Anyway, maybe all this has upped Canon's game. "We really need to get a new 100-400 out now before we lose more opportunity" Yeah, Tammy has one out already, but they haven't seemed to have gotten the accolades that Sigma's new stuff has. Again, hoping for lots of surprises at Photoplus and CES in January


----------



## Gooniesneversaydie11 (Oct 25, 2014)

The Sigma may be great, but if it suffers in the AF speed/accuracy department (which is Sigma's only weak spot lately) then its pretty much worthless at that price. I am not paying 2K only to have to MA the thing to death with a stupid little dock. If the 100-400 comes out at the same price point and is razor sharp, I would gladly pay 2k for that over the Sigma and sacrifice the extra FL. ;D


----------



## Maximilian (Oct 25, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > Maximilian said:
> ...


+1 That's also my opinion. 
I am fine with the dimensions of the "old" 100-400L. Give it more IQ, faster AF, better IS and I'm in (as soon as I have the money).
A new generation of DO first must show, how good it is. Maybe then I'll change my mind.
And by the way: AFAIK and from the pictures I've seen, there was some difference in IQ and bokeh between the 400 DO and the 70-300 DO. So releasing a 400 DO II (and following your speculation on its IQ) doesn't mean Canon builds in the same quality in a 100-400 DO. 
"A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush."


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 25, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > Mitch.Conner said:
> ...



Price.


----------



## dgatwood (Oct 25, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > Maximilian said:
> ...



*shrugs*

The 70–300 DO costs about the same as the 70–300 L these days. Give it enough time, and the 100–400 DO will probably cost the same as the 100–400 L.


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 25, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> The 70–300 DO costs about the same as the 70–300 L these days. Give it enough time, and the 100–400 DO will probably cost the same as the 100–400 L.



The DO version of the 70-300L has just dropped in price because of the mediocre reputation (though it seems to be a great travel lens), imho not because of a "natural" movement of L lens' prices downwards. 

If Canon introduces new, but mature and actually working tech they'll add a big premium - that is on top of the difference vanilla vs. DO production costs. Until the competition catches up, they'll try to keep it that way - who knows when this will be.

So for budget-limited photogs the (only) nice perspective is grabbing used legacy lenses while the new kids on the block smirk about the stone-age size and weight of these old school bricks:


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 25, 2014)

If the new 100-400 II gets the same boost in IQ over the original version as 70-200 II did over its first version, how close will it be to the IQ of 200-400/4? ;-)

How much room is there to differentiate IQ somehow related to prices (though not directly proportional) between
100-400 (I)
400/5.6 (I)
400/4 DO (I)
200-400/4 1.4x
and mark II versions of the first 3 lenses?


Knowing Canon, i would guess carefully managing those differentials might account for up to 90% of their respective mark II develepment efforts. 

Personally i am not interested in long tele primes, and even less in DO designs. But i would strongly consider a non-push pull, hand-holdable and compact, 4+ stop IS, absolutely excellent IQ 100-400 II at a price not far beyond 70-200 II. By Absolutely excellent IQ would mean every bit as good as 200-400 MTF, just 1/2 to 1 stop slower. 

If canon will finally bring such a lens to market, it will sell as well as the original 100-400 did. No matter the tammys and sigzillas. But any lesser 100-400 II will fail.


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 25, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> Personally i am not interested in long tele primes, and even less in DO designs. But i would strongly consider a non-push pull, hand-holdable and compact, 4+ stop IS, absolutely excellent IQ 100-400 II at a price not far beyond 70-200 II. By Absolutely excellent IQ would mean every bit as good as 200-400 MTF, just 1/2 to 1 stop slower.



... while I am at posting pictures, this comes to mind concerning your wish for a top-notch, reasonably priced "mini 200-400"


----------



## wyldeguy (Oct 25, 2014)

Gooniesneversaydie11 said:


> I would bet that this rumor has some legs. Think about it. Doesn't anyone think that its strange that they didn't announce a long telephoto L lens to go with the new 7D launch? They announced a moderately improved kit lens (most people buying a 7D Mark II at $1799 is most likely not interested in a kit lens, but its there to help reel in that "Gizmodo-reading" demographic ) and they also announced a pancake. Do either of these two lenses build on the strengths of the 7D Mark II? Not at all. If the 7D MKII is truly aimed at sports and wildlife shooters, then Canon would be stupid to not release an update (or all around new ) long telephoto that is in the more reasonably priced category. Everyone knows the importance of a lens. Why would canon release a 7D MKII only to have people use the same 100-400 that they have been whining about for years and let the weakest link diminish the performance of their new powerhouse action camera?
> 
> My guess is that Canon had some issues with this lens that set back the development and rather than hold up the 7D MKII they figured they could release the camera and then have the lens out in time for the Holidays.



Only problem with that statement is that they did release a long telephoto with the 7D2. They released the 400mm DO mark 2 at photokina. A pretty good match I would imagine.


----------



## Canon1 (Oct 25, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Oooo ooooh a CR2 rumor for the 100-400L MkII. Where have I seen one of those before? Oh, yes...it was way back in October, 2010.
> 
> In the meantime, I've missed so many shots like this:



Yeah well... How about this CR3 from 2008??




Canon EF 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS [CR3]
JUNE 27, 2008 CANON LENSES
It's coming
The source that spoke of the 5 new lenses from Canon claims the 100-400 is indeed getting an upgrade. It'll be slightly faster and possess a 5 stop IS. He wasn't sure whether or not it would be a push/pull design or not.

Canon EF 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS = $1899 USD

Comments


----------



## Lawliet (Oct 25, 2014)

Canon1 said:


> Yeah well... How about this CR3 from 2008??



Remember that CR had changend the rating system from 5+1 down to 3+1 grades.
Those CR4/5-stories would turn into a logic bomb if you miss that


----------



## Canon1 (Oct 25, 2014)

Lawliet said:


> Canon1 said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah well... How about this CR3 from 2008??
> ...



I didn't remember that! A CR5 mush be like waking up and the 100-400 Mark III was just released.


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 25, 2014)

dilbert said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Plainsman said:
> ...



At least the Tamron is so soft at 600mm and f/6.3 that I don't consider it usable there. I'd rather use it at 400mm wide open or 600mm and f/8, making it no faster than a 100-400 with or without a TC. The Sigma Sport looks better, but it's too big and heavy. We don't know about the Sigma Contemporary yet.


----------



## Gooniesneversaydie11 (Oct 25, 2014)

wyldeguy said:


> Gooniesneversaydie11 said:
> 
> 
> > long telephoto that is in the more reasonably priced category.
> ...



I don't think that most people would consider $6800 reasonably priced for a 400mm. I mean I guess in relation to what you get for your money, then yes, but not in terms of a lower price point. In my mind, sub $2000 is reasonably priced. That is the bracket that the original 100-400, 400 f/5.6L, 300 f/4L and MOST other non-white L lenses fall into. Someone that can afford the 400 DO can most likely afford the 1Dx (or its successor) so I do NOT think that lens was aimed at being a 7d mark II pairing.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 25, 2014)

dilbert said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Plainsman said:
> ...



When the issue is portability, yes. The 1D X and 100-400L with 1.4xIII mounted fits in a Lowepro Toploader Pro 75 AW or even a regular backpack – it's a very portable combo. At 560mm f/8, the IQ of the 100-400 is similar to the larger, heavier Tamron at 600mm. If I want to compromise portability instead, I'd bring the 600/4L IS II which is 1.33-stops faster, has better AF and _much_ better IQ, and can go to 840mm f/5.6 or 1200mm f/8 (still with better IQ than the Tamron at 600mm). 

Or I'd buy the 300/2.8, which is about the same length as the retracted Tamron 150-600 (and shorter and lighter than the Sigma 150-600), and with the 2xIII is 1/3-stop faster, has better IQ and better AF. Sure, it's more expensive...but you always have to compromise somewhere. Personally, the higher cost isn't a big concern.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 25, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



As you know, I use the 300/2.8 II + 2xTC as my 600 of choice but I am also happy with the Tamron 150-600 when I need a zoom or less weight and volume. I found that the AF on the 100-400 + 1.4xTC was hopeless on the 5DIII whereas the Tamron is quite good. I'd be very tempted if Canon came out with a short retractable new 100-400 of higher quality for portability.


----------



## tcmatthews (Oct 25, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



For you price is not a concern. But for me personally I also like fishing. A 300/2.8 and a 600/4L add up to a good down payment on a nice boat. It might be a different if I was making money off my photography. Or if it was my only hobby. 

As you said compromises. I can afford to save for a boat and buy the Tamron 150-600. I have been waiting for an updated 100-400L. It has been rumored sense before I joined CR. A updated 100-400 would likely be better than the Tamron 150-600. But as I stated previously it is now to late. I have a Tamron 150-600 on order. I have other lenses I plan on buying if a new 100-400L was announced it would likely head to the back of the line.


----------



## wyldeguy (Oct 25, 2014)

Gooniesneversaydie11 said:


> wyldeguy said:
> 
> 
> > Gooniesneversaydie11 said:
> ...



That's fair. I think I missed your "reasonably priced" point. Although I believe that's still cheaper than the big white 400mm f2.8? Is it? That's a little more than the new DO. I hadn't looked into the new DO price wise. I should have assumed it was still pretty expensive given the technology. I know I couldn't afford either so it's all theoretical at this point.


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Oct 25, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> Mitch.Conner said:
> 
> 
> > To be clear to all, when I asked if it was DO, I wasn't hoping that it's DO. To be honest, I don't care one way or another AS LONG AS THE IQ IS THERE.
> ...



I can't find a link for Chuck Westfall mentioning af illumination on the 5d3. Where is that? Was it after the 5d3 came out, as in a firmware update? That's my biggest complaint with my 5d3. Any chance it will still come?


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 25, 2014)

Mitch.Conner said:


> I can't find a link for Chuck Westfall mentioning af illumination on the 5d3. Where is that? Was it after the 5d3 came out, as in a firmware update? That's my biggest complaint with my 5d3. Any chance it will still come?



https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8EIdV4mAcpo#!
8:30 min. onward

I don't see a chance for it still to come. Or only, if the 5D III is still not succeed another 2 years from now ... like the 7D firmware update after 4 years ... ;D


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Oct 25, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> Mitch.Conner said:
> 
> 
> > I can't find a link for Chuck Westfall mentioning af illumination on the 5d3. Where is that? Was it after the 5d3 came out, as in a firmware update? That's my biggest complaint with my 5d3. Any chance it will still come?
> ...



Thanks!

Well, that was 2 years ago. He did say that they were going to wait and see what other issues come up, BUT - yeah, it's been a while.

I'll hope that it's still coming, but I shouldn't get my hopes up.


----------



## dolina (Oct 25, 2014)

This rumor wont just die. ;D


----------



## atosk930 (Oct 25, 2014)

http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/

$2,099 - $2,399 is my guess for this, just based on inflation alone, and that assumes that $1899 was close to correct back in '08

I love using the 70-200 2.8 that i got last year during the holiday rebates. I imagine IF - and that's a big IF - it is released, then I'll start seriously looking at it either 1-2 years down the road during another holiday season rebate.



Canon1 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Oooo ooooh a CR2 rumor for the 100-400L MkII. Where have I seen one of those before? Oh, yes...it was way back in October, 2010.
> ...


----------



## sagittariansrock (Oct 25, 2014)

Mitch.Conner said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > Mitch.Conner said:
> ...



I doubt it. Here's the post and the accompanying video.

http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/05/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii-ai-servo-af-point-issue/


----------



## dryanparker (Oct 25, 2014)

This may have been covered in a previous post, but...

Does anyone know if a lens this size can have an internal zoom movement like the 70-200? If extends like the 70-300, any concerns about weather sealing?


----------



## dryanparker (Oct 25, 2014)

dryanparker said:


> This may have been covered in a previous post, but...
> 
> Does anyone know if a lens this size can have an internal zoom movement like the 70-200? If extends like the 70-300, any concerns about weather sealing?



BTW, I realize the 200-400 is internal, so I guess I'm referring to the possibility of a 100-400 with internal zoom that won't cost $5000. Hand-holdable form factor similar to the 70-200...?


----------



## Lawliet (Oct 25, 2014)

dryanparker said:


> Does anyone know if a lens this size can have an internal zoom movement like the 70-200? If extends like the 70-300, any concerns about weather sealing?



It would have to be at least as large as it would be as a fully extended lens. Without DO objects the current 100-400 in its full glory would be a guideline.
The standard zooms are sealed despite being variable length, that should work just as well for a telezoom.


----------



## CaptainZero (Oct 25, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


That's what it is for me. I'm not a pro, but there are only two lenses that go on my 7D. The 10-22 that I use everyday for real estate pictures, and the 100-400, that I use for reach. When I go on vacation, downhill skiing (or just about anything else I do), I have the gripped 7D with the 100-400, and my 5D3 with the first version 24-70 on it, in a backpack. Is it a bit of a PIA? Yes, but you can get some great shots on a ski hill with that combo. Portability is key for me, and most people wouldn't call this set up portable.


----------



## birdingbilly (Oct 25, 2014)

I have seen this lens in use in the field this weekend. It is very much like the 70-300L (at first that's what I thought it was), it has the same extend on zoom design as the 70-300L, can be used with convertors, is fairly light (I think lighter than the 70-200) and has the unusual lens hood retractable slot as described by canon rumours. I was told to expect it in November. Cost I would guess around £1,800. It will sell like hot cakes with the 7D II I should think.


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 26, 2014)

birdingbilly said:


> I have seen this lens in use in the field this weekend. It is very much like the 70-300L (at first that's what I thought it was), it has the same extend on zoom design as the 70-300L, can be used with convertors, is fairly light (I think lighter than the 70-200) and has the unusual lens hood retractable slot as described by canon rumours. I was told to expect it in November. Cost I would guess around £1,800. It will sell like hot cakes with the 7D II I should think.



Having the zoom ring on the "wrong" side compared to my 70-200 would be a pretty big bummer. I've used a 70-300 once, and didn't like it.


----------



## birdingbilly (Oct 26, 2014)

The zoom ring is at the front and is wide, the focus ring is nearer the mount and is much thinner and is not flat (in the same way the focus ring on the 500 f/4 is not flat all be it much wider of course)


----------



## Bennymiata (Oct 26, 2014)

I'd still prefer it if it had a push-pull zoom.
I love that on my 100-400.

You can zoom and focus at the same time.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 26, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> birdingbilly said:
> 
> 
> > I have seen this lens in use in the field this weekend. It is very much like the 70-300L (at first that's what I thought it was), it has the same extend on zoom design as the 70-300L, can be used with convertors, is fairly light (I think lighter than the 70-200) and has the unusual lens hood retractable slot as described by canon rumours. I was told to expect it in November. Cost I would guess around £1,800. It will sell like hot cakes with the 7D II I should think.
> ...



+1

Although I've owned the 70-300L for a while now, I still don't like the swapped zoom/focus ring positions. I bought the Tripod Mount Ring C, and that helps in that it puts my fingertips at the zoom ring when supporting the lens with my hand.


----------



## expatinasia (Oct 26, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > birdingbilly said:
> ...



I must agree. My 70-300L has not come out of the cupboard for a very long time now. I really should (and will eventually) sell it.

However, I do think the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L II will sell well if it is not overly priced, especially if it takes TC's. There is quite a market for such quality zoom lengths, although I won't be buying one myself.


----------



## dswtan (Oct 26, 2014)

expatinasia said:


> My 70-300L has not come out of the cupboard for a very long time now. I really should (and will eventually) sell it.



Strange. The 70-300L is my main default lens on the 5D3 -- I look forward to the new 100-400 and appreciate the potential similarities! Different strokes.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Oct 26, 2014)

I only wish the price sould be between the $1,400-1,800 bracket taking into consideration the strong competition from Tamron 150-600mm and the new Sigmas 150-600mm (S & C) lenses.


----------



## dufflover (Oct 26, 2014)

Hjalmarg1 said:


> taking into consideration the strong competition


Canon don't need to care about the competition


----------



## expatinasia (Oct 26, 2014)

dswtan said:


> expatinasia said:
> 
> 
> > My 70-300L has not come out of the cupboard for a very long time now. I really should (and will eventually) sell it.
> ...



Different strokes, exactly. That is why I said I think the new 100-400ii will sell really well, even more so if it can take TCs properly and is reasonably priced.

For me, it is just not something I need or want, but I know plenty of people that like the original and will surely love this new one.


----------



## Steve (Oct 26, 2014)

birdingbilly said:


> I have seen this lens in use in the field this weekend. It is very much like the 70-300L (at first that's what I thought it was), it has the same extend on zoom design as the 70-300L, can be used with convertors, is fairly light (I think lighter than the 70-200) and has the unusual lens hood retractable slot as described by canon rumours. I was told to expect it in November. Cost I would guess around £1,800. It will sell like hot cakes with the 7D II I should think.



Got any photos of it? No pics, didn't happen, etc


----------



## Canon1 (Oct 26, 2014)

With the Nikon 80-400 priced at $2700, I would be surprised if the canon version is priced south of $3k.


----------



## tron (Oct 26, 2014)

docsmith said:


> Well, of course it is coming in November....I ordered the Sigma 150-600S. It will be announced just after my 30 day return window expires.


You can still cancel Canon's arrival. Return your Sigma... ;D ;D ;D


----------



## lycan (Oct 26, 2014)

400mm? If it was 2012 it would be great. Today? 400mm is too short.


----------



## slclick (Oct 26, 2014)

lycan said:


> 400mm? If it was 2012 it would be great. Today? 400mm is too short.




Well there you have it folks, someone call Canon


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 26, 2014)

dilbert said:


> The 100-400 mk II is just going to be late.
> 
> In the 100-600mm space, each of Canon, Sigma and Tamron have two serious plays.
> 
> ...



What are you people talking about?

The Tamron focuses slowly and is soft at the long end.
The Sigma S is enormous and not handholdable for long periods by average people.
The Sigma C is a total unknown.
Any Canon is likely to be sharp as hell, and fast-focusing, plus much, much smaller than the 95mm (or 105mm in the case of the Sigma S) filter thread 3rd-party lenses.

I'm in this market. I didn't buy the Tamron because of the soft images above 400mm and the slow down in focusing at longer focal lengths. I won't buy the Sigma S because it's way too big. The Sigma C is interesting, but if the 100-400L replacement is as-expected (sharp and fast focusing, in a small size), I'd buy that over a Sigma C even if the Sigma C is half the cost.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 26, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > The 100-400 mk II is just going to be late.
> ...


I gave up waiting for the 100-400 and got a Tamron.

I expect that if/when the new and improved 100-400 comes out, that it will be so much sharper than the Tamron that it will resolve distant detail at 400mm like the Tamron does at 600mm...or even better! The Tamron is not slow focusing ( I would call it medium), but I would expect the new 100-400 to be at least twice as fast and I expect that it would play well with teleconverters... something lacking on the Tamron.

The Tamron is a good lens, but when you consider what the series 2 "Big Whites" are for quality, I don't expect it to be in the same league as the 100-400 version 2.... but then for twice the price (or more), who would?


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 26, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> I gave up waiting for the 100-400 and got a Tamron.



I gave up in 2005, and got a 70-200/2.8L IS, Canon 1.4x TC II and Kenko Pro DG 1.4x. I used that stacked combo for many years. I later sold the two Canon's and bought a 70-200/2.8L IS II and 2x TC III, and have been using that combo.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 26, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > I gave up waiting for the 100-400 and got a Tamron.
> ...


up until to 200-400 came out, I regarded the 70-200F2.8IS version 2, as the best zoom lens in the Canon lineup..... and there is no way I can even think about buying a 200-400  I hope a new 100-400 will be in the same class as the 70-200's


----------



## brad-man (Oct 26, 2014)

As a happy owner of the current 100-400 who actually likes the push-pull design, I wonder if Canon does switch to a traditional zoom design when they update the lens, will lens creep be an issue. The current model has a variable locking zoom ring to compensate for this.


----------



## docsmith (Oct 26, 2014)

Simply put....there is now decent competition in the supertele zoom marketplace. It is good for us consumers. Two years ago, the 100-400 II would have likely been a no brainer for me. Now, it is not. I have the 70-200 II plus 2x TC. This is now in my bag for almost every trip and for most events as it is a truly great lens from 70-200 and is decent with the 2x tc. It will be tough for a 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 to displace it from my bag for general purposes because of that. So that leaves more specialized purposes, likely when I am specifically going to shoot birds or something else at distance. At that point, is 400 mm enough when you have three zooms that go to 600 mm? As this is becoming more of a niche lens for me, weight is less of a concern.

In the end, I really hope the rumor is true. I'll pick the lens that gives me the best image from 300 mm to 600 mm (and beyond) that I can afford. While I suspect that it will likely be the 100-400II, I am no longer convinced. I wait for the MTF charts. Hopefully I see those before I have to return my pre-ordered 150-600S.

Eventually, I hope to get a big white...but right now I need to be looking at $3k or less.


----------



## tcmatthews (Oct 26, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



I was saving for the 70-200F2.8 IS II when I decided to try out the Tamron 150-600. If the 100-400L II is actual announced I might cancel my Tamron 150-600 order. I expect that it will be sharper with an Ex 1.4 than the Tamron is at the same focal length. It will likely focus faster as well. I expect it to be at the level of the 70-200F2.8L IS II.

But lets face the facts a new 100-400 has been rumored for years. One reader of Canon Watch suggested it has been rumored sense 2004. I was lurking here during the 2008 rumors. So I am quit skeptical. I think that if it was going to be released this year they would have announced it already.


----------



## Nethawk (Oct 26, 2014)

If this comes in at about $2k street price it will sell extremely well. There's a lot of excellent competition in this space at reasonable prices, and it's getting better at half the price. The Tamron looks excellent at 500mm and below, it's definitely a contender.

While I'm not crazy about the focus & zoom ring layout of the 70-300mL I've grown accustomed to it. I do like that the new lens carries the beer keg design, keeping it compact.

We shall see. Without a doubt this will have excellent IQ, but at what price? I hope it's reasonable, if so my excellent 70-300mmL will become a victim of trading up.


----------



## lycan (Oct 26, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > The 100-400 mk II is just going to be late.
> ...




Sorry, Lee Jay. But you are totally wrong!

Check this:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1325294


http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1325261

Soft at 600mm? I don't think so


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 26, 2014)

lycan said:


> Soft at 600mm? I don't think so



I've seen plenty of full-sized shots at 600mm to know that it is soft at 600mm wide-open, even on full-frame.

I'm not a sharpness nut, except on telephoto lenses, where it's common to crop like crazy. When I can properly frame, I find my 17-40L and 24-105L to be quite excellent. But on telephoto, it's not uncommon for me to crop 2x into a shot that was shot with a 2xTC on a 1.6-crop camera. That's only 15% of the size of the image circle, enlarged to a full-frame. That requires critical resolving power.

Have a look. This is the Tamron against itself (400mm versus 600mm). There's a substantial difference.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=929&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 26, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> lycan said:
> 
> 
> > Soft at 600mm? I don't think so
> ...


I have the lens. I shoot a lot with it.

The first thing I did when I got it was to check out sharpness at various F stops.

It is soft wide open at 600mm.
Stop it down to F8 of F9 and it is pretty good, but wide open it is soft.


----------



## 9VIII (Oct 26, 2014)

lycan said:


> Check this:
> 
> http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1325261
> 
> Soft at 600mm? I don't think so




Ha! That's coming from a Nikon user. Lets see where the Nikon user is coming from...

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=650&Camera=614&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=2&LensComp=929&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0

And now lets see where the Canon user is coming from...

My 400f5.6 on crop gives me more reach and overall better IQ than the Tamron. Don't even start on comparing it with a real Big White.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=736&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=929&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0


----------



## birdingbilly (Oct 26, 2014)

no pics I'm afraid, that really would have been pushing my luck ! Forgot to mention that it does have a tight - loose collar like the current version to stop zoom creep. In terms of the 1.4x it will af at f/8.0, at least it does on a 1DX with the centre point.


----------



## tron (Oct 26, 2014)

It is coming in November ouaou. Is it November 2017 or November 2021 though? ;D ;D ;D ;D


----------



## Nethawk (Oct 26, 2014)

lycan said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



I saw that thread too, the images looked fine to me. Oh yeah, it's soft wide open, I think I've heard that before.
Maybe it's the photographer? I dunno.


----------



## Plainsman (Oct 26, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > lycan said:
> ...




Some people are actually expecting the Tamron to be sharp wide open - at the price it is offered at!! 

It actually gives the photographer a remarkable value for money 600/8.

The only way to get a sharp 600 at close range is to get the 600/4 because if your shooting at distance say 100m or more the image will be degraded by airwaves you might as well have the Tamron anyway.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 26, 2014)

Plainsman said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



When you consider that you need 4 (or more) times the $s to beat the Tamron 150-600, it is a wonderful deal. I expect a new 100-400 will beat it, but at 2.5 to 3 X the $s.

The Tammy remains the most bang for the buck on long lenses.


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 26, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> When you consider that you need 4 (or more) times the $s to beat the Tamron 150-600, it is a wonderful deal. I expect a new 100-400 will beat it, but at 2.5 to 3 X the $s.
> 
> The Tammy remains the most bang for the buck on long lenses.



I'm not interested in "best value" because I already have a 70-200/2.8L IS II and a 2x TC III. My best value is to buy nothing at all. Thus, I'm looking for something that will substantially out-resolve and out-focus my current combo, and it looks to me like the Tamron will do neither, thus being $1,069 wasted.


----------



## Plainsman (Oct 26, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > When you consider that you need 4 (or more) times the $s to beat the Tamron 150-600, it is a wonderful deal. I expect a new 100-400 will beat it, but at 2.5 to 3 X the $s.
> ...



...well digital picture iso 12233 crops shows that your combo needs to be stopped down one stop to match the Tamron at 400/5.6.

Not surprising really as putting a 2x TC on a good lens is a last resort option.


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 26, 2014)

Plainsman said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



I've tested my copy extensively, and it's both diffraction-limited and sharpest 1/3 of a stop down from wide open. I shoot it at f/6.3 all the time, and it's very sharp right there.


----------



## docsmith (Oct 27, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> When you consider that you need 4 (or more) times the $s to beat the Tamron 150-600, it is a wonderful deal. I expect a new 100-400 will beat it, but at 2.5 to 3 X the $s.
> 
> The Tammy remains the most bang for the buck on long lenses.



I expect any new 100-400L to be much better than the old 100-400L. But I am not sure it will "beat" the Tammy at 400 mm.

Check out the Tammy @ 400 mm vs the 200-400 @ 400:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=764&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=2

Sure the Canon is "better" but that comparison has always impressed me given the price difference.

Here is the Tammy vs the current 100-400L:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=113&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=0&LensComp=929&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0

Sharper, less CA. Canon's problem is that the Tammy is very impressive from 150-400. Maybe Canon can "beat" it in the center. Lenstip makes the Tammy seem more "beatable" (Lenstip has the Tammy at ~35 lppm @ 450 in the center, which is good, but beatable).

But, I am assuming the Sigma 150-600S is even better than the Tammy. We'll see. I expect the 100-400II to be very solid, very sharp, 4 stop IS, weather sealing, etc. They may have the size and weight advantage, but it will be interesting to see comparisons of the different 150-600's vs the 100-400II + 1.4TC.


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 27, 2014)

docsmith said:


> ...I expect the 100-400II to be very solid, very sharp, 4 stop IS, weather sealing, etc. *They may have the size and weight advantage*, but it will be interesting to see comparisons of the different 150-600's vs the 100-400II + 1.4TC.



Don't underestimate the value of that size and weight advantage. The Tamron and Sigma C both have 95mm filter threads. I expect the Canon to be 77mm or 82mm. I also expect it to be much shorter in overall length.

The Tamron is 10.1 inches long without the hood. It's 4.2 inches in diameter.
The 100-400L is 7.4 inches long without the hood. It's 3.6 inches in diameter.
The 70-300L is 5.6 inches long without the hood. It's 3.5 inches in diameter.

If the new one (if it exists) is really over 2 1/2" shorter and over half an inch smaller in diameter, that's a big difference in storage and usage.


----------



## tapanit (Oct 27, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> I'd kill for a 100–400L that wasn't any longer than my 70–300L (or even better, smaller than that) without sacrificing too much quality.


Yes. I would at least kill my budget for that. Indeed the one decisive factor for me is the length of the 100-400. I could handle (a little) more weight and width, but not length. The current 100-400 is just about the maximum length I can carry in a waist bag on a long hike, the Tamron 150-600 is already way too big for that.


----------



## dufflover (Oct 27, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> I'm not interested in "best value" because I already have a 70-200/2.8L IS II and a 2x TC III. My best value is to buy nothing at all. Thus, I'm looking for something that will substantially out-resolve and out-focus my current combo, and it looks to me like the Tamron will do neither, thus being $1,069 wasted.



Oh noes a $1000 lens lost against a $2500 combo. oh the shock and horror ... 

I have the 70-200/TCs and I re-bought the original 100-400 (that I sold when I upgraded to the Sigma 120-300 OS) because it was a PITA mucking with TCs for how I pack my gear into my shoulder bag, plus TCs gimp the AF so much. Obviously at the cost of flexibility when a 2x isn't needed.

So either:
1. hope the Sigma Sport ticks the boxes (reviews are bit hit and miss with the 600mm performance so far)
2. get a Sigma 120-300 if you don't mind being related to still ~400mm, but faster aperture
3. get a Canon big white


----------



## justaCanonuser (Oct 27, 2014)

If the 100-400 II is really (!!) sharp at the long end I might consider adding it to my primes (EF 400/5.6, EF 500/4.5).

The main issue of the Tammy 150-600 isn't its IQ (quite decent in the 200-500 mm range for such a zoom), it is its slow, inconsistent AF. I met this summer a guy in Norway when shooting Atlantic Puffins. He was lucky to get one of the first copies in Europe and shot it with a 70D. He told me that he had given up to try BIF, because his Tammy was too slow. Later, I had the chance to test this lens with my 7D and 5D3 and came to the same result: nice lens, but not suited for action, what is a real drawback for birding. My wife has got such a lens for her Nikon gear as a compact alternative to her 500 mm prime. She discovered that her Tammy has even trouble to nail big polo horses in action in the 500-600 mm range (despite AF MA at the long end, camera: D300S). 

So, basically I expect the biggest advantage of the new EF 100-400 will be a fast and reliable AF for action shooting. I am pretty sure btw it will beat the new Sigma 150-600 S in this respect. All 3rd party lens makers have to reverse engineer Canon's and Nikon's AF systems (not sure about Sony's policy) with some losses in performance. Unfortunately that's the main problem for us customers.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 27, 2014)

There are several comments here about the Tamron being soft at 600mm and slow from individuals who clearly don't have any first-hand experience of the lens and just rely on mythical hearsay or lens test from TDP, which actually shows it sharp at the centre. 

I regularly use the Tamron 150-600, have used extensively the 100-400 L and have the 300/2.8 II.

The Tamron is not soft at 600mm, and it is reasonably fast at AF at 600mm. My first hand experience fits in well with the extensive reviews on ePhotozine and Lenstip. Here is the MTF analysis from ePhotozine, which has measured the values at 600mm to be on the edge of excellent at f/8, and the Lenstip's of the 150-600mm and the 100-400mm, which shows that the Tamron at600mm and f/8 to be similar to that of the 100-400 at 400.

Don't knock cameras or lenses based on hearsay, second-hand and inaccurate information.


----------



## docsmith (Oct 27, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> docsmith said:
> 
> 
> > ...I expect the 100-400II to be very solid, very sharp, 4 stop IS, weather sealing, etc. *They may have the size and weight advantage*, but it will be interesting to see comparisons of the different 150-600's vs the 100-400II + 1.4TC.
> ...



Don't forget the 150-600S, at 11.4".

Then add weight into the mix:
100-400L: 2.9 lbs
Tamron 150-600: 4.25 lbs
150-600S: 6.25 lbs

If the 100-400L II plus 1.4TC is similar (or better) to its current size and weight it will have a huge advantage in those respects. The key will be optical quality/AF speed/accuracy/etc of that combination against the different 150-600s. But I travel a lot, I'd prefer a smaller size and weight. But, also, I think too much is made of the size and weight of the Tamron/Sigma (especially the Tamron, the Sigma is getting up there). But I've measured my bag and they'll fit. And the Sigma won't be as hand holdable as a ~3 lb system, but I am sure I could do it.


----------



## Plainsman (Oct 27, 2014)

AlanF said:


> There are several comments here about the Tamron being soft at 600mm and slow from individuals who clearly don't have any first-hand experience of the lens and just rely on mythical hearsay or lens test from TDP, which actually shows it sharp at the centre.
> 
> I regularly use the Tamron 150-600, have used extensively the 100-400 L and have the 300/2.8 II.
> 
> ...



Good stuff and there is a quite complimentary recent review of the Tamron on the photography life site.

Apparently the new 100-400 looks likely to be a scaled up version of the Canon 70-300. What a shame - a scaled up IF version of the 70-200 would have been better. Canon are cleverly pitching the new lens as not to be to sharp that it impinges on sales of other lens up the chain. 

Unfortunately the extending telescopic lens design @400 could mean that even slight knocks will damage optical alignment. 

TC capability is unlikely - how many crop cameras can make use of that!!

However I have to admit that the new 100-400 has a few things going for it - IS2, relatively light weight and Canon quality control assuming it is made in Japan but I think it will be expensive like the Nikon equivalent so I will stick to the current model.


----------



## tron (Oct 27, 2014)

Plainsman said:


> Apparently the new 100-400 looks likely to be a scaled up version of the Canon 70-300. What a shame - a scaled up IF version of the 70-200 would have been better.


That would imply that it would be constantly at its max size. For a 100-400mm lens that would be ... big. Bigger that 400mm 5.6L (compare 200 2.8 with 70-200 2.8L IS II to see what I mean)


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 27, 2014)

AlanF said:


> There are several comments here about the Tamron being soft at 600mm and slow from individuals who clearly don't have any first-hand experience of the lens and just rely on mythical hearsay or lens test from TDP, which actually shows it sharp at the centre.
> 
> I regularly use the Tamron 150-600, have used extensively the 100-400 L and have the 300/2.8 II.
> 
> ...


That fits in with my tests.

I found that the maximum sharpness on a 60D was at F9... and F8 was very close to that. Above and below, it fell of. I still say it is a bit soft if you don't step it down.... but honestly, don't we all try to use whatever lenses we have in their sweet spot?

It is definitely a great lens, and superior to the existing 100-400 in the overlapping range..... but I do expect a new version of the 100-400 would reverse that, although at several times the price....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 27, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> I found that the maximum sharpness on a 60D was at F9... and F8 was very close to that. Above and below, it fell of. I still say it is a bit soft if you don't step it down.... but honestly, don't we all try to use whatever lenses we have in their sweet spot?



Generally, yes. But f/9 is getting pretty narrow when you also need a fast shutter speed. 




Don Haines said:


> It is definitely a great lens, and superior to the existing 100-400 in the overlapping range..... but I do expect a new version of the 100-400 would reverse that, although at several times the price....



The 70-300L is also better than the current 100-400 in the overlapping range; between that and the 600 II, I had pretty much stopped using my 100-400, so I sold it. I'm not even certain I'd want the new 100-400, I might just get the 300/2.8 II as a 'portable' option.


----------



## tron (Oct 27, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > I found that the maximum sharpness on a 60D was at F9... and F8 was very close to that. Above and below, it fell of. I still say it is a bit soft if you don't step it down.... but honestly, don't we all try to use whatever lenses we have in their sweet spot?
> ...


I do not want to tempt you but now how about the new 400mm DO II ? OK maybe I do want to tempt you... ;D ;D ;D


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 27, 2014)

AlanF said:


> There are several comments here about the Tamron being soft at 600mm and slow from individuals who clearly don't have any first-hand experience of the lens and just rely on mythical hearsay or lens test from TDP, which actually shows it sharp at the centre.
> 
> I regularly use the Tamron 150-600, have used extensively the 100-400 L and have the 300/2.8 II.
> 
> ...



No one is saying it's soft at 600mm and f/8, just at 600mm and f/6.3.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 27, 2014)

tron said:


> I do not want to tempt you but now how about the new 400mm DO II ? OK maybe I do want to tempt you... ;D ;D ;D



Not particularly tempted. Yes, the 400/4 DO II is slightly shorter and a bit lighter than the 300/2.8 II, but the differences are pretty small. The 300/2.8 gives an excellent 420/4 and a very good 600/5.6, and importantly f/2.8 for indoor gymnasium shooting (currently with my 70-200 @ 2.8, I'm often at ISO 12800 already).


----------



## Nethawk (Oct 27, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > There are several comments here about the Tamron being soft at 600mm and slow from individuals who clearly don't have any first-hand experience of the lens and just rely on mythical hearsay or lens test from TDP, which actually shows it sharp at the centre.
> ...



The sample images in the links above from fredmiranda.com might indicate otherwise. Isn't it true with most telephoto lenses that wide open and max focal link sacrifices some sharpness?

It really depends on price of the upcoming 100-400mm, and one's willingness to forego Canon L for similar performance across the same focal length. Tamron looks to be a strong contender.


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 27, 2014)

Nethawk said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...



No, it doesn't have to be true that it softens up at the long end. Many do, but the better ones don't. For a telephoto where resolving power is its while reason to exist, this is a major problem for people that lime to get the most from their equipment.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 27, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Nethawk said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



You made a blanket statement it was soft at 600mm, and you didn't qualify it with an f number. The current 100-400 is at its weakest at 400mm. Here is a selection of bird photos that some of us have taken with the lens at 600mm. Soft are they?

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=22284.msg426389#msg426389


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 27, 2014)

AlanF said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Nethawk said:
> ...



This I what I said:

I've seen plenty of full-sized shots at 600mm to know that it is soft at 600mm wide-open, even on full-frame.

I'm not a sharpness nut, except on telephoto lenses, where it's common to crop like crazy. When I can properly frame, I find my 17-40L and 24-105L to be quite excellent. But on telephoto, it's not uncommon for me to crop 2x into a shot that was shot with a 2xTC on a 1.6-crop camera. That's only 15% of the size of the image circle, enlarged to a full-frame. That requires critical resolving power.Have a look. This is the Tamron against itself (400mm versus 600mm). There's a substantial difference.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=929&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0


----------



## AlanF (Oct 27, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



The TDP test has the lens at different distances so that the chart completely fills the frame. That is a useless comparison for comparing the resolution of a lens for a subject at a fixed distance away - the target is 50% further away at 600 vs 400mm in the TDP tests. I have posted images of the iso chart taken at the same distance away using 400, 500 and 600 mm. The Tamron at 600mm clearly outresolves itself at 400mm.
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=19503.msg366741#msg366741


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 27, 2014)

AlanF said:


> The TDP test has the lens at different distances so that the chart completely fills the frame.



Yes...correctly.



> That is a useless comparison for comparing the resolution of a lens for a subject at a fixed distance away - the target is 50% further away at 600 vs 400mm in the TDP tests. I have posted images of the iso chart taken at the same distance away using 400, 500 and 600 mm. The Tamron at 600mm clearly outresolves itself at 400mm.



Well, duh. It would be quite useless if it didn't.

It's still soft wide open at 600mm.


----------



## meywd (Oct 27, 2014)

AlanF said:


> The TDP test has the lens at different distances so that the chart completely fills the frame. That is a useless comparison for comparing the resolution of a lens for a subject at a fixed distance away - the target is 50% further away at 600 vs 400mm in the TDP tests. I have posted images of the iso chart taken at the same distance away using 400, 500 and 600 mm. The Tamron at 600mm clearly outresolves itself at 400mm.
> http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=19503.msg366741#msg366741



I took those with 100-400 @ f8 and f6.3 respectively, i guess it is very sharp, maybe not like the big whites but that a different thing.

these are almost 100% crops


----------



## Nethawk (Oct 28, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> lycan said:
> 
> 
> > Soft at 600mm? I don't think so
> ...



You continue to repeat this mantra "soft wide open at 600mm" as a deterrent against the Tamron, yet your own 70-200/2.8L IS II and 2x TC III is no different. Citing the same source

"Images are sharp wide open at 280mm (f/4).

The 1.4x reverses the 200mm pincushion distortion (resulting in very low distortion) and adds some CA and slight full frame corner softness. The 2x causes a noticeably softer image at 400mm."

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-2.8-L-IS-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

No mention of aperture, although I suspect that "noticeably softer" applies only to wider apertures.

The fact is that this characteristic is shared by most long telephoto zooms. Let's move on, please.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 28, 2014)

Plainsman said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...



But it's still f/4 at best....


----------



## Canon1 (Oct 28, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Unless canon has learned something about DO, this lens will not be a replacement for the other big whites. I suspect it will just be an ok lens with tc's. there is no way it will be as sharp as the 300ii and the 500ii and 600ii are also remarkably sharp wide open. The 400DO won't hold a candle to these. 

I will give you some credit for money savings. It's over $25k for the 300,500,600... But they have their purpose.


----------



## tron (Oct 28, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


If you are at 12800 already then indeed the 300 2.8 is the best choice. Unfortunately as you increase focal length (from 200 to 300) you will possibly need to increase speed too. As a result ISO will have to go up even by a little. In that case granted, a 400 4 would be much much worse. I guess it all comes down to the shooting circumstances.


----------



## dufflover (Oct 28, 2014)

A native 400mm DO II would very likely outperform a TC combo. There's definitely shooters who will rarely use the f/2.8 capability (and be happy with "just" 300mm).


----------



## AlanF (Oct 28, 2014)

meywd said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > The TDP test has the lens at different distances so that the chart completely fills the frame. That is a useless comparison for comparing the resolution of a lens for a subject at a fixed distance away - the target is 50% further away at 600 vs 400mm in the TDP tests. I have posted images of the iso chart taken at the same distance away using 400, 500 and 600 mm. The Tamron at 600mm clearly outresolves itself at 400mm.
> ...



For the fun of it, I did a collage of crops of your shots with the 100-400 and some of mine taken at random using the Tamron at 400 and 600mm and the 300/2.8 II + 2XTC. They are all 100% The comparison isn't really fair because yours are on a 600D and mine on a 5DIII. The big white wins hands down, of course. But all the photos are acceptable and enjoyable.


----------



## jasny (Oct 28, 2014)

Canon1 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Plainsman said:
> ...



Well, first take a look at MTF charts for 400 DO II. They are much better than version I, comparable to 300 II etc. So probably Canon has learned a lot about DO.


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 28, 2014)

Nethawk said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > lycan said:
> ...



My combo is slightly soft wide open at f/5.6 and sharp at f/6.3. The Tamron is soft wide open at f/6.3 and sharp at f/8. Do you see the difference?

Regardless, what I want is something SUBSTANTIALLY better than what I have, in both optics and focusing, in a similar size and weight. The Tamron isn't that. It's too long, and too soft/slow (f6.3/f8). If Canon makes a 100-400L replacement, it's likely to be far better optically even with a 1.4x TC attached, and also likely to focus faster and more reliably than the Tamron. Of course, that's several "if's" that we'll have to wait and see to evaluate (if it's real, if it's good optically, if it's fast-focusing).

For now, I'm keeping my current combo, which is equal to or better than the current 100-400L in several ways.


----------



## JonAustin (Oct 28, 2014)

I've been patiently waiting for the 100-400 II for quite a while now. Not overly concerned about the price at launch (I would wait for a "deal" before buying, anyway), and only slightly bummed about the zoom ring / focus ring position rumor.

My use would be as a travel companion to the 24-105. I've considered getting a 2x III converter to mount to my 70-200/2.8 II; that would certainly be less expensive than a new lens, but a 100-400 II would likely be smaller and lighter than that combo. If / when the 100-400 II ever arrives, I will be eagerly looking for 100-400 II vs. 70-200 II + 2x III IQ comparisons.


----------



## meywd (Oct 28, 2014)

AlanF said:


> meywd said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...



indeed and now i really want the 300 f2.8 , i know its not in the same category but at the same price i would like to get the 600mm f4.5 new FD


----------



## dolina (Oct 29, 2014)

Derka derka derka rumor from since forever.

I dont know what's worse the 800mm IS II rumor or the 100-400mm IS II rumor.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 29, 2014)

dolina said:


> I dont know what's worse the 800mm IS II rumor or the 100-400mm IS II rumor.



Consider that 100-400 II rumors predate the launch of the current 800mm f/5.6L IS.


----------



## RGF (Oct 29, 2014)

Canon Rumors said:


> The new design resembles the EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS with a thin focus ring at the base, and a wider zoom ring near the front element. The aperture range for the lens will remain at f/4.5-5.6. Another mentioned feature is in the lens hood for the lens. It sounds like there will be a retractable opening near where a filter would be, so you could turn your circular polarize easily if you needed to.</p>



70-300 is nice compact and sharp zoom. Not up to the 70-200 F2.8 II IS or 200-400 standards but reasonably sharp.

I have wished Canon would extend this lens by 30% on both ends but keep the weight and size down. 

Perhaps it will happen - I can only hope.


----------

