# When will we see a replacement for the 100-400?



## RGF (Sep 10, 2014)

There have been lots of talk of a 100-400 replacement and yet nothing has materialized. When might we see this lens?

I have all but given up hope that it will be replaced. After all, it is Canon's top selling lens and if they made it too good it would hurt 200-400F4 sales


----------



## BL (Sep 10, 2014)

RGF said:


> There have been lots of talk of a 100-400 replacement and yet nothing has materialized. When might we see this lens?



It will be announced the week after your return window closes after you purchase mkI. ;D


----------



## J.R. (Sep 10, 2014)

I doubt that the replacement is coming anytime soon. 

The tammy 150-600 has upped the ante with better than reasonable IQ at a good price point. Sigma is hot on the heels with its own super zoom. 

A Canon mark II with less than stellar IQ will be beaten by the super zooms on focal length and price. A Canon mark II with stellar IQ risks cannibalising Canon's own super telephotos. It is my opinion that Canon is caught in a bind and doing nothing makes most sense.


----------



## PureClassA (Sep 10, 2014)

That's one of those lenses I've given consideration to but it isn't something I'd likely use terribly often. I'd be more inclined to pick up that great old 400mm 5.6 L for $1300 or less used. That's really the only end of that focal range I'd use up anyway. 

But yes, someone said the magic word. SIgma. That 150-600 monster in basically the same aperture range using the same focal lengths from each could be a killer. And if it shows up at $2000 as rumored (seems in line with SIgma pricing) then hold the phone.

Canon sells the mess outta that 100-400 so I don't see them being terribly inclined. Even though it's possible Sigma really offers something of better value in that new lens (TBD), there's always the "I want it in White" feeling out there among the shooters who are prime candidates. Ya never know.


----------



## 9VIII (Sep 10, 2014)

I voted that it's never coming.
Fuji has a supertelephoto lens scheduled for release at the end of the year, maybe it'll kick butt and convince me to get one of their bodies.


----------



## Maximilian (Sep 10, 2014)

RGF said:


> I have all but given up hope ...


Me too.

Although I know, that there will be a successor - one day -
it seems that it has to go the same way like the "Eagles" when "Hell freezes over"


----------



## serendipidy (Sep 10, 2014)

Help us Obi-Wan Kenobi. You're our only hope. 8)


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Sep 10, 2014)

RGF said:


> There have been lots of talk of a 100-400 replacement and yet nothing has materialized. When might we see this lens?
> 
> I have all but given up hope that it will be replaced. After all, it is Canon's top selling lens and if they made it too good it would hurt 200-400F4 sales



After introducing the very expensive 200-400mmm+1.4X lens, I see difficult that Canon will canibalize their own sales introducing a new (and better) 100-400mm lens.


----------



## vlim (Sep 10, 2014)

It still might comes after the 7dII released. At one point the 7d came in a kit with the new 70-300 f/4-5.6 L IS so they could make the same kind of kit with a new 100-400 f/4-5.6 L IS II or why not a 70-300 f/4 L IS (i would love tnat one...).


----------



## hendrik-sg (Sep 10, 2014)

a new 100-400 will not canibalize the 200-400, thats a completely different Price league and the handling is completly different. Nobody will carry a 200-400 exept for a exactlty planned shooting, or for a special photo tour. 

Nikkon seems to have a really good 80-400 lens, and the tamron 150-600 seems to be not bad as well, then there will be a new Sigma.

Maybe 100-400 Looks Little boring compared to the other offers. maybe Canon can strech the range to 450 5.6 with 82mm filter thread, or maybe they have to go for 6.3 opening, without extender compatibility then


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 10, 2014)

looks like "when hell freezes over". 

It won't matter any longer to me though, since it will be long after the day I've moved to a great mirrorless system and don't need no big EF mirrorslapper lenses any more. ;D 8)


----------



## drummstikk (Sep 10, 2014)

serendipidy said:


> Help us Obi-Wan Kenobi. You're our only hope. 8)



This is not the lens you're looking for…


----------



## wtlloyd (Sep 10, 2014)

Ah, really, the two lenses are completely different.
That's like saying the 200 f/2.8 L II steals sales from the 200 f/2.0 L IS.

There may be a trivial change in focal length, but the 100-400 is in a price and function range that will always be useful and in demand. It won't have a built in extender, and it will be below $2800.

Someday our prince will come, and the slipper will fit!






Hjalmarg1 said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > There have been lots of talk of a 100-400 replacement and yet nothing has materialized. When might we see this lens?
> ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 10, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Yup, Canon doesn't want to eat their own lunch. Problem is that they're then exposed to others eating their lunch. Canon is never very aggressive here.



LOL. People who speak of f/5.6 zooms or primes 'cannibalizing' supertele sales are rather clueless. The superteles are on a whole different level of IQ, are 1-2 stops faster, and have better AF. Pros who need a supertele generally know it, amateurs often move up from the 100-400L, so that lens is sort of a gateway. Even with a big IQ boost, a new 100-400L won't beat the superteles. Canon also prices their lenses to ensure profitability. 

As for 3rd party competition, that's been there all along. For some lenses, the quality has gone up (though Sigma's QC issues apparently continue to plague them)...as have the prices. The Tamron 150-600mm is a decent lens, with similar IQ to the current 100-400L (similar in the overlapping range, similar at the long end to the 100-400 + 1.4x). A 7DII/X with f/8 AF will make the 100-400 w/ TC quite feasible as a much smaller and lighter choice over the Tamron. The Sigma 150-600mm is even bigger and heavier than the Tamron. 

Will we see an updated 100-400L? Yes, I think we will. Likely in late 2015 or spring 2016. Canon is good at extracting profit from consumers. So...release a 7DII/X now, the new action-oriented APS-C body will spur sales of the 100-400L. Some of those who have one already will buy the 1.4x because of the f/8 AF. A year later, release an updated 100-400 to get people to upgrade. 

It might make philosophical sense to release a new 100-400 along side a new 7-series body, but it probably doesn't make fiscal sense. The economy isn't terribly strong right now. Spreading out the launch of 'big ticket' items targeted at the same market segment seems logical.


----------



## 2n10 (Sep 10, 2014)

I chose when hell freezes over, but really expect it to be when Canon determines the time is right. Or maybe when they have an alternative that they are happy with.


----------



## jthomson (Sep 10, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Yup, Canon doesn't want to eat their own lunch. Problem is that they're then exposed to others eating their lunch. Canon is never very aggressive here.
> ...



I totally agree that the 100-400mm is more of a gateway drug to the big whites. Not going to cannibalize sales, only going to give people a taste of what they want.

I think you are wrong about the third party lenses. The Tamron is 1/2 the price of a 100-400mm plus 1.4x III and only weights about 330 grams more. I think Canon has missed the boat with the 100-400mm upgrade. I would expect Canon upgraded lens to be in the same ballpark price wise as the Nikon 80-400mm. Tamron is going to eat both their lunches. It will also eat Sigma's lunch if the weight and price of the Sigma 150-600 are as rumoured.

Canon can improve the 100-400mm but I don't think they can make it price competitive with the Tamron. 
I already know several people who have upgraded from the 100-400 to the Tamron. 
Personally I got tired of waiting for the upgraded 100-400mm and added the Tamron to my kit to replace my Sigma 150-500mm.


----------



## RGF (Sep 10, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Yup, Canon doesn't want to eat their own lunch. Problem is that they're then exposed to others eating their lunch. Canon is never very aggressive here.
> ...



NA 

I have the 600 II and 200-400 (plus a 300 I).

I have traveled with both the 600 and 200-400 but it is a difficult due to the weight and size. Hard to put much else in the bag or lift the bag into the overhead bin without letting the Flight Attendants know how heavy it is.

If Canon had a much better 100-400 (similar to the raves I have heard about the new Nikon 80-400) it would make my travels a lot lighter. Then I would have a hard decision. Keep both the 200-400 and improved 100-400 or sell the 200-400.

I believe a number of nature photographers feel the same way.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 10, 2014)

RGF said:


> If Canon had a much better 100-400 (similar to the raves I have heard about the new Nikon 80-400) it would make my travels a lot lighter. Then I would have a hard decision. Keep both the 200-400 and improved 100-400 or sell the 200-400.
> 
> I believe a number of nature photographers feel the same way.



Indeed. For travel, I often opt for the 70-300L as a much smaller alternative.


----------



## Ivan Muller (Sep 10, 2014)

You aint...was told a while ago that 'improving' it would price it out of its target market....our host didn't believe me then, maybe he's right but why are we still waiting, in this 'year of the lens'?


----------



## chitownjeff (Sep 10, 2014)

I have a 70-200 2.8, so for me the 70-300 isn't worth it. 100-400 mk2 would be a great addition.

I've started looking at the 120-300 F2.8 Sigma. But again, not sure it's worth it for just another 100mm, would rather have something to 400.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Sep 10, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > If Canon had a much better 100-400 (similar to the raves I have heard about the new Nikon 80-400) it would make my travels a lot lighter. Then I would have a hard decision. Keep both the 200-400 and improved 100-400 or sell the 200-400.
> ...



Yes I sometimes look upon my 70-300L as a sort of 100-400 alternative, but to me they're still very different lenses if you use them both on a full frame sensor. Due to the extra reach afforded by the 100-400, that one still finds its way to my camera more often. The 70-300L may be good for travel due to its size, but its weight is another matter - last trip I did (Japan) I really felt my back with the sum of the 'travel' gear that I was carrying, and the 70-300L sadly pushed the weight over the comfortable limit.


----------



## NancyP (Sep 10, 2014)

As far as I can tell, the 100-400 is the lens amateurs get to shoot air shows, sports, mid-sized wildlife, birds, whatever. It is a great all-around lens that is reasonable in weight, and sells very well. Why change success? The current formulation is within affordability for mere mortals. Same goes for the 400 f/5.6L no-IS for specialty birders. It is affordable. It has fast AF. It is lightweight. It is really sharp wide open. Damn good for the price. I would love to shoot a Big White, but in the meantime I love my Little White.

Now, if they can produce updates that are in the same price range but are appreciably better, they could expect additional sales. I daresay that people will still be shooting with Little Whites due to autofocus performance.


----------



## JonAustin (Sep 10, 2014)

I voted "when hell freezes over," because I'm holding out for a mark II release. Even if it doesn't take forever, it's starting to feel like it.

I have a 70-200 II, and rarely shoot longer (sold my 1.4x II with my 70-200 I), but the ability for further reach would come in handy from time to time. I get the "gateway lens" argument, but I doubt I'll ever be in the market for one of the big whites.

A 300 f/4L IS II + 1.4x III or a 400 f/5.6L IS would fit the bill, too.

The new 16-35 f/4L is also on my radar, so I'll probably spring for one of those next time I absolutely _have_ to buy new glass.


----------



## Tanispyre (Sep 11, 2014)

I am not sure this will ever be replaced. I think Canon figured it's replacement was the 70-300L, so we are good for another 8 years.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 11, 2014)

I'm starting to wonder if Canon pulled any replacement to look at producing a longer zoom. A 100-500mm f/5.6 might be possible. It would be larger and a lot more expensive, but might compete with the Sigma or Tamron 150-600 which are f/6.3 lenses.

For now, I'm hanging on to my 100-400. I like it, and use it at 400 mostly, even with a 1.4X TC on my 5D MK III. I've ordered a 2nd 1.4X TC (Kenko) to see if I can make it work with my 100L by taping pins. I can shutoff the AFMA, but my 100L needs 10 points, so that's not a option.


----------

