# The Next "L" Lens Announcement Will be the... [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (May 20, 2014)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=16526"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=16526">Tweet</a></div>
<p>We’re told that the next “L” lens Canon announces will likely be the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS replacement. The odds are still on it being announced around the time of the EOS 7D replacement, which we hear is for Photokina, so I we expect an announcement some time in August of this year.</p>
<p>All we’ve heard about the lens is that it will not be push/pull zoom and will be quite a bit more expensive than the current and aging version.</p>
<p><em>One day this lens will be announced…….</em></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## ScottyP (May 20, 2014)

*Re: The Next \*

Wonder what the price will be?


----------



## Lee Jay (May 20, 2014)

*Re: The Next \*

Frankly, it should not cost more than the 70-200/2.8L IS II (which is, indeed, substantially more than the current 100-400L). Hopefully, street price will drop under $2,000 in a year or so like it did with the new 70-200 (when I bought mine).

I hope the new one is solid on the 7D II and with a 1.4x TC. That would be the ultimate in easily hand-holdable reach.

I'll keep a possible Tamron 150-600 purchase on hold until we find out.


----------



## rrcphoto (May 20, 2014)

*Re: The Next \*



ScottyP said:


> Wonder what the price will be?



well we can usually tell by history somewhat.

the 100-400L was released at 260000Y 16 years ago highly unlikely it will be cheaper than this value.

the 70-200 2.8 L II IS was released at 300000 yen 4 years ago. probably more likely a little more around here or even more.

the 70-200 IS II 2.8 was released at a USD MSRP of 2499. I can't see it being substantially less then this.


----------



## JorritJ (May 20, 2014)

*Re: The Next \*

I will believe it when I see it ...

Still, what is the attraction of releasing it at Photokina? A lot of tech releases have moved away from the show schedule. I would think that June would be the optimal date to release a 7D2+100-400, and sell it to every single summer-holiday-safari goer in the world.


----------



## Dylan777 (May 20, 2014)

*Re: The Next \*

$3499....same IQ as 200-400mm


----------



## eml58 (May 20, 2014)

*Re: The Next \*



Dylan777 said:


> $3499....same IQ as 200-400mm



There will be a lot of 200-400f/4 Lenses going cheap if this was the case 

I think the 3.5k price Tag is pretty well ballpark though, the Nikon 80-400f/4.5 is selling for around 2.7k so you can safely bet the Canon will be close to 1k more expensive, be worth it as well if they can maintain a constant f/4.

Would work perfectly on the 1DMK IV.


----------



## Lee Jay (May 20, 2014)

*Re: The Next \*



eml58 said:


> ...be worth it as well if they can maintain a constant f/4.



You realize how nutty that request is? It would be bigger (and more expensive) than the 200-400/4.


----------



## Orangutan (May 20, 2014)

*Re: The Next \*



Lee Jay said:


> eml58 said:
> 
> 
> > ...be worth it as well if they can maintain a constant f/4.
> ...



Not if it's an EF-S L 8)


----------



## Don Haines (May 20, 2014)

*Re: The Next \*



eml58 said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > $3499....same IQ as 200-400mm
> ...



The 70-200F4IS has about the same IQ as the 70-200F2.8IS
The 24-70F4IS has almost the same IQ as the 24-70F2.8

So a 100-400F5.6 (no internal teleconverter) could very well have the same IQ as the 200-400F4....

But however you slice it, it will not be inexpensive.


----------



## jrista (May 20, 2014)

*Re: The Next \*



Don Haines said:


> eml58 said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...



Your comparing midrange L lenses to each other. The Canon great white superteles are in an entirely different class, there isn't any kind of comparison to be made between any one of the 70-200's and even the 200mm or 300mm great white Ls, let alone the 100-400 L II and the 200-400 L.

It's highly unlikely that a midrange L-series lens that costs anywhere between $2000 and $3500 will have the same IQ as the $10,000 200-400 L. It just ain't going to happen. The longer zoom range alone is going to dictate that it won't happen. The extra 100mm of focal length is going to put additional stress at some other focal length (it's all tradeoffs, either less zoom range but better IQ across the range, or more zoom range with IQ losses somewhere), and for Canon to make it true "supertele" quality would mean it would HAVE to cost at least as much as if not MORE than the 200-400 (even without a built-in TC).


----------



## sanj (May 20, 2014)

*Re: The Next \*



Dylan777 said:


> $3499....same IQ as 200-400mm



Wishes!!


----------



## AvTvM (May 20, 2014)

*Re: The Next \*



Dylan777 said:


> $3499....same IQ as 200-400mm



+1 ;-)

And, hey Canon: don't bother to build a 1.4x TC into this one ... we've got a TcC already. Just make the lens constant f/2.8, small, light, cheap and high-IQ. 
Lol. 



Golden unicorn with crystal horn!


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 20, 2014)

*Re: The Next \*



Orangutan said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > eml58 said:
> ...


 
Show us your calculations. A 100-400mm ef-s lens is not going to be noticeably smaller or cheaper, just because its EF-s, because the front element size is set by the f/4 aperture , EF-s only matters for wide angle lenses. That's why we do not have 400mm ef-s lenses, they are the same size and cost.


----------



## Chaitanya (May 20, 2014)

*Re: The Next \*

so just in time to photograph a snowman riding an unicorn.


----------



## rs (May 20, 2014)

*Re: The Next \*



Orangutan said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > eml58 said:
> ...


The smaller imaging circle doesn't reduce the physical size of the lens when the angle of view is narrower than 45 degrees (longer than 50mm in FF terms).

A 400/4 lens requires an entrance pupil that's exactly 100mm in diameter. That means the front element cannot be any smaller than 100mm, regardless of the imaging circle size. Add in the complexities of a zoom and IS, and you've got a full size 200-400.


----------



## 9VIII (May 20, 2014)

*Re: The Next \*



Orangutan said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > eml58 said:
> ...



(Grr I was typing the same response at the same time. Oh well)

Lens specifications essentially list the physical dimensions of the lens. The reason people say "crop sensor lenses are awesome because they're so small" is that they're pretending that the crop factor is the same as using a longer lens on a larger sensor.
The kind of lens you're thinking of is the EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM.
Of course making that in a constant f4 design doesn't gain you anything compared to using a 100-400f5.6 on full frame, and more likely you lose performance overall.


----------



## greger (May 20, 2014)

*Re: The Next \*

So Canon is going to release 2 unicorns at Photokina. At the end of summer for us in the Northern Hemisphere, means
poor timing. I will get to read the reviews with envy. What I have will have to serve my needs till the prices reach a
level that my Banker can accept. Oh Well!


----------



## eml58 (May 20, 2014)

*Re: The Next \*



Lee Jay said:


> eml58 said:
> 
> 
> > ...be worth it as well if they can maintain a constant f/4.
> ...



Ummm, Oooook, I was being.....facetious ?? attempting humour ?? it's an Aussie thing.

I understand on CR that sometimes, as in this case, doesn't work, I'll endeavour in future to be more serious, more in line with all the other very serious viewpoints that get Posted on CR from time to time, in among the more serious viewpoints, naturally.

And on a more semi serious note, a 100-400f/4 Lens with the IQ of the 200-400f/4, shouldn't be any larger, or more expensive than the attached, seems like a Bargain at $27k, well, except for the cost of the 2 Sherpas you would need to cart the thing around for you.


----------



## TrabimanUK (May 20, 2014)

*Re: The Next \*

Yay! new 100-400! 

Yay! 7D 2! 

Booo! Photokina? September? Really?

Price? Whatever. It'll be expensive in the UK and cheap in the USA, probably $ for £, but might help to knock the price of the existing one down a bit.

I appreciate that this might be a bit hemisphereist, but September is almost winter up here in the northern hemisphere. A release before then would be sooo much better


----------



## tron (May 20, 2014)

*Re: The Next \*



JorritJ said:


> I will believe it when I see it ...
> 
> Still, what is the attraction of releasing it at Photokina? A lot of tech releases have moved away from the show schedule. I would think that June would be the optimal date to release a 7D2+100-400, and sell it to every single summer-holiday-safari goer in the world.


+1 on both. We read about the 100-400 replacement for years. And indeed it would be better if it was released before the summer. But it is a mythical lens ;D (and it will be released before ... some summer anyway, we just don't know which summer)


----------



## lycan (May 20, 2014)

*Re: The Next \*

Can a substitute change the focal distances? A 150-500mm would be even better than a 100-400mm, since there is a 150-600mm from Tamron and people that have a FF really need reach under $7.000;D


----------



## Sabaki (May 20, 2014)

*Re: The Next \*

If it can match or outperform the 400mm f/5.6 at the 400mm end, I may just convert. 

Let's hope that it doesn't hit the $3000 mark though :-/


----------



## Sabaki (May 20, 2014)

*Re: The Next \*



eml58 said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > eml58 said:
> ...



lol! Yes, very serious cats on this forum


----------



## TrabimanUK (May 20, 2014)

*Re: The Next \*



Chaitanya said:


> so just in time to photograph a snowman riding an unicorn.



Snowmen don't ride unicorns. They fly.


----------



## Lightmaster (May 20, 2014)

*Re: The Next \*



TrabimanUK said:


> Chaitanya said:
> 
> 
> > so just in time to photograph a snowman riding an unicorn.
> ...




sownmen neither fly or ride.. they have no feet nor wings.
they teleport.


----------



## dufflover (May 20, 2014)

*Re: The Next *

Since we're all throwing out guess, I estimate release price of about $2800 AUS (including the "screw you down under tax") with image quality equal to about a 70-200 II IS ... which is still pretty damn sharp even if it doesn't technically match a super telephoto on paper.
Then settling down to low $2000's.


----------



## Synkka (May 20, 2014)

*Re: The Next \*

So $3200 at teds hey dufflover haha

I think quality will be very similar to the 70-300L and $3000 launch dropping to $2500 after a while


----------



## Plainsman (May 20, 2014)

*Re: The Next \*

If it is an extender zoom like the new Nikon that will not be good news - prone to knock damage causing optics misalignment.

The Canon 100-400 is a very strong robust design. Keep that or give us an internal focus optic ie a scaled up version of the 70-200 please Mr Canon.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (May 20, 2014)

*Re: The Next \*



JorritJ said:


> I will believe it when I see it ...
> 
> Still, what is the attraction of releasing it at Photokina? A lot of tech releases have moved away from the show schedule. I would think that June would be the optimal date to release a 7D2+100-400, and sell it to every single summer-holiday-safari goer in the world.



Unfortunately, Canon's production isn't as market friendly as that. Otherwise, the 5DIII would have been released before the wedding season started....but it didn't and that was that. This lens, like giving birth to a baby will be out when it's good and ready and there is nothing we can do about it other than wait, hope and dream. In the mean time...there are always ducks to photograph.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (May 20, 2014)

*Re: The Next \*



Plainsman said:


> If it is an extender zoom like the new Nikon that will not be good news - prone to knock damage causing optics misalignment.
> 
> The Canon 100-400 is a very strong robust design. Keep that or give us an internal focus optic ie a scaled up version of the 70-200 please Mr Canon.



Push Pull designs are a great design and solve a number of technical issues....but there are two issues in the modern market. 1) racked out to maximum zoom, the centre of gravity drastically changes and 2) it's nearly impossible to use with video, you just can't make a follow focus system which moves with the end of the lens barrel.


----------



## dufflover (May 20, 2014)

*Re: The Next *

A 100-400mm permanently the size/length of a 100-400mm is a no-no for me. The fact it folds up into a 70-200mm size is one of the very reasons I re-bought a 100-400.

I like push-pull but I concede any new lens is going to be a twist zoom so it will be interesting to how Canon implements this and at what general size or handling changes go with it.


----------



## scyrene (May 20, 2014)

*Re: The Next \*



TrabimanUK said:


> Yay! new 100-400!
> 
> Yay! 7D 2!
> 
> ...



Can I just ask, given how a few people have said this, what is it you'd want to be photographing in the summer? Sport? If you're talking about wildlife, midsummer is generally the slack season (especially for birds) - autumn migration is, however, a great time to put a new lens through its paces


----------



## tron (May 20, 2014)

*Re: The Next \*



scyrene said:


> TrabimanUK said:
> 
> 
> > Yay! new 100-400!
> ...


if it is announced in photokina (any photokina) it means that the lens will not be available during that autumn


----------



## scyrene (May 20, 2014)

*Re: The Next \*



tron said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > TrabimanUK said:
> ...



What's the lag time? There's always the spring migration season next year 

Seriously, the best time for birds (in N Europe) is any time *but* midsummer.


----------



## vlim (May 20, 2014)

*Re: The Next \*

i want one copy only if it's an inner zoom (like the 70-200s...) and a f/4 - 5.6 (like its little bro the 70-300 L)


----------



## Lee Jay (May 20, 2014)

*Re: The Next \*



scyrene said:


> Can I just ask, given how a few people have said this, what is it you'd want to be photographing in the summer?



Air shows.


----------



## Don Haines (May 20, 2014)

*Re: The Next \*



Lee Jay said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > Can I just ask, given how a few people have said this, what is it you'd want to be photographing in the summer?
> ...



Canoe trips. Baby ducklings. Labrador. Nova Scotia. Fluffy the cat. Flowers. Thunderstorms. Night skies.


----------



## tron (May 20, 2014)

*Re: The Next \*



Don Haines said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > scyrene said:
> ...


Landscapes, ancient ruins, night sky, ducks.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 20, 2014)

*Re: The Next \*



tron said:


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



ISO 12233 charts.


----------



## dstppy (May 20, 2014)

*Re: The Next \*



neuroanatomist said:


> ISO 12233 charts.



That's only a problem for you city-folk. You just get a 'nuisance permit' and you're allowed to shoot ISO 12233 charts out of season here.

Heck, people are always running them over with their cars, you're doing them a service. :


----------



## preppyak (May 20, 2014)

*Re: The Next \*



scyrene said:


> What's the lag time? There's always the spring migration season next year


Well, the 16-35 and 10-18 were just announced at the start of May, and with zero delays, they release on June 30th. So, 2 months. Might be even longer if they are announcing the 100-400 and 7dII at the same time. With an August announcement, it'd appear late October at the earliest, more likely November. Any price drops would be next spring.


----------



## MichaelHodges (May 20, 2014)

*Re: The Next \*

Would love to see Canon release wildlife lenses in winter/spring so we can put them through their paces before the big fall shoot.

Very interested in this lens.


----------



## jasonsim (May 20, 2014)

*Re: The Next \*

I was really hoping for something special before the WorldCup, but I guess Canon believes the best stuff is already available to cover the games. I'm sure many would have like to put the 7D II through its paces there. 100-400mm II would have also been lovely on the 7D II to cover the matches.


----------



## Dylan777 (May 20, 2014)

*Re: The Next \*



eml58 said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > $3499....same IQ as 200-400mm
> ...



I was on 2nd bottle of red


----------



## AcutancePhotography (May 20, 2014)

*Re: The Next \*



Canon Rumors said:


> will be quite a bit more expensive than the current and aging version.</p>



I fear that this is the only part of the rumour that we can count on. :-\


----------



## rrcphoto (May 20, 2014)

*Re: The Next \*



TrabimanUK said:


> Yay! new 100-400!
> 
> Yay! 7D 2!
> 
> ...



most major releases by canon and also nikon are done in august.


----------



## rrcphoto (May 20, 2014)

*Re: The Next \*



AcutancePhotography said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > will be quite a bit more expensive than the current and aging version.</p>
> ...



it should be .. the original MSRP of the 100-400L is around 2300 USD or so.

it's been in manufacturing for 16 years, all the R&D costs have been amortized and paid off long time ago.


----------



## randybsc (May 20, 2014)

*Re: The Next \*

I first rented the 100-400 lens about 4 years ago for rugby. Really fell in love with the lens. Kept hearing about the new lens that was "about to be released" so I waited. I have waited for so many years I am pretty sure if the price is a typical Canon price then I will just drop this as a must lens for me. I will have to try out the tamron 150-600 instead. I am not a pro, so if I get a decent quality build I would be fine with the images that I have seen released. I know tons of professionals never buy non Canon lenses for their cameras. Maybe canon is fine with that, with their current price structure however they will miss out on a large market for their lenses.


----------



## dolina (May 20, 2014)

*Re: The Next \*

What about the 135/2 and 400/5.6 replacements?


----------



## thedman (May 20, 2014)

*Re: The Next \*

January 30, 2009.


----------



## Daniel Flather (May 20, 2014)

*Re: The Next \*



thedman said:


> January 30, 2009.




Best part on that page:

EF 200-400 f/4L IS
This seems to be a lens a lot of people would like, I just don’t think a lot of those people would pony up the * $4K-$5K * it would cost. I haven’t heard any rumor about such a lens being in development.


----------



## MTL18 (May 20, 2014)

*Re: The Next \*



randybsc said:


> I first rented the 100-400 lens about 4 years ago for rugby. Really fell in love with the lens. Kept hearing about the new lens that was "about to be released" so I waited. I have waited for so many years I am pretty sure if the price is a typical Canon price then I will just drop this as a must lens for me. I will have to try out the tamron 150-600 instead. I am not a pro, so if I get a decent quality build I would be fine with the images that I have seen released. I know tons of professionals never buy non Canon lenses for their cameras. Maybe canon is fine with that, with their current price structure however they will miss out on a large market for their lenses.



I will be waiting for comparisons of these 2 lenses myself before spending a penny. I am also an amateur, and the $1250.00 price tag (CDN) of the Tamron makes it very attractive. I'd be surprised if the new Canon is below $2500 so it would have to be phenomenally better to overshadow both cost and extra reach which favours the Tamron.


----------



## rrcphoto (May 20, 2014)

*Re: The Next \*



MTL18 said:


> randybsc said:
> 
> 
> > I first rented the 100-400 lens about 4 years ago for rugby. Really fell in love with the lens. Kept hearing about the new lens that was "about to be released" so I waited. I have waited for so many years I am pretty sure if the price is a typical Canon price then I will just drop this as a must lens for me. I will have to try out the tamron 150-600 instead. I am not a pro, so if I get a decent quality build I would be fine with the images that I have seen released. I know tons of professionals never buy non Canon lenses for their cameras. Maybe canon is fine with that, with their current price structure however they will miss out on a large market for their lenses.
> ...



canon's never worried about that in the past, and i doubt they will start.

you pay for better QA, support and service.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 20, 2014)

*Re: The Next \*



Lee Jay said:


> eml58 said:
> 
> 
> > ...be worth it as well if they can maintain a constant f/4.
> ...



Yeah again and again I see comments where people are like I hate variable aperture zooms, that is not fitting for L, they need to just make them constant aperture. OK, then how do you like your f/5.6 to f/5.6 100-400L II then! 

People just don't seem to get that you can't just magically decide to make something maintain f/4 or f/2.8 or whatnot. The only way to do it to make a DIFFERENT, much larger and heavier (well baring DO type weirdo technology ;D) lens. If you see a variable aperture zoom, be thankful! Since the only other option was to just decided to not let it access a faster aperture at the wider end or to have cut off range at the long end and say produced a 16-30 f/4 instead of a 16-30-50 f/4 to f4 to f/5.6.


----------



## Sabaki (May 20, 2014)

*Re: The Next \*

Is Canon's pricing of the recently released Canon E-FS 10-18 and Canon EF 16-35 f/4.0 and indicator of things to come? 
Perhaps a realization that the way cheaper third party lenses are decent enough performers to drive their prices down?
Let's see what pricing pattern the next few releases bring.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 20, 2014)

*Re: The Next \*



GMCPhotographics said:


> JorritJ said:
> 
> 
> > I will believe it when I see it ...
> ...



Yeah the Canon release schedule often works out a mess for those in the seasonal parts of the Northern hemisphere (where actually most of their buyers are). Fall is still a pretty big season here, but they started shifting the August released until late Novemember by which time oh great so now after even fall sports are pretty much over, fall weddings are pretty much over, fall foliage is pretty much over, big summer trips to cool scenic places are over.... now when there is no urgency at all to get any new equipment, NOW is the time you release??????? Do they really think the big cameras and glass are Christmas stocking stuffer type items??

I was hoping they had come to their sense with the 5D3 (spring release) but now it just seems that was just a mistake where the troubles caused it to have to have been pushed back from originally scheduled ultra late fall release.

I really don't get their sense of timing.

The one plus side is it does let one more easily just wait half a year at that point until next spring by which time some of the early adopter pricing has worn off. But you'd think that would be the LAST thing they'd want. Don't they get that if they put it out in the spring or summer that they will lure in people to nab it at full release price because they want some new equipment right before their huge summer trip or the new wedding season or for the summer league and fall sports shooting seasons or at least the fall foliage vacation? Those are the sorts of things that can lure people into getting suckered into full intro pricing. ;D


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 20, 2014)

*Re: The Next \*



GMCPhotographics said:


> JorritJ said:
> 
> 
> > I will believe it when I see it ...
> ...



Actualky the 5D3 was one of their only recent releases where the timing ended up making any sense at all, Yeah not quite in time for all of the wedding season, but at least in time for a decent chunk of it and for all the summer vacation, fall sports.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 20, 2014)

*Re: The Next \*



thedman said:


> January 30, 2009.



oh man
one of the few times CR2 has been totally, utterly wrong


----------



## geonix (May 20, 2014)

*Re: The Next \*

So we will really have to wait for the 7D2 until September?? That is no good rumor to me.  That is still three and half months. But at least I will be able to visit photokina, probably. 

And the worst thing is: the recent days I was really tempted to be really tempted by the 5D Mark III. So Canon's plan to lure people to full frame bodies (the actual reason for the so looong delay of the 7D2) was almost working on me. But I resited. Hear me Canon? I RESISTED! I WILL NOT BUY ANY CANON BODY UNTIL THE 7D2 COMES OUT! ;D


----------



## tron (May 20, 2014)

*Re: The Next \*



Sabaki said:


> Is Canon's pricing of the recently released Canon E-FS 10-18 and Canon EF 16-35 f/4.0 and indicator of things to come?
> Perhaps a realization that the way cheaper third party lenses are decent enough performers to drive their prices down?
> Let's see what pricing pattern the next few releases bring.


16-35 f/4L does not replace 16-35 2.8L II so you cannot say it is cheaper. And, it is more expensive than the 17-40 4L normal since it has better IQ (according to MTF) and IS.
SImilarly 10-18 is a whole stop slower than the 10-22. So you cannot compare prices again.


----------



## sdfreeland (May 20, 2014)

*Re: The Next \*



Sabaki said:


> Is Canon's pricing of the recently released Canon E-FS 10-18 and Canon EF 16-35 f/4.0 and indicator of things to come?
> Perhaps a realization that the way cheaper third party lenses are decent enough performers to drive their prices down?
> Let's see what pricing pattern the next few releases bring.



Those new releases are similar in price to Nikon's offerings. Since the Nikon 80-400mm is about $2700, I imagine the 100-400mm replacement will be similar. If it's more than that I don't see the point. The 100-400mm is already very sharp and a good lens. I can't see spending double the amount of money to get something that is only very slightly better.


----------



## Etienne (May 20, 2014)

*Re: The Next \*

This is a much anticipated lens , and a really popular focal range. If Canon nails this, which they should, and keeps it reasonably priced they'll sell boat-loads of them and make a ton. I'll buy one if it's around US$2000, like the 70-200 f/2.8L II IS


----------



## Etienne (May 20, 2014)

*Re: The Next \*


... a 150-500L would be better though.


----------



## dufflover (May 21, 2014)

*Re: The Next *

The pricing of the new lenses are pretty good (given it's Canon! lol) but I don't think it'll apply for a new 100-400.

There are just more options around the shorter focal lengths whereas I don't think lenses like the Sigma 120-300mm don't even register on their radar as competitors, let alone the cheaper alternatives like the Tamron 150-600 and Sigma 50-500.


----------



## dslrdummy (May 21, 2014)

*Re: The Next \*

My 400 f/5.6 is plenty sharp - did well on safari last year - but would consider upgrading if the new lense has the measure of improvement optically that you would be entitled to expect after all these years. Pleased to hear they are reverting to a conventional zoom. 100-400 and 7Dii should make a great pairing - but that's about the price of a 1DX :-\


----------



## Don Haines (May 21, 2014)

*Re: The Next \*



dslrdummy said:


> My 400 f/5.6 is plenty sharp - did well on safari last year - but would consider upgrading if the new lense has the measure of improvement optically that you would be entitled to expect after all these years. Pleased to hear they are reverting to a conventional zoom. 100-400 and 7Dii should make a great pairing - but that's about the price of a 1DX :-\


The 400F5.6 is definitely sharper than the 100-400. I did a side-side test between them a couple of years ago and the 400F5.6 was noticeably sharper.... My suspicion is that a new 100-400 would be sharper than the 400F5.6, but if they come out with a new 400F5.6 I'll be on it like a fat boy on a wedding cake! For my needs, that would be ultimate combination of reach/portability/quality.


----------



## Canon1 (May 21, 2014)

*Re: The Next \*



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> thedman said:
> 
> 
> > January 30, 2009.
> ...



Not necessarily. That rumor didn't mention that there would be a built in tc. ;-)


----------



## dufflover (May 21, 2014)

*Re: The Next *

I would surprised if Canon were bothered to refresh the 400mm prime (unless to deliberately provide a cheaper alternative) after re-doing the 100-400mm as it is likely going to be plenty sharp. Most of their new lenses, expensive and cheap, have fantastic performance.

Granted that assessment could again change depending what kind of resolution the 7DII ends up sporting to once again "expose the minute flaws" in the sharpness.


----------



## AvTvM (May 21, 2014)

*Re: The Next \*

Canon would make a killing if they'd launch the following 2 lenses asap: 

1. totally new 100-500/4.0-5.6 L IS ... IQ like 70-300 L IS all they way to 500mm and @ 500mm ... fully weathersealed ... current version +4 EV IS ... launch price 3,500

2. improved 400/5.6 ... Latest 4+ stop IS ... full weathersealing ... slightly better IQ ... launch price USD 2,200

It would not really hurt super-tele sales with still higher IQ and features. And it would give all those 5D3 (and 6D) owners 2 good and just "affordable" options, rather than leaving them to Tamron and wait until sigma comes up with a new 150-500 with IS and ART-like IQ at a surprisingly low price. Canon would be smart to preempt that with own "mid-priced L" tele offerings. I doubt they will be. Sigh.


----------



## Maximilian (May 21, 2014)

*Re: The Next \*



Canon Rumors said:


> We’re told that the next “L” lens Canon announces will likely be the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS replacement.


Hooray! Finally the pink unicorn seems to become reality. Will it really…? :-\
I doubt it, until I see it. 


> … it being announced around the time of the EOS 7D replacement, which we hear is for Photokina,


Maybe it will be the Photokina 2016. :-\


> … it will not be push/pull zoom …


Sad! :'(


> … more expensive


Sad! But expected. :'(


> One day this lens will be announced…


Yes! I really (want to) believe in pink unicorns. :-\ Nope! They should stay white.


----------



## Plainsman (May 21, 2014)

*Re: The Next \*



Don Haines said:


> dslrdummy said:
> 
> 
> > My 400 f/5.6 is plenty sharp - did well on safari last year - but would consider upgrading if the new lense has the measure of improvement optically that you would be entitled to expect after all these years. Pleased to hear they are reverting to a conventional zoom. 100-400 and 7Dii should make a great pairing - but that's about the price of a 1DX :-\
> ...




I have to disagree with you there. I've done several tests recently between a new 400/5.6 and my old 100-400 on the 50D with AFMA checks on both and the 100-400 beats the prime on axis every time. The 400/5.6 - the second I have had - will be put up for sale shortly! Maybe your 100-400 was a below par version.

BTW on distant objects say 200m and beyond the image sizes are the same ie the 100-400 gives a true 400 assuming the 400/5.6 does the same.

Get on with it Mr Canon and gives us a new 100-400 with IS2.


----------



## Hillsilly (May 21, 2014)

*Re: The Next \*

With the announcement of the Tamron 150-600 and generally positive reviews, I wonder how much interest there really is in a Canon 100-400 if it came with a serious price jump? Ok, sure it avoids long term compatibility concerns, will likely focus faster, be better built and hopefully will offer better image quality. All of that definitely demands a premium over a third party lens. But how much? I know my main use would be at the longer end and apparently the Tamron does ok up to around 500mm. I'm not sure if the Canon lens would be on many people's radar if it stayed at 400mm and was priced at $2500+ as some are hypothesising.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 21, 2014)

*Re: The Next \*



Hillsilly said:


> With the announcement of the Tamron 150-600 and generally positive reviews, I wonder how much interest there really is in a Canon 100-400 if it came with a serious price jump? Ok, sure it avoids long term compatibility concerns, will likely focus faster, be better built and hopefully will offer better image quality. All of that definitely demands a premium over a third party lens. But how much? I know my main use would be at the longer end and apparently the Tamron does ok up to around 500mm. I'm not sure if the Canon lens would be on many people's radar if it stayed at 400mm and was priced at $2500+ as some are hypothesising.



Compared to the Tamron 150-600, the 100-400L is over 1 lb. lighter, close to 3" shorter, and delivers similar IQ through the overlapping range. An updated 100-400L would be similar in size, deliver much better IQ, and that would put it on many people's radar, even at $2500+.


----------



## 278204 (May 21, 2014)

*Re: The Next \*



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> I really don't get their sense of timing.
> 
> The one plus side is it does let one more easily just wait half a year at that point until next spring by which time some of the early adopter pricing has worn off. But you'd think that would be the LAST thing they'd want. Don't they get that if they put it out in the spring or summer that they will lure in people to nab it at full release price because they want some new equipment right before their huge summer trip or the new wedding season or for the summer league and fall sports shooting seasons or at least the fall foliage vacation? Those are the sorts of things that can lure people into getting suckered into full intro pricing. ;D



Does it really make that much of a difference to them? Are that many early adopters and does the price tail off so quickly in 6 months? Presumably this is a model that is going to stay around for 10 years or so.

I think it's good that companies bring out a product when it's ready and neither rush or delay it to fit in with the market.


----------



## Plainsman (May 21, 2014)

*Re: The Next \*



neuroanatomist said:


> Hillsilly said:
> 
> 
> > With the announcement of the Tamron 150-600 and generally positive reviews, I wonder how much interest there really is in a Canon 100-400 if it came with a serious price jump? Ok, sure it avoids long term compatibility concerns, will likely focus faster, be better built and hopefully will offer better image quality. All of that definitely demands a premium over a third party lens. But how much? I know my main use would be at the longer end and apparently the Tamron does ok up to around 500mm. I'm not sure if the Canon lens would be on many people's radar if it stayed at 400mm and was priced at $2500+ as some are hypothesising.
> ...




.....and Canon quality control must be a lot better than the made in China Tamron. 
With the T you might be lucky to get a good one but then you might not...


----------



## dufflover (May 21, 2014)

*Re: The Next *

That's the classic rubbish line about the 3rd party. You can just as easily get a dud Canon or Nikon. You could make a fuss with the exact numbers but unless there is something inherently wrong with the design then "in practice" it is not particularly more likely than the other.

People have had bad 100-400s. I think mine is pretty good compared against the 400 prime I borrowed once (behind but not too far)


----------



## rrcphoto (May 21, 2014)

*Re: The Next \*



Sabaki said:


> Is Canon's pricing of the recently released Canon E-FS 10-18 and Canon EF 16-35 f/4.0 and indicator of things to come?
> Perhaps a realization that the way cheaper third party lenses are decent enough performers to drive their prices down?
> Let's see what pricing pattern the next few releases bring.



it's probably due to with a falling yen more than anything. i doubt canon cares what third party lenses sell at, as that would happen in the design goals way before they get this far.


----------



## Mr_Canuck (May 21, 2014)

*Re: The Next \*

What about the 50 or 85mm IS fast prime? Huh? Hmm? :


----------



## DigitalDivide (May 21, 2014)

*Re: The Next *



dufflover said:


> That's the classic rubbish line about the 3rd party. You can just as easily get a dud Canon or Nikon. You could make a fuss with the exact numbers but unless there is something inherently wrong with the design then "in practice" it is not particularly more likely than the other.



It is not just a question of a good or bad design, although any designer of volume products worth his or her salt will try to minimize the sensitivity of the design to manufacturing variations. The extent to which the manufacturers are able to optimize their process control will play a big part in how likely you are to end up with a dud.

A company which maintains tight control over the materials, assembly equipment, manufacturing processes and externally sourced components will be able to minimize the percentage of out of tolerance products coming off the line. By controlling their test processes they can also ensure that most of the duds get rejected. This is what the science of process control is all about, and big companies like Canon take this very seriously. Not only does it improve the quality of their products, allowing them to charge higher prices, it also saves them money in failures and rework.

Even if two companies share a design, the quality from one may be very different from the other. An example which was quoted in a marketing class I took many years ago featured a gearbox that was built by both Mazda and Ford, who had (and I think still have) significant design sharing agreements. According to the class, Mazda's quality metrics were 8 times better than Ford's for the manufacture of an identical product. (I'm not bashing Ford by the way - this example is several decades out of date, so has little relevance today.) I don't have any hard data to compare Canon's quality with Tamron's, but I would disagree that the quality of the design trumps the manufacturing methods used to build it.


----------



## mrzero (May 21, 2014)

*Re: The Next \*



Mr_Canuck said:


> What about the 50 or 85mm IS fast prime? Huh? Hmm? :



Well, technically, they wouldn't be L lenses, so the rumor isn't contradictory. But they sure are overdue given how long it's been since the 35 was announced.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 22, 2014)

*Re: The Next *



DigitalDivide said:


> dufflover said:
> 
> 
> > That's the classic rubbish line about the 3rd party. You can just as easily get a dud Canon or Nikon. You could make a fuss with the exact numbers but unless there is something inherently wrong with the design then "in practice" it is not particularly more likely than the other.
> ...



I recall that once upon a time Leica was kinda trashing Canon, saying yeah they may have great theoretical MTF charts for many designs, but look at the designs, no way they can get a decent enough number of copies come close to the ideal chart build, their designs for a number of lenses require way too fine tolerances, especially for Canon who doesn't test each piece and lens individually.


----------



## jrista (May 22, 2014)

*Re: The Next *



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> DigitalDivide said:
> 
> 
> > dufflover said:
> ...



Only a lens bench test is going to tell you for sure. In that respect, LensRentals tests of Canon lenses indicate that for Canon's more recent lens designs, the quality of each model tends to be tightly clustered towards the highly performing end. There are outliers, but they tend to be pretty rare and far between. That indicates that Canon's manufacturing for lenses DOES keep most copies within tolerance. That goes not only for optical performance, but for AF performance as well (which LensRentals has also tested.)

Leica can *say* all they want. Maybe before the current generation of lenses, it may have been true. Empirically today, however, Canon lenses generally live up to the hype.


----------



## lescrane (May 22, 2014)

*Re: The Next \*



randybsc said:


> I first rented the 100-400 lens about 4 years ago for rugby. Really fell in love with the lens. Kept hearing about the new lens that was "about to be released" so I waited. I have waited for so many years I am pretty sure if the price is a typical Canon price then I will just drop this as a must lens for me. I will have to try out the tamron 150-600 instead. I am not a pro, so if I get a decent quality build I would be fine with the images that I have seen released. I know tons of professionals never buy non Canon lenses for their cameras. Maybe canon is fine with that, with their current price structure however they will miss out on a large market for their lenses.



Good post. A year ago I would have lined up to spend 2K'ish on the alleged 100-400 L replacement. Maybe I would have gotten better IQ than on the old one which I sold but I'd still be limited to 400mm for bird shots and would still be shooting only ducks and herons

So I took a chance on the Tamzooka by preordering. It wasn't to save $$ really. I have thousands of shots I never would have gotten before. At 400mm, even 500, my subjective eval says....it's a tie w/the old Canon 100-400. Now that I can shoot smaller birds, I'm at 600mm most of the time, and yes, I keep it on F8, need to bump up my ISO to 800 or 1250 depending on light. I have no problems w/autofocus, etc

I realize that the 100-400 is used for subjects other than birds...eg sports, other wildlife etc and that a real sharp one might be worth paying double the cost of the Tamzooka. The only thing I would pay a premium for is 
compactness...someone comes out w/a D.O. lens in the 200 500 range...that doesnt weigh a ton. Of course, judging by the cost of the 400 DO, it would cost more than a BMW>>>>>


----------



## wickidwombat (May 25, 2014)

*Re: The Next \*

Tamzooka 

I love it hahaha


----------

