# Waiting for 100~400mm f/4~5.6 IS II.



## leecheeyee (Nov 4, 2012)

One year went by, but it is still under in rumors. Do I need aonther year to wait for it?


----------



## rpt (Nov 4, 2012)

leecheeyee said:


> One year went by, but it is still under in rumors. Do I need aonther year to wait for it?


You are an optimist 

What do you use now? Are you missing shots?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 4, 2012)

leecheeyee said:


> Waiting for 100~400mm f/4~5.6 IS II.



Probably at least 10 years, if ever.  The current lens is f/4.5-5.6, so we'll either see an f/4.5-5.6 II an f/4-5.6 (no II, since aperture range is different). Assuming it's the latter, you'll have to wait for _that_ lens to be updated.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 4, 2012)

Until someone comes up with a better lens, Canon has no real incentive to improve a already good lens. Some people hve been reading the rumors and waiting for 8 years.

Nikon has also been rumored to be improving their relatively poor 80-400 lens. Nikon users would love to see something that could match the Canon 100-400mmL, they would also like a lens like the Canon 400mm f/5.6L.


----------



## tron (Nov 4, 2012)

leecheeyee said:


> One year went by, but it is still under in rumors. Do I need another year to wait for it?


Yes! ;D


----------



## degies (Nov 5, 2012)

I used to wait for the 100-400 , but I got a 2tcIII on my 70-200 and it works wonders. Yes the AF is not as snappy, but hey it works pretty well for most sport events! The low ISO noise and AF on the 5D3 just does wonders in darker situations 
I learned my lesson with waiting for the 24-70II for 3 years and now I probably have to wait some more for the price to drop a bit. 
Not missing shots anymore


----------



## ronderick (Nov 5, 2012)

Simply waiting for a newer version of the 100-400 which is weatherproof. If only the old version had weatherproof mechanism....


----------



## Lee Jay (Nov 5, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Until someone comes up with a better lens, Canon has no real incentive to improve a already good lens.



The 100-400L is a so-so lens. It's capable of great shots, but it has problems. Wide open, its sharpness varies with IS element position much more than it should. IS performance is terrible (I mean, really, really terrible). Handling is lousy because the natural place to put your hand is on the lock ring or AF ring. The AF ring should be farther out and not turned by turning the lock ring so you aren't accidentally manually focusing when you don't intend to be.

We're getting f/8 AF back, and we're getting higher pixel counts. We need a 100-400 that's designed with the 1.4x TC III in mind, that has vastly better IS and better handling, and that stays sharp wide open regardless of where the IS elements happen to be.

My 70-200/2.8L IS II with 2x TC III performs as well at f/5.6 and 400mm as does my 100-400L when the IS on the 100-400 is turned off. With the IS on, the 70-200 is more consistently sharp and has vastly better IS and handling.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 5, 2012)

Lee Jay said:


> My 70-200/2.8L IS II with 2x TC III performs as well at f/5.6 and 400mm as does my 100-400L when the IS on the 100-400 is turned off. With the IS on, the 70-200 is more consistently sharp and has vastly better IS and handling.



Copy issue? My 100-400mm performs very well, well enough that even with the 1.4xIII on it, I can make out the engraved numbers on a banded bird leg from several yards out.

Still...I would certainly like a weather sealed version with higher-rated IS and improved optics. But not so improved that I start regretting my purchase of the 600 II.


----------



## dolina (Nov 5, 2012)

The current lens came out in 1998. Relatively young to most EF lenses.

A 400/5.6 is much much older and could use a IS injection.


----------



## iaind (Nov 5, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> leecheeyee said:
> 
> 
> > Waiting for 100~400mm f/4~5.6 IS II.
> ...



Better start saving for the 200-400 with 1.4 built in as it looks to be current replacement


----------



## tron (Nov 5, 2012)

iaind said:


> Better start saving for the 200-400 with 1.4 built in as it looks to be current replacement


No way. These two are not similar. They differ by a digit in the price and by a few Kilograms in weight not to mention the size ;D


----------



## docsmith (Nov 5, 2012)

I wouldn't wait. Just get the current version, which is very good. Or some equivalent. Rumors can persist for years before a new lens is released. So, just get the best available lens to suit your needs. I own the 100-400L. I would love better AF, weather sealing, modern IS and slightly better optics. But it is still one of my most used lenses.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 5, 2012)

Lee Jay said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Until someone comes up with a better lens, Canon has no real incentive to improve a already good lens.
> ...


I wonder if your lens has problems?
I've handheld my lens at 1/15 sec 400mm, and the IS came thru. Hardly what I'd call horrible. As far as handling, thats more a matter of what a person is used to, some like push-pull, some do not.
Most who own a 100-400mmL will tell you it is sharper at 400mm than their 70-200mk II plus TC, but not by a lot. The main issue is speed of AF, which also depends on the body being used.


----------



## kubelik (Nov 5, 2012)

I use the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II with the 2x III extender, and while it gives really great results, it falls shy of the 100-400 f4.5-5.6 L IS from what've I've seen comparing my shots with other folks.

that being said, the fact that the 70-200 + 2x comes as close as it does means I'm not interested at all in any other 400mm lens at f/5.6.

in terms of the update cycle, Canon does seem to be really cranking through the new/replacement lenses fairly quickly, so it's possible the venerable 100-400 shotgun will get replaced within the next couple of years. but if you need it anytime sooner than the end of 2014, I wouldn't hold my breath for it.

... still hoping the 400 f/5.6 L IS gets replaced by a 500 f/5.6 L IS ...


----------



## tron (Nov 6, 2012)

kubelik said:


> ... still hoping the 400 f/5.6 L IS gets replaced by a 500 f/5.6 L IS ...


Boo hoo I want one too :-[


----------



## kubelik (Nov 6, 2012)

tron said:


> kubelik said:
> 
> 
> > ... still hoping the 400 f/5.6 L IS gets replaced by a 500 f/5.6 L IS ...
> ...



glad to see I'm not the only one!


----------



## tron (Nov 6, 2012)

kubelik said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > kubelik said:
> ...


Yes! As many of us who want a rather big white L telephoto that does not cost a 5 digit amount :


----------



## Lee Jay (Nov 6, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > My 70-200/2.8L IS II with 2x TC III performs as well at f/5.6 and 400mm as does my 100-400L when the IS on the 100-400 is turned off. With the IS on, the 70-200 is more consistently sharp and has vastly better IS and handling.
> ...



Doubt it. This is from my 100-400L:

http://photos.imageevent.com/sipphoto/samplepictures/T2i__3574%20edited.jpg


----------



## barrett14 (Nov 6, 2012)

How much sharper is the 70-300L than the 100-400?


----------

