# 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS



## gratomlin (Sep 12, 2010)

i'm in a position to purchase this lens but reluctant just now as a replacement could be just around the corner, has anyone heard any gossip about a replacement?

many thanks in advance

Gra


----------



## unfocused (Sep 12, 2010)

Join the club. A huge percentage of people on this forum have the same issue. 

Logic would dictate that a 12-year-old push-pull zoom lens would need to be replaced soon (probably at a substantial increase in cost, unfortunately). But Canon isn't talking. 

My recommendation would be, if you need the lens for a specific event/trip/assignment, I would rent it and see how you like it before buying. I've rented it and liked the lens, but not well enough to buy it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 13, 2010)

unfocused said:


> Join the club. A huge percentage of people on this forum have the same issue.
> 
> Logic would dictate that a 12-year-old push-pull zoom lens would need to be replaced soon (probably at a substantial increase in cost, unfortunately). But Canon isn't talking.
> 
> My recommendation would be, if you need the lens for a specific event/trip/assignment, I would rent it and see how you like it before buying. I've rented it and liked the lens, but not well enough to buy it.



I'd second the advice about trying it if you can - I have the 100-400mm, and it's a great combo with my 7D.

When thinking about how likely it is for Canon to release a MkII of the lens, consider that they just announced the 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS, which is quite similar in spec to the 100-400mm, in the same cost range, etc. While it's certainly not a direct replacement, I think the two are close enough that Canon is unlikely to update the 100-400mm any time soon.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 14, 2010)

> While it's certainly not a direct replacement, I think the two are close enough that Canon is unlikely to update the 100-400mm any time soon.



Unfortunately, I agree. A new 100-400 zoom, even if it is $500 more than the current model would probably undercut sales of the 70-300mm and unless a third party produces a quality competitor (are you listening Tokina!) Canon is under no pressure to upgrade the lens. The reviews I've read of the Sigma 400mm zoom are not too promising and the "Bigma" apparently has some serious autofocus issues.


----------



## kubelik (Sep 15, 2010)

unfocused said:


> > While it's certainly not a direct replacement, I think the two are close enough that Canon is unlikely to update the 100-400mm any time soon.
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, I agree. A new 100-400 zoom, even if it is $500 more than the current model would probably undercut sales of the 70-300mm and unless a third party produces a quality competitor (are you listening Tokina!) Canon is under no pressure to upgrade the lens. The reviews I've read of the Sigma 400mm zoom are not too promising and the "Bigma" apparently has some serious autofocus issues.



I'm not sold on the idea that a 70-300 is anything at all like a 100-400... they're about as similar as the 70-300 is with canon's 70-200 lineup, maybe less so. 70-300 is a generalist telephoto range, 100-400 really screams dedicated sports/wildlife lens; the 100mm makes a huge difference.

canon could also choose not to directly update their 100-400 and go with a variation:
200-400mm fixed or variable aperture lens (I would love that)
100-400mm fixed aperture lens (I'd swing for that one as well)

all of these would have some value-add which would further help canon justify increasing the price tag on the lens


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Sep 16, 2010)

I think a 100-400mm fixed aperture lens would be both large and expensive, even at f/4.

I'm inclined to agree on the difference in the focal length ranges...100mm always makes a huge difference.

What I think is key is not only that the lens is weather and dust sealed, but that Canon is expressly positioning the lens for crop sensors, as mentioned in the article linked earlier (that cat picture is pretty good).

The MTF charts show the lens has similar performance to the 70-200mm, except in the corners at 70mm, which further demonstrates the lens is intended for crop sensors.

I wouldn't buy the current 100-400mm if I could help it, though good quality at 400mm seems to be expensive no matter what. I'm sure the 400mm setting would be helpful even on a crop sensor though.

I had been focused on the 70-200mm f/2.8 II earlier, but now I think I'd be better served by a better body and the 70-300mm - I can buy both for roughly the same price.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 17, 2010)

Edwin Herdman said:


> I think a 100-400mm fixed aperture lens would be both large and expensive, even at f/4.



The Nikon 200-400mm f/4 is 15" long, weighs 7.5 pounds, and costs $7K. A 100-400mm f/4 would be even bigger and heavier. 



Edwin Herdman said:


> I'm inclined to agree on the difference in the focal length ranges...100mm always makes a huge difference.
> 
> I wouldn't buy the current 100-400mm if I could help it, though good quality at 400mm seems to be expensive no matter what. I'm sure the 400mm setting would be helpful even on a crop sensor though.



100mm definitely makes a difference, and 400mm is certainly useful on a crop body (500mm would be even better!). I use my 100-400mm a lot on my 7D, often (but not always) at 400mm. I previously had the 300mm f/4L IS, and traded it out for the 100-400mm because I really wanted the extra 100mm, and the 400mm f/5.6L lacks IS. If Canon released a 400mm f/5.6L IS, I'd certainly get that!



Edwin Herdman said:


> I had been focused on the 70-200mm f/2.8 II earlier, but now I think I'd be better served by a better body and the 70-300mm - I can buy both for roughly the same price.



That might make sense, depending on what body you have and what sort of shooting you do. If your main intent is to shoot small birds, for example, you'd be best served (in the >$2K price range) by the 100-400mm, even on a Rebel body. If you're going to shoot in low light, the 70-200 II still may be a better choice than a newer body. 

The 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II is an excellent lens, but IMO on a crop body it's something of an 'awkward' focal length. On my 7D, I find my 70-200 II too long for indoor use, and too short for wildlife/nature. Where it excels is family shots around the yard, outdoor candid portraits (for serious outdoor portrait work, I use an 85mm f/1.2L II with a 3-stop ND filter), and indoor events (i.e. large venues). On a FF body, the 70-200mm range would be useful in the house, too.


----------



## martijn (Sep 17, 2010)

Unfortunately, I don't think Canon will release anything in the 'affordable' 400mm range just yet. It's all over all the forums...people have been crying out for one of these to get upgraded for years, and one might suspect that Canon knows about this...they could make a real killing if they were to release an updated 100-400, 400/5.6 IS or 300/4...yet there is no sign if one.

Don't know about sports, but for wildlife, especially smaller critters, one needs all the reach one can get, and even 480mm (300 on crop) won't be enough. This is why those less expensive 400mm lenses are so important for wildlife photography (and, in addition to affordability, weight is another important factor, both for hiking and hand-holding without the need to bring a tripod too).
The 100-400, the 400/5.6 and the 300/4 + TC are, at the moment, the only Canon lenses that will get you there on a budget, and they are all very old designs, all in need of an upgrade.
The 70-300L announcement was quite a disappointment to those anxiously waiting for one of these.

Of course, there are third-party alternatives, but for fast and reliable AF and IS you still need to go to Canon.

I don't see myself paying 4000 euros or more for a 300/2.8 or other super-zoom unless I win the lottery but I would be prepared to pay well into the 2000's (Euro) for a new 100-400 4.5-5.6, with twist zoom, updated coatings and IS...Come on Canon, my money is waiting for you!


----------



## kubelik (Sep 17, 2010)

martijn said:


> I don't see myself paying 4000 euros or more for a 300/2.8 or other super-zoom unless I win the lottery but I would be prepared to pay well into the 2000's (Euro) for a new 100-400 4.5-5.6, with twist zoom, updated coatings and IS...Come on Canon, my money is waiting for you!



absolutely.


----------



## Canon 14-24 (Sep 18, 2010)

dilbert said:


> The 100-400L is also significantly bigger than what the 70-300L is:
> 
> 
> 100-400L70-300LWeight 3.1lbs/~1.4kg2.31lbs/1.1kgLength3.6x7.4"3.5x5.6"Extended10.75"7.4"Filter77mm67mm



Wow failed on the 67mm filter thread. Even with those step up rings, it becomes worthless as you can't use the hood.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Sep 18, 2010)

I was thinking the extending barrel and the zoom range were more problematic for a hood design. If Canon has a hood designed, it'll fit the thread. I was thinking the filters were unusual, but they're made, and at least the UV Hoya filters are cheaper than the 77mm variety.


----------



## Canon 14-24 (Sep 18, 2010)

Edwin Herdman said:


> at least the UV Hoya filters are cheaper than the 77mm variety.


Not surprised considering Hoya's UV SHMC version is rated at around 97% light transmission while the BW is around 99% and you get the brass build.


----------



## AJ (Sep 18, 2010)

gratomlin said:


> i'm in a position to purchase this lens but reluctant just now as a replacement could be just around the corner, has anyone heard any gossip about a replacement?
> 
> many thanks in advance
> 
> Gra



Don't hesitate. Get it. It's a nice lens.

Personally I like push-pull zoom. Takes a little while to get used to. But you can search for a bird to 100 mm and them zoom to 400 mm very quickly, with less chance of losing your subject compared to twist-zoom. Being able to lock zoom in any position is nice too.

Some folks are wishing for a 100-400/4 as an upgrade. But given that the lens is going to be huge and expensive, I say how about 100-500/4-6.3 L IS. This would require an 82 mm front element - A little bigger than present but not over the top.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 20, 2010)

AJ said:


> I say how about 100-500/4-6.3 L IS. This would require an 82 mm front element - A little bigger than present but not over the top.



I don't think Canon will release a lens with an f/6.3 max aperture, since all of their bodies require an f/5.6 aperture for autofocus to function. Sigma and other 3rd party lenses get away with that by chipping the lenses to 'fool' the camera.


----------



## ronderick (Sep 21, 2010)

neuroanatomist said:


> AJ said:
> 
> 
> > I say how about 100-500/4-6.3 L IS. This would require an 82 mm front element - A little bigger than present but not over the top.
> ...



Correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall reading somewhere that the autofocus works up to f/8 for their 1D bodies.


----------



## kubelik (Sep 21, 2010)

ronderick said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall reading somewhere that the autofocus works up to f/8 for their 1D bodies.



you're right.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 21, 2010)

ronderick said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall reading somewhere that the autofocus works up to f/8 for their 1D bodies.



Yep, my bad. I had meant to state 'non-pro' bodies, but was in a hurry. For the sake of completeness, only vertical sensor of the center AF point on 1-series bodies can AF with f/8 lenses.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Sep 22, 2010)

Canon 14-24 said:


> Edwin Herdman said:
> 
> 
> > at least the UV Hoya filters are cheaper than the 77mm variety.
> ...


Didn't realize this, thanks for the information. Not a real big difference but I'll have to look at the prices.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 22, 2010)

Edwin Herdman said:


> Canon 14-24 said:
> 
> 
> > Edwin Herdman said:
> ...



I know you were talking about 67mm filters (for the new 70-300 L) being cheaper than the 77mm filters on lenses like the 100-400mm. Even so, Canon 14-24 is not correct. Both Hoya and B+W make multiple lines of filters; while the HMC (Hoya Multi Coated) line has ~97% transmission (similar to B+W single coated filters), UV filters in both the Hoya SHMC line and the B+W MRC line have >99% transmission. 

The main differences are physical - the B+W standard mount (called F-Pro) is thinner than the mount for the Hoya SMC filters (less chance of vignetting, although for telezooms that's not an issue) and the brass rings on the B+W mean they are less likely to bind when threading them on and off. Probably most important (although this is subjective), many people find the B+W MRC filters to be easier to clean than the Hoya SHMC filters. The B+W MRC coating is designed not only for excellent optical transmission, but also for scratch and water/dust resistance (similar to the fluorine coating Canon is now applying to the front and rear elements of the new lenses).


----------

