# waiting for a new 100-400mm lens



## leecheeyee (Apr 26, 2012)

, do anybody know when it releases?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 26, 2012)

Well, if you were to believe in rumors, it released five years ago, maybe more. Its been rumored as being imminent at least that long.


----------



## birdman (Apr 26, 2012)

I don't know if it is going to be replaced, honestly. They went "L" status on the 70-300, and came out with the 200-400L (at least it's been announced). 

If I was on the fence, and needed that long of a lens, I would just find a "cheap" 100-400. Or get the 70-300L


----------



## leecheeyee (Apr 27, 2012)

In FF camera, 300mm is not enough is some scenario. I don't like the IS function of the old version. There are only one class protection. Mostly, the old one is designed for film camera not for digital camera. About 200-400mm f/4. I like, but only care for the price. It would be more than 4000USD, it is out of my business.


----------



## Aaron78 (Apr 27, 2012)

Actually, the 200-400 1.4x is rumored to be over $11,000 which is ridiculous.


----------



## DavidRiesenberg (Apr 27, 2012)

Aaron78 said:


> Actually, the 200-400 1.4x is rumored to be over $11,000 which is ridiculous.



But not unexpected from Canon.

Maybe it is just a marketing ploy for all of us to marvel at the bargain when it sells for $9000.


----------



## sublime LightWorks (Apr 27, 2012)

birdman said:


> I don't know if it is going to be replaced, honestly. They went "L" status on the 70-300, and came out with the 200-400L (at least it's been announced).
> 
> If I was on the fence, and needed that long of a lens, I would just find a "cheap" 100-400. Or get the 70-300L



Copied the following from another thread where I posted some info on the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS L. Keep in mind many of these will likely apply to the rumored 100-400mm f/4-5.6 IS L, except, hopefully the focus/zoom ring reversal design of the 70-300. The 70-300L has a lot of positives, the section below talks about the negatives. This was originally written in context of a comparison with the 70-200 f/4 + 1.4x:

************************

Negatives on the 70-300mm:

1) slower aperture - yes, if you need the extra stops, this won't be the right lens. However, I've shot this at weddings and receptions with and without flash at ISO's up to 3200 on a 7D without issue. The reach on a 7D in a church or outdoor wedding outweighs the slower aperture when you need focal length.

2) The zoom and manual focus rings are reversed on this lens when compared to the 70-200, the 24-70, the 24-105, 16-35, etc..... In other words, the far ring is the zoom, the near ring is the manual focus. This is frustrating, for one, it breaks what you've learned to do with the zoom ring as you find yourself reaching for the wrong ring at times. Second, it makes you extend your arm further from your body, leading to a more unstable stance when shooting. I like to keep my arm close and tight to solidify my stance. On the 70-300 you have to move your arm further out to handle the zoom ring. It's a PITA, I have no idea why Canon did that. It's the #1 reason I could dump the lens if a new 100-400mm f/4-5.6 IS L were to appear.

3) The hood, filter mount and lens extension....the hood "looks" cheap....no fancy tulip design, it's a straight up barrel. It just looks dumpy...but it works. The filter mount is 67mm which means it does not fit the filters I use with the 70-200mm or several other lenses I have...so if you use polarizers or ND's, just know you might be buying more to fit it. Note the lens is not internal focus and extends 2.11" at 300mm full zoom.

4) Variable aperture - you need to account for that in your exposures, especially when shooting in manual mode and tracking/zooming in-out at the same time. The lens max apertures by natural focal length (unadjusted for crop 1.6x body) are:

f/4.0: 70-103mm
f/4.5: 104-154mm
f/5.0: 155-228mm
f/5.6: 229-300mm

**********************

Overall, if you want a solid, light weight, and sharp solution, the 70-300mm is a great choice, assuming you can deal with the reversed focus/zoom rings (god I hate that!!!).

I bought it to use on the 5D3 and the 1Dx in order to recover some of the focal length lost on a full frame body, when compared with the reach the 7D had with the 70-200mm. I'm selling my 5D2 and my 7D once I have the 1Dx in and I've become comfortable with the 5D3. 

I wanted to recover some reach I'll lose when the 7D is gone, and I didn't want to have to rely on the 1.4x extender on the tele-zooms all the time. I didn't want the current 100-400mm and with no new version of that in sight yet, it came down to either this lens or the 300mm f/4 IS L prime and the 1.4x tele-extender III that I own. The zoom proved to be much more flexible for the same cost and overall sharpness.

If a new 100-400mm f/4-5.6 IS L comes out and does not have this dumb focus/zoom ring reversal, that would be the one reason I would sell this lens, however I would have to believe a new version of the 100-400mm would run about $2600 and not be available until 18 months after announcing it, given Canon's recent trends.


----------



## HaveVoid (Apr 27, 2012)

You can add me to the list of people that hope this lens will finally become a reality. I have heard fantastic things about the 70-300L though, but the loss of that last 100mm would be felt as I shoot primarily aviation.

More than anything, I hope the new 100-400 (if it happens) is just a bit more consistent. Some days, mine is fantastic, and then suddenly its soft, and then tack sharp again


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 27, 2012)

Aaron78 said:


> Actually, the 200-400 1.4x is rumored to be over $11,000 which is ridiculous.



It is a big heavy lens too, heavier than the 300 f/2.8. It is not on my list after having tried it - and I am a sucker for large whites


----------



## nitsujwalker (Apr 28, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Aaron78 said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, the 200-400 1.4x is rumored to be over $11,000 which is ridiculous.
> ...



the 11,000 dollar pricetag is more of a deterrent than the size for me!


----------



## Aaron78 (Apr 29, 2012)

Deterrent? More like a swift kick to the grapes!


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 29, 2012)

Aaron78 said:


> Deterrent? More like a swift kick to the grapes!



Does a kick in the grapes make people whine?

: : :


----------



## nitsujwalker (Apr 29, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Aaron78 said:
> 
> 
> > Deterrent? More like a swift kick to the grapes!
> ...



HA!! NICE.


----------



## akiskev (Apr 29, 2012)

sublime LightWorks said:


> Note the lens is not internal focus and extends 2.11" at 300mm full zoom.


It has internal focusing, but it extends when you zoom. Two different things!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 29, 2012)

sublime LightWorks said:


> ....the hood "looks" cheap....no fancy tulip design, it's a straight up barrel. It just looks dumpy...but it works.



That's a negative? So...you'd prefer a 'cooler' looking hood to one that's designed for optimal optical parformance? Let me guess - in that other thread, you listed the cool-looking distinctive white color of the lens as an advantage, right? (note that because the lens has no fluorite elements, there's no reason - other than 'cool-looking' aka marketing - for the lens to be white)



sublime LightWorks said:


> I didn't want the current 100-400mm and with no new version of that in sight yet



Why no interest in the current 100-400mm? IMO, it's a very good lens. Could it use an update, especially the IS system? Yes, but it's certainly no slouch optically (it bests the 300/4 IS + 1.4x).


----------



## leecheeyee (Apr 29, 2012)

the old 100-400 version is old design for film age. The IS function only supports 1 class protection. The pull- push focus is easy to dusted. Further more, there is no water resistance design. So, how can I take this lens in Africa jungle such as in Kenna, Nigeria take photo?
I can accept new version price around 1200USD~1500USD. Let's expect it.


----------



## leecheeyee (Apr 29, 2012)

leecheeyee said:


> the old 100-400 version is old design for film age. The IS function only supports 1 class protection. The pull- push focus is easy to dusted. Further more, there is no water resistance design. So, how can I take this lens in Africa jungle such as in Kenna, Nigeria take photo?
> I can accept new version price around 1200USD~1500USD. Let's expect it.




Even the price up to 2500USD, I think it is ok. There are some photo which toke in Dubai. I thank I would do my photographer favour in my sparetime as well as I can.

www.flickr.com/photos/leecheeyee


----------



## tron (Apr 29, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Well, if you were to believe in rumors, it released five years ago, maybe more. Its been rumored as being imminent at least that long.



I was about to write something similar but you did first ;D ;D ;D


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 29, 2012)

leecheeyee said:


> the old 100-400 version is old design for film age. The IS function only supports 1 class protection. The pull- push focus is easy to dusted. Further more, there is no water resistance design. So, how can I take this lens in Africa jungle such as in Kenna, Nigeria take photo?
> I can accept new version price around 1200USD~1500USD. Let's expect it.



FWIW, the 100-400mm has water/dust sealing at the zoom extension and under the switches - it lacks only the mount gasket for full sealing (the similarly-designed 28-300L has the gasket, and is a 'weather-sealed' lens). 

I didn't have a dSLR the last time I went to Kenya, Tanzania, and Rwanda, but if I go back, I'd bring the current 100-400mm with no hesitation. 

A new version will likely cost north of $2500.


----------



## leecheeyee (Apr 29, 2012)

Now, I am traveling in Nigeria. The wet day is easy to destroy your luxurious lens. If nothing happens, it would ok. But nobody can guarantee no accident happen. For example, when you go out from an indoor cold environment, into a warm wet outdoor area, you would find your lens covers foggy. It would probably be wrecked without water-sealed.


----------



## smirkypants (Apr 29, 2012)

I wholeheartedly agree with Neuro on the dust issue. As long as someone doesn't use the phrase "dust-pump" I promise to remain calm. I've taken my 100-400 to hell and back and there's no dust in it. I've shot in a dust storm pumping like mad. Nada. No dust.

I don't necessarily agree with Neuro on the image quality issue. I find it rather dodgy, especially on the long end. Also, the lens needs a LOT of light. This is purely my experience so, you know, who knows if it's generalizable, but I did an experiment with my 100-400 and a 70-200+2x converter. I set both to auto ISO and shot the same thing, and generally the 100-400 shot at a higher ISO, usually 1/3 stop but sometimes 2/3, even though both were 5.6.

Of course who the hell knows what was really going on. There are a lot of possible variables and I'm not a tech guy as much as an art guy.


----------



## keithfullermusic (Apr 29, 2012)

I have a 50D and the 100-400, so I can offer some insight.

First, I had to micro adjust mine +6, and that made a huge difference right off the bat. Still, it is soft wide open at the 400 range. But, if you put it at f/7.1-9 it is sharp as a mother sticker. This means you need light - there is no way around it. When I am using it I immediately set my f stop to 8 and my ISO to 400. Then I see where my shutter is and go from there.

On the 50D ISO 400 looks just as good as 100, I'm usually able to get a fast enough shot with those settings and they look absolutely great.

In terms of dust, I have none. I bought mine used from lensrentals.com so I don't know about it's previous use, but you can bet it took some intense situations before it got to me. I've take mine to the beach during a frickin wind storm and have had no problems.

I don't get why people think that push pull means dust vacuum. Any lens that moves forward and backward will push and pull air. The sealing is what makes the difference.

Anyway, if you have a bunch of cash and want to wait a year or so then sure, wait. No doubt the new one will be nicer. But for $1,300 you can get the current one used and I promise you will love that thing. You can always sell it and get the new one when it comes out. You might lose a couple hundred, but that's much cheaper than renting it for a year. You might also realize that you don't want the new one because the current one is a great lens already.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 29, 2012)

leecheeyee said:


> Now, I am traveling in Nigeria. The wet day is easy to destroy your luxurious lens. If nothing happens, it would ok. But nobody can guarantee no accident happen. For example, when you go out from an indoor cold environment, into a warm wet outdoor area, you would find your lens covers foggy. It would probably be wrecked without water-sealed.


 
In that case, there is no interchangable lens camera that will work. None of them are vapor tight, so water vapor gets in them all. Yet, photographers by the thousands seem to have no issue.


----------



## dturano (Apr 29, 2012)

I have been searching for a used 100-400mm, i can get one at a local camera shop for $1200. Im hoping to find one a little cheaper.

I have seen some great sample images with the 100-400mm, on FF I feel the extra 100mm over the 300mm will make a difference in reach.

Is worth getting this brand new for what im looking to spend on a used 100-400mm? The 120-400mm F4.5-5.6 DG APO OS HSM by sigma, im not looking to start a comp thread or get bashed for asking if the sigma is the same, just wondering if anybody has any experience using both lens and can either help me wait for the 100-400mm used i hope to find or get a new sigma.

Thanks.


----------



## dturano (Apr 30, 2012)

I have been checking some reviews on the sigma lens, not looking good, i hear its not worth the price, and found most reviews were people like me hoping to get better results but would yearn for the better contrast and image quality from the canon 100-400mm.


----------



## tron (Apr 30, 2012)

I would suggest that you get he Canon 100-400mm. I own one. It is a good lens and it could serve you for years (even after the introduction of a new version).


----------



## dturano (Apr 30, 2012)

thanks tron, i have been getting mixed user reviews online which i take with a grain of salt, pic quality seems great, and i think your right about it being a solid lens that will hold its own even if a newer version is released. Thanks for your input.

I have been looking at quality on flickr, 500px, and some other resources, great stuff from that lens, i never gave it a look until i went FF and decided 400mm over 300mm would make a difference for me.

Thanks again


tron said:


> I would suggest that you get he Canon 100-400mm. I own one. It is a good lens and it could serve you for years (even after the introduction of a new version).


----------



## smirkypants (Apr 30, 2012)

dturano said:
 

> thanks tron, i have been getting mixed user reviews online which i take with a grain of salt, pic quality seems great, and i think your right about it being a solid lens that will hold its own even if a newer version is released. Thanks for your input.


You absolutely must NOT wait for a newer version. I waited THREE years from when Canon first started talking about the 200-400/f4 + 1.4x until the point where I just threw my hands up in the air and said the hell with it. Seriously... that lens has been OFFICIALLY announced for years and is still not out.


----------



## dturano (Apr 30, 2012)

i know there is a big value lens thread right now, for this lens 100-400mm L whats a reasonable used price?

I was hoping to spend around $900-$1200 depending on the condition/date/etc.

$1589 after rebate, new is currently out of my range, looking to trade a barely used 100mm L plus cash for one, they have new and used at a local dealer and a few on cl

http://www.cameta.com/Canon-EF-100-400mm-f-4-5-5-6-L-IS-USM-Telephoto-Zoom-Lens-10141.cfm

$1199 plus tax
http://www.cameta.com/index.cfm?fa=display.search&page=1&keywords=100-400mm&used=1

Again thanks for the input, really helpful, i have my sights set on the current canon 100-400mm L


----------



## epsiloneri (Apr 30, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> sublime LightWorks said:
> 
> 
> > ....the hood "looks" cheap....no fancy tulip design, it's a straight up barrel. It just looks dumpy...but it works.
> ...


Isn't a tulip design, cool looking or not, always the optimal for optical performance?


----------



## leecheeyee (Apr 30, 2012)

In Hongkong, the price is most cheap than other places. For example,you can find 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM II only 2050USD.


----------



## unfocused (Apr 30, 2012)

> i know there is a big value lens thread right now, for this lens 100-400mm L whats a reasonable used price?



When it is in stock, the Canon Refurb Store (USA) sells it for $1,359. Cheaper when they offer their special sales, but hard to come by. (It's currently out of stock). CanonPriceWatch.com shows a used one just sold at B&H for $1,349.

So, for pricing purposes, I would say a reasonable used price would be in the neighborhood of $1,200 to $1,350 if in top condition. The low end for a sale from an individual (no warranty, etc.) the higher end from a dealer that offers a warranty or return. 

BTW, I was was waiting for the next version, but then when I read it would likely be twice the price, decided to pull the trigger on a refurbished last year. Glad I did.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 30, 2012)

FWIW, there's one in 'excellent condition' up on my local Craigslist right now for $1100.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Apr 30, 2012)

keithfullermusic said:


> In terms of dust, I have none. I bought mine used from lensrentals.com so I don't know about it's previous use, but you can bet it took some intense situations before it got to me. I've take mine to the beach during a frickin wind storm and have had no problems.
> 
> I don't get why people think that push pull means dust vacuum. Any lens that moves forward and backward will push and pull air. The sealing is what makes the difference.



Really? I knew it (and the 28-300) had weather sealing, but didn't know that it was good enough to prevent a bunch of dust from getting inside while extending the lens out. The reason I'd think that the 100-400/28-300 would get more dust in is because they extend more, and possibly faster (thus creating more suction).

Guess I might have to revisit those 2 lenses, or at least the 100-400 as a decent quality, reasonable cost telephoto for me. A lot cheaper than the 70-200 f/2.8 IS, which I also want to get for some concert shooting & some portraiture.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 30, 2012)

Drizzt321 said:


> I knew it (and the 28-300) had weather sealing, but didn't know that it was good enough to prevent a bunch of dust from getting inside while extending the lens out. The reason I'd think that the 100-400/28-300 would get more dust in is because they extend more, and possibly faster (thus creating more suction).



Any extending zoom will move air. Through the 24-105mm and retracting the zoom generates a puff of backblow sufficient to make me blink...

Note that the 100-400mm lacks the seal at the mount gasket that would otherwise make it a 'weather-sealed' lens like the 28-300mm.


----------



## akiskev (Apr 30, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Drizzt321 said:
> 
> 
> > I knew it (and the 28-300) had weather sealing, but didn't know that it was good enough to prevent a bunch of dust from getting inside while extending the lens out. The reason I'd think that the 100-400/28-300 would get more dust in is because they extend more, and possibly faster (thus creating more suction).
> ...


Why, in your opinion, the 100-400 lacks this seal?


----------



## leecheeyee (Apr 30, 2012)

Even I am not a rich experience photographer, I find some mistake in Canon product strategy. First is the 50mm f/1.4, second is 24-70mm f/2.8. You can see Sigma 50mm f/1.4 is better than EF 50mm f/1.4. And from Rumors today, it said that Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC is more sharp than EF 24-70. The more important thing is that Tomron len is with stabilization feature. The price is around 1200USD. The new EF 24-70 II is around 2200USD. Compared this, I think most friends would select the front one. Please check the link. I am planning to buy EF 50 f1.4 firstly. At the end I change my choice to Sigma. The 24-70 lens, I think I would do the same. Let's back to 100-400mm II. I hope Canon understands what happen now. Don't let his fans lost patient in his market strategy.

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/04/quick-tamron-24-70-mtf-data


----------



## Drizzt321 (Apr 30, 2012)

akiskev said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Drizzt321 said:
> ...



I'd guess, from what neuro wrote, that the 100-400 lacks the gasket seal at the lens mount against the camera body the way the 24-105 & other lenses have. The 135L lacks this as well, which disappoints me a bit. It couldn't have been all that much more to add, but would have added to it's weather sealing.


----------



## photophreek (Apr 30, 2012)

Isn't the rumored 100-400mm a f/4-5.6 as opposed to a f/4.5-5.6? If the ver II is indeed a f/4-5.6, this lens will be heavier and bigger than the ver I. I also seem to remember reading here that the rumored price could be $3000+. Given Canon's track record of pricing for new lenses, this price might happen. I'm in no rush for this lens as I am quite happy with my sharp 100-400 ver I.


----------



## leecheeyee (May 1, 2012)

photophreek said:


> Isn't the rumored 100-400mm a f/4-5.6 as opposed to a f/4.5-5.6? If the ver II is indeed a f/4-5.6, this lens will be heavier and bigger than the ver I. I also seem to remember reading here that the rumored price could be $3000+. Given Canon's track record of pricing for new lenses, this price might happen. I'm in no rush for this lens as I am quite happy with my sharp 100-400 ver I.



It would be the same weigth I guess. If the new verson reach 3000+ USD, it is a little high gup to get it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 1, 2012)

akiskev said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Note that the 100-400mm lacks the seal at the mount gasket that would otherwise make it a 'weather-sealed' lens like the 28-300mm.
> ...



Timing. Canon started releasing 'weather- and dust-sealed' lenses in 1999, and the 100-400mm is from 1998 (whereas the 28-300mm is from 2004).


----------



## leecheeyee (May 1, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> akiskev said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...




As 100-400 v1 is too old to get, I have to wait.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 1, 2012)

leecheeyee said:


> As 100-400 v1 is too old to get, I have to wait.



I must say, I really don't understand this attitude. There are lots of lenses that are even older, that doesn't change the fact that they're excellent lenses.


----------



## Drizzt321 (May 1, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> leecheeyee said:
> 
> 
> > As 100-400 v1 is too old to get, I have to wait.
> ...



You have to understand the mindset of us techno-geeks (assuming leecheeyee is one also). If it's more than 6 months, it's not new. If it's more than a year, it's starting to get aged. If it's more than 2 years, it's positively ancient.

At least, that's the way it is with electronics & almost anything to do with a microchip (including the CMOS sensors to a degree). Now I personally think with something that depends on physics to get the quality (such as lenses), a great lens is a great lens, even if with newer materials & designs it could be better. 

That said, it would be nice for an updated design considering it's age & new things they can do with it. Unfortunately, it will probably be a pretty big jump in cost :\


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 1, 2012)

Drizzt321 said:


> You have to understand the mindset of us techno-geeks (assuming leecheeyee is one also). If it's more than 6 months, it's not new. If it's more than a year, it's starting to get aged. If it's more than 2 years, it's positively ancient.





Drizzt321 said:


> From your signature: _5D mark 2, 5D mark 3, EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM, EF 135mm f/2L, EF 85mm f/1.8_



24-105, released in 2005. 135L, released in 1996. 85/1.8, released in 1992. Dude, you better throw that old ancient crap in the bin and get some new lenses.


----------



## Drizzt321 (May 1, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Drizzt321 said:
> 
> 
> > You have to understand the mindset of us techno-geeks (assuming leecheeyee is one also). If it's more than 6 months, it's not new. If it's more than a year, it's starting to get aged. If it's more than 2 years, it's positively ancient.
> ...



Haha, you can have my 135L after you pry it off my camera after it's broken and shattered


----------



## leecheeyee (May 2, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Drizzt321 said:
> 
> 
> > You have to understand the mindset of us techno-geeks (assuming leecheeyee is one also). If it's more than 6 months, it's not new. If it's more than a year, it's starting to get aged. If it's more than 2 years, it's positively ancient.
> ...



Let's talk about how to take a good picture.
A good picture must have a good subject firstly, and then composition to picture, shut down the shutter. Finnally, sofeware provisionning. Every step would be effected to our work. As a tourist, a powerful DSLR with convenient carry is important. Sometime, we have to get a faster auto focus function with light weight. So, we have to upgrade our device every 2,3 years after new version releases. Am I right?


----------



## twdi (May 2, 2012)

Are there at least as good alternatives for the 100-400?


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 2, 2012)

twdi said:


> Are there at least as good alternatives for the 100-400?



Depends on what you consider an alternative. There are a couple of other options to get you to 400mm f/5.6 - the 400/5.6 prime or the 300/4 IS with 1.4x extender. But if you think the 100-400mm is 'old'...well, both primes are even older. Else, your options are to get one of the fast supertele primes (several thousand $$$$), 3rd party options like the Bigma where you sacrifice IQ, or 3rd party options like the Sigma 120-300/2.8 with a TC (still a few thousand $). So...for 400mm, not really. 

If you are ok with just 300mm, yes, there are options - notably the excellent 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS.


----------



## Drizzt321 (May 2, 2012)

I actually recently came across the Tamron 200-500 f/5.0-6.3 looking for a super-telephoto to shoot the upcoming solar eclipse (going to be a looong drive up to Redding, CA). Haven't read a ton of reviews, but the ones I have makes it seem like it's a pretty decent lens.


----------



## Kernuak (May 2, 2012)

leecheeyee said:


> So, we have to upgrade our device every 2,3 years after new version releases. Am I right?


I'm sure many professionals who make a living would disagree, not to mention many experienced hobbyists/amateurs/whatever other title you want to use. I also have the 100-400, don't have any signs of dust, although I don't use it much any more and want to sell it. However, the reason I don't use it much isn't because it isn't a good lens, but because I use the 300 f/2.8 with an extender. One of the main reasons is the extra stop of light it gives me and the faster focusing, although sometimes I lament the lightness of the 100-400. Note that the 300 f/2.8 isn't much newer than the 100-400 and it hasn't put me off using _that _lens or made me want to replace it with the MkII version.


----------



## leecheeyee (May 3, 2012)

thank you everybody giving me so such nice advices. Let's terminate this subject discussion.


----------



## IIIHobbs (May 4, 2012)

With the upcoming 200-400 F4 w/1.4x, how difficult, or even likely, would it be for Canon to simply manufacture the 200-400 f4 without the 1.4x as an alternative?!

This lens could be offered at a much lower price point than the 1.4x variant, but likely well above what the current 100-400 is going for (guess $5k).

Looking at the L Series line up, a 200-400 (non 1.4x) would fit well in the current line up of super-telephoto zooms and primes.


----------



## dturano (May 6, 2012)

I picked up a used 100-400mm today, I was torn between a lot of lens and last minute decided to jump on a 100-400mm used, price sold me. I didn't even check the date code, I was checking quality, condition, and being that i never used this lens the push/pull which i loved. I took some test shots and was happy with the results, the good thing is I have a thirty day return policy and past that a 6 moth warranty on the lens.

The date code on mine is 2000 and after googling the code, i see it was sold on fredmiranda back in 05, i picked it up locally used in NY about 12 years after is was manufactured.

Canon may not offer a new version because they dont want to fix whats not broken, the lens is awesome, at least my copy, if they have a version II it would have to be better, but I think for the price point they are in the current lens works, while im sure they can improve the lens im not sure they could achieve drastic results without breaking price points.


----------



## dturano (May 6, 2012)

in short, glad i didn't wait and grabbed the 100-400mm range i was looking for on a FF body. If a new once came out i would welcome it and sell my lens for a new version, even when new versions come out Ls hold a good resale value so its win win either way.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 6, 2012)

leecheeyee said:


> Let's talk about how to take a good picture.
> A good picture must have a good subject firstly, and then composition to picture, shut down the shutter. Finnally, sofeware provisionning. Every step would be effected to our work. As a tourist, a powerful DSLR with convenient carry is important. Sometime, we have to get a faster auto focus function with light weight. So, we have to upgrade our device every 2,3 years after new version releases. Am I right?


 
Lenses are not upgraded every two or three years. ten or twenty is more average. Bodies, on the other hand, get significant advances every 3-5 years, so upgrading them every 5 years usually results in significant advances in IQ, and even that depends on what you value. Some are quite happy with 10 year old bodies, they get images that they like and don't need higher ISO or better NR.


----------

