# EF 100-400 Replacement in 2013? [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 29, 2013)

```
<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/2013/04/ef-100-400-replacement-in-2013-cr2/"></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/2013/04/ef-100-400-replacement-in-2013-cr2/">Tweet</a></div>
<p><strong>Speculation has started again

</strong>We’ve received a few reports that an announcement for a replacement to the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS is “very possible for the end of August”. A few prototypes of the lens are currently in use in Asia.</p>
<p>This has been a lens that has been set for replacement as far back as I can remember. I think it’s more probable for release now that Nikon has put their new 80-400 out, which was an area of weakness for them.</p>
<p>We’ve heard from a few people that Canon is having manufacturing issues and that there’s a backlog of new lenses slated for production.</p>
<p><em><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/162616-USA/Canon_2577A002AA_100_400mm_f_4_5_5_6L_IS_USM.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 IS at B&H Photo</a></em></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## Canon-F1 (Apr 29, 2013)

great news.... now we only have to know if the price will double or triple. 

also.. what design are the prototypes... push pull?
should be not so hard to figure out if the sources are valid.


----------



## ewg963 (Apr 29, 2013)

Canon Rumors said:


> <div name=\"googleone_share_1\" style=\"position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;\"><glusone size=\"tall\" count=\"1\" href=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/04/ef-100-400-replacement-in-2013-cr2/\"></glusone></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/2013/04/ef-100-400-replacement-in-2013-cr2/\">Tweet</a></div>
> <p><strong>Speculation has started again
> 
> 
> ...


 I'm loving it!!! Any thoughts on suggested retail?


----------



## Click (Apr 29, 2013)

Great news. I'm looking forward to that.


----------



## Plainsman (Apr 29, 2013)

I just can't see this lens coming out before the hugely delayed 200-400/560.

By all accounts the new Nikon 80-400 is a very good lens sharp right through to 400 and the current high price will surely drop soon. Would be a good alternative available now - particularly if used with one of the currently available 24Mp DX bodies.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Apr 29, 2013)

Plainsman said:


> I just can't see this lens coming out before the hugely delayed 200-400/560.



based on what?

why should they delay one lens only because they have problems with another?

the 100-400mm will sure be sold more often then the 200-400mm.
the 100-400mm is a more attractive lens (money wise) for many photographer.

i see no reason, except in case they share the same production problems, that canon will not just release the lens when it is ready.


----------



## Plainsman (Apr 29, 2013)

Canon-F1 said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> > I just can't see this lens coming out before the hugely delayed 200-400/560.
> ...



...could be a marketing nightmare selling expensive zooms coming out at the same time (approx) with overlapping focal lengths..


----------



## Etienne (Apr 29, 2013)

I have no interest in the 200-400 (way too rich for me), but I'm interested in this.

I think it will sell very well if it is under $2500. Over $3000 will scare off a lot of buyers.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Apr 29, 2013)

Plainsman said:


> Canon-F1 said:
> 
> 
> > Plainsman said:
> ...



well the 200-400mm will cost at least 8000 euro (10000 euro more likely)... so that will not much of a problem i think.



Etienne said:


> I think it will sell very well if it is under $2500.



lets hope so.


----------



## K-amps (Apr 29, 2013)

I'll go on record... here: 

Canon will price it higher than the Nikkor equivalent... 

I would not be surprised if the initial price is in the $3500 region.... 

Hopefully once they have a production surplus, then 2500 might be feasible in a couple of years.


----------



## bvukich (Apr 29, 2013)

Plainsman said:


> Canon-F1 said:
> 
> 
> > Plainsman said:
> ...



With the 4-5x difference in price, I think the only real nightmare will be for lowly slobs like me that can only afford the 100-400, but would gladly trade our left (insert favored body part of choice here) for the 200-400. ;D


----------



## bvukich (Apr 29, 2013)

K-amps said:


> I'll go on record... here:
> 
> Canon will price it higher than the Nikkor equivalent...
> 
> ...



I would expect a similar, if slightly higher, trajectory as the 70-200/2.8IS II. Start at about $2800, settle at $2300 after 18-24 months.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 29, 2013)

Plainsman said:


> ...could be a marketing nightmare selling expensive zooms coming out at the same time (approx) with overlapping focal lengths..



Yeah, that makes sense. I'm sure VW and Chrysler are just as worried about the marketing nightmare of internal competition from their Porsche and Mercedes subsidiaries. Just like the 100-400 vs. 200-400, there's bound to be a lot of overlap in the customer base.


----------



## daniela (Apr 29, 2013)

bvukich said:


> K-amps said:
> 
> 
> > I'll go on record... here:
> ...



Some people in Japan think so too. About 3000€. rotating zoom. When?? (End 2013/mid 2014??)
But japanese Canonians are discussed about the mentioned rumored pricing. What the hell makes this lens 2-3 times more expensive then the existing predecessor model? There is no better light intensity rumored. The rotating zoom and a better IS will not be worth the money Canon wants for this lens.
But... the big but will be, that you have to "bite the sour apple" (Sorry for this Germanism), because there will be no IS lens that meets this focal lenght.... So another cash-cow will be born. 

Daniela


----------



## lholmes549 (Apr 29, 2013)

Good, maybe see a price drop in 100-400's soon then!


----------



## hamada (Apr 29, 2013)

lholmes549 said:


> Good, maybe see a price drop in 100-400's soon then!



unlikely i think.

the price is about 1300 euros here.. why should canon lower the price when the new one cost around 2500-3000 euro?


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Apr 29, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> > ...could be a marketing nightmare selling expensive zooms coming out at the same time (approx) with overlapping focal lengths..
> ...


Chrysler is not Daimler any longer, it's Fiat and Porsche actually owns a large chunk of VW. But your point is still valid.


----------



## daniela (Apr 29, 2013)

lholmes549 said:


> Good, maybe see a price drop in 100-400's soon then!



...or the production will end soon, so the rest of the 100-400 will be sold out and you have to buy the new one.


----------



## JPAZ (Apr 29, 2013)

So, let me be sure I understand this (of course it is all speculation). My recent $1100 refurb 100-400 will be obsolete once this is released and I'll run out and spend 3 times that much for the replacement? ???

Somehow, I don't think so.....


----------



## hamada (Apr 29, 2013)

JPAZ said:


> So, let me be sure I understand this (of course it is all speculation). My recent $1100 refurb 100-400 will be obsolete once this is released and I'll run out and spend 3 times that much for the replacement? ???
> 
> Somehow, I don't think so.....




you have to.. or you will be banned from this forum.

btw: your signature is to short... fix that.. buy more gear!!


----------



## shutterlag (Apr 29, 2013)

I see no reason to either be excited or care about Canon lens releases anymore. With Nikon taking the lead in inflated pricing with the 80-400mm by charging a mind-blowing $2700, Canon is certain to do the same.

Since upgrading to FF, I've bought and returned a 24-70 F4 IS and a 35mm IS. I bet you can guess what I went with instead ;D I have also scrapped plans to buy the 70-200mm F2.8 IS L v2, targeting the Tamron F2.8 VC instead.

The days where Canon and Nikon could command massive margins over 3rd party due to higher quality are gone. H*ll, they can't even get rebates right. That last round increased pricing on half the items.


----------



## daniela (Apr 29, 2013)

shutterlag said:


> I see no reason to either be excited or care about Canon lens releases anymore. With Nikon taking the lead in inflated pricing with the 80-400mm by charging a mind-blowing $2700, Canon is certain to do the same.
> 
> Since upgrading to FF, I've bought and returned a 24-70 F4 IS and a 35mm IS. I bet you can guess what I went with instead ;D I have also scrapped plans to buy the 70-200mm F2.8 IS L v2, targeting the Tamron F2.8 VC instead.
> 
> The days where Canon and Nikon could command massive margins over 3rd party due to higher quality are gone. H*ll, they can't even get rebates right. That last round increased pricing on half the items.



My daughter would say: +1


----------



## hamada (Apr 29, 2013)

shutterlag said:


> I see no reason to either be excited or care about Canon lens releases anymore. With Nikon taking the lead in inflated pricing with the 80-400mm by charging a mind-blowing $2700, Canon is certain to do the same.
> 
> Since upgrading to FF, I've bought and returned a 24-70 F4 IS and a 35mm IS. I bet you can guess what I went with instead ;D I have also scrapped plans to buy the 70-200mm F2.8 IS L v2, targeting the Tamron F2.8 VC instead.
> 
> The days where Canon and Nikon could command massive margins over 3rd party due to higher quality are gone. H*ll, they can't even get rebates right. That last round increased pricing on half the items.



so what other 100-400mm lens you have in mind.... :

it´s great when you have alternatives... no question. 
but i don´t really see one for the 100-400mm, do you?

sigma? not the existing sigma lenses. nah.. sorry.


----------



## daniela (Apr 29, 2013)

shutterlag said:


> I see no reason to either be excited or care about Canon lens releases anymore. With Nikon taking the lead in inflated pricing with the 80-400mm by charging a mind-blowing $2700, Canon is certain to do the same.
> 
> Since upgrading to FF, I've bought and returned a 24-70 F4 IS and a 35mm IS. I bet you can guess what I went with instead ;D I have also scrapped plans to buy the 70-200mm F2.8 IS L v2, targeting the Tamron F2.8 VC instead.
> 
> The days where Canon and Nikon could command massive margins over 3rd party due to higher quality are gone. H*ll, they can't even get rebates right. That last round increased pricing on half the items.



As we can see, other 3rd party manufacturers can produce good lenses too. The new Sigmas or Tamrons show that. Some of you, who are technical fetishists, will say that the Canon lenses are about 5% better... But will this matter? If Canon will raise their pricing, I have other options. 
That is like the mobile phone bubble. Do you realley need the iPhone 5? Or will an 3 or 4S be enough for you too? 

I like the technical progress too. But there will be an limit if there is an big gap in price and performance.


----------



## daniela (Apr 29, 2013)

hamada said:


> shutterlag said:
> 
> 
> > I see no reason to either be excited or care about Canon lens releases anymore. With Nikon taking the lead in inflated pricing with the 80-400mm by charging a mind-blowing $2700, Canon is certain to do the same.
> ...



Today there is no real alternative to the 100-400. Canon knows that. But I´ll be glad, thath the other manufacturers will react on this situation.


----------



## Etienne (Apr 29, 2013)

shutterlag said:


> I see no reason to either be excited or care about Canon lens releases anymore. With Nikon taking the lead in inflated pricing with the 80-400mm by charging a mind-blowing $2700, Canon is certain to do the same.
> 
> Since upgrading to FF, I've bought and returned a 24-70 F4 IS and a 35mm IS. I bet you can guess what I went with instead ;D I have also scrapped plans to buy the 70-200mm F2.8 IS L v2, targeting the Tamron F2.8 VC instead.
> 
> The days where Canon and Nikon could command massive margins over 3rd party due to higher quality are gone. H*ll, they can't even get rebates right. That last round increased pricing on half the items.



I love my Canon gear for sure. But the Sticker price shock is wearing me down too. 
Now I'm keeping a much closer eye on the competition than I ever did before, including bodies and whole systems. I can't say that I'm going to jump ship, but a few years ago even the thought of considering it never entered my mind. I guess I was confident that Canon would always be the best value gear (FF) for me. But the competition is fierce in every arena today, and Canon needs to to go all in to stay ahead.


----------



## hamada (Apr 29, 2013)

daniela said:


> Today there is no real alternative to the 100-400. Canon knows that. But I´ll be glad, thath the other manufacturers will react on this situation.



so in 2 years we maybe have an alternative...


----------



## hamada (Apr 29, 2013)

Etienne said:


> Now I'm keeping a much closer eye on the competition than I ever did before, including bodies and whole systems. I can't say that I'm going to jump ship, but a few years ago even the thought of considering it never entered my mind. I guess I was confident that Canon would always be the best value gear (FF) for me. But the competition is fierce in every arena today, and Canon needs to to go all in to stay ahead.



well i am unable to guess what your talking about.
micro four third?

because when i look at nikon... i see exactly the same happen.
just look at the AF-S 70-200mm f2.8 II or the new 80-400mm.

ok the D800 looks like a good deal at first. 
but beside the great sensor in the D800 i think the 5D MK3 is overall the better camera.

sony? ;D

pentax? 

you don´t even know how long they will stay commited to DSLR cameras.


----------



## daniela (Apr 29, 2013)

hamada said:


> daniela said:
> 
> 
> > Today there is no real alternative to the 100-400. Canon knows that. But I´ll be glad, thath the other manufacturers will react on this situation.
> ...



Maybe. Just think of the new Sigmas. Why should this not be possible?


----------



## hamada (Apr 29, 2013)

daniela said:


> hamada said:
> 
> 
> > daniela said:
> ...



oh i hope it is.

only.. it´s a long time.


----------



## unfocused (Apr 29, 2013)

hamada said:


> JPAZ said:
> 
> 
> > So, let me be sure I understand this (of course it is all speculation). My recent $1100 refurb 100-400 will be obsolete once this is released and I'll run out and spend 3 times that much for the replacement? ???
> ...



So true. Same here. After waiting for a couple of years, I bought a refurbished 100-400 about a year and a half ago. It's a great lens and I'm in no hurry to replace it. I'll think about a new model – when the price drops and it shows up on the refurbished site, along with a 15% off sale. Meanwhile, I can enjoy this one for another 3-4 years.


----------



## daniela (Apr 29, 2013)

hamada said:


> daniela said:
> 
> 
> > hamada said:
> ...



True. But I think it will be the same time, you have to save up money to buy the expensive Canon lenses...
Maybe. Just think of the new Sigmas. Why should this not be possible?


----------



## WPJ (Apr 29, 2013)

And let me guess, cost is 9000, because that's the canon way


----------



## RGomezPhotos (Apr 29, 2013)

I could be interested in a lens like this... Got a feeing it's going to be in the $2200 range... Hopefully.


----------



## dolina (Apr 29, 2013)

I see this as a sooner replacement than the 800.


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 29, 2013)

> We’ve heard from a few people that Canon is having manufacturing issues and that there’s a backlog of new lenses slated for production.



Is this good or bad news?


----------



## shutterlag (Apr 29, 2013)

I'd use the Tamron 70-200 VC with extenders, speed booster, a NEX-7, and focus peaking


[/quote]

so what other 100-400mm lens you have in mind.... :

it´s great when you have alternatives... no question. 
but i don´t really see one for the 100-400mm, do you?

sigma? not the existing sigma lenses. nah.. sorry.
[/quote]


----------



## shutterlag (Apr 29, 2013)

I love my Canon gear for sure. But the Sticker price shock is wearing me down too. 
Now I'm keeping a much closer eye on the competition than I ever did before, including bodies and whole systems. I can't say that I'm going to jump ship, but a few years ago even the thought of considering it never entered my mind. I guess I was confident that Canon would always be the best value gear (FF) for me. But the competition is fierce in every arena today, and Canon needs to to go all in to stay ahead.
[/quote]

I think the game changer will be the Sony FF NEX system. It just leaked that the A58 will be the last SLT model. That can mean only one thing- they learned well from their success with the RX-1. FF A-mount mirrorless is on the way. It'll be interesting to see how Canon and Nikon react to that. I expect Sony will implement a global shutter as well, so no more rolling shutter for video people.


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 29, 2013)

shutterlag said:


> It'll be interesting to see how Canon and Nikon react to that.



Of course they are aware of the development and are doing a lot of r&d (that is missing in the traditional dslr segment), but my guess is that at least Canon will try to milk the old school dslr users dry as long as their luck lasts, and only introduce emerging tech in p&s formats.

People who like to experiment will buy Sony anyway, budget buyers will go for Nikon, and Canon cannot and probably doesn't want to beat the competition at their respective own games.


----------



## xps (Apr 29, 2013)

shutterlag said:


> I love my Canon gear for sure. But the Sticker price shock is wearing me down too.
> Now I'm keeping a much closer eye on the competition than I ever did before, including bodies and whole systems. I can't say that I'm going to jump ship, but a few years ago even the thought of considering it never entered my mind. I guess I was confident that Canon would always be the best value gear (FF) for me. But the competition is fierce in every arena today, and Canon needs to to go all in to stay ahead.



I think the game changer will be the Sony FF NEX system. It just leaked that the A58 will be the last SLT model. That can mean only one thing- they learned well from their success with the RX-1. FF A-mount mirrorless is on the way. It'll be interesting to see how Canon and Nikon react to that. I expect Sony will implement a global shutter as well, so no more rolling shutter for video people.
[/quote]

I was personally surprised how good the image quality of the NEX-7 in combination with an 18-55mm is. Maybe this would be an lightweight alternative for mountain hiking. Half of the weight of my Canon gear. 24MP and an very ggod image quality. And I can use filters too


----------



## xps (Apr 29, 2013)

IMHO Canon is going to part their product line. Much for the normal users, where Canon earns much money. And an premium line, where the price does not matter - with an excellent (hopefully excellent) image quality and features.
I think they know very well, what the competitors will bring on the market and overthink if they should struggle for this segment too


----------



## ddashti (Apr 29, 2013)

The "date" for this aligns well with the 7D Mark II one. [CR2] is a good sign, but there's always that small factor of unsureness.


----------



## that1guyy (Apr 29, 2013)

Cool. Does this mean the current gen will drop to maybe $1,000? Might pick that up.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 29, 2013)

that1guyy said:


> Cool. Does this mean the current gen will drop to maybe $1,000? Might pick that up.



If recent history is a guide, but one _before_ the new version is released. For both the 70-200/2.8L IS and 24-70/2.8L, when the MkII was released at a *much* higher price, retailers with remaining stock of the MkI lenses ramped their prices right up to the MSRP (an increase of $300-400), and they stayed there until stock ran out. Used lens prices followed suit - it was close to two years before used 70-200/2.8 IS prices returned to pre-MkII levels, and used 24-70/2.8 prices are still a few hundred higher than they were before the MkII.


----------



## mycanonphotos (Apr 29, 2013)

If the new lens is priced around 2,200-2,400 I'll buy it. (if it is better than it's predecessor) I love the 100-400 just the way it is now. Hope they keep the push pull too..If they can significantly improve the optics and IS then it's a win win.. But I wont buy jack unless it's that much better


----------



## SecundumArtemRx (Apr 30, 2013)

Don't mean to sound cynical, but this is one lens I'll believe it when I see it. It's approaching Duke Nukem-like rumor status, only to be believed when released. I hope it's sub $3K though when released, as I agree it doesn't make sense why it would cost more out of the gate for something with a similar aperture and focal length?


----------



## Mick (Apr 30, 2013)

On a slightly different tack, I was wondering what the old lens is like? I need a zoom of this range for animals and sport moving toward and away and I've missed a few shots with the 300 prime. The prices seem ok, used top quality ones are a decent price. Best buy one before the price changes. New one will be a bit sharper, better I.s and lighter but way more expensive and for what I need the old one seems good enough. So is it any good? If not any alternative zoom? It's the wide range and a zoom I need.


----------



## polarhannes (Apr 30, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> > ...could be a marketing nightmare selling expensive zooms coming out at the same time (approx) with overlapping focal lengths..
> ...



Off topic, but Mercedes never was a subsidiary of Chrysler. Daimler bought 92% of Chrysler's shares (I believe in 2003?) and then the company was named DaimlerChrysler, but they split in 2007. Daimler (and Mercedes as well as it is only a brand of Daimler) are now completely separated from Chrysler, just as they used to be before 2003.

Besides of that, I completely agree with your opinion.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Apr 30, 2013)

Mick said:


> On a slightly different tack, I was wondering what the old lens is like?



really... well there are already a dozend threads here and a zillion reviews on the web.


----------



## rpt (Apr 30, 2013)

Mick said:


> On a slightly different tack, I was wondering what the old lens is like? I need a zoom of this range for animals and sport moving toward and away and I've missed a few shots with the 300 prime. The prices seem ok, used top quality ones are a decent price. Best buy one before the price changes. New one will be a bit sharper, better I.s and lighter but way more expensive and for what I need the old one seems good enough. So is it any good? If not any alternative zoom? It's the wide range and a zoom I need.


Take a look at some of my pics. I probably need to verify the AFMA one more time...
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=4624.msg236755#msg236755
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=4624.msg208519#msg208519
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=4624.msg237405#msg237405
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=4624.msg239577#msg239577
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=4624.msg259830#msg259830
http://imageshack.us/f/228/tailedjay.jpg/

Hope this helps...


----------



## mrsfotografie (Apr 30, 2013)

xps said:


> I was personally surprised how good the image quality of the NEX-7 in combination with an 18-55mm is. Maybe this would be an lightweight alternative for mountain hiking. Half of the weight of my Canon gear. 24MP and an very ggod image quality. And I can use filters too



It gets even better when you consider the new 16-50, it's better and a lot more compact even  I never thought I'd own a Sony camera but now I do. Mind, it's a different field of application - not a 1:1 substitute for my DSLR's of course. The NEX's performance and convenience is however very impressive and I'm considering expanding my NEX system a little further with a 55-210 (I currently have only the 16-50 and the Sigma 30 f/2.8 ). 

I wonder where Sony will take things in the future - it's good competition for Canon who will need to push their R&D to become competitive in the mirrorless department. The reverse it also true however, I still don't see Sony being a serious threat to Canon in the 'DSLR' market, even with a FF mirrorless 'A-mount' - yet.

And now back on topic: I welcome the release of a new 100-400. It's always good to have another option on the market. I also expect the re-sale value of the 100-400 to go up when the new one comes out at a (much) higher price. That may be a (dis)advantage depending how you look at it. 

In any case, if things go the way of the 24-70, I'll probably not be tempted to get the new model unless the performance increase is comparable to that of the 70-200 f/2.8 IS MkI -> Mk II. If the price is sky-high however, that'll surely put me off at least until it drops to a more reasonable level.


----------



## Albi86 (Apr 30, 2013)

Good for Canon to upgrade the lens, but as for everyone else, I wonder about the price.

Nikon is charging a ridiculous amount of money for their 80-400G (though prices are going down quickly). However, they could do it because the new lens is _much better_ than the old 80-400.

Canon 100-400 is quite good. Can they do a _so-much-better_ lens optically? I don't know, and if they do the price will be exorbitant. Certainly it will feature better IS, and I think they're going to smoothen the bokeh too - the biggest problem of the current version. So while I'm sure it will be a better lens overall, the margin could be slight to justify the difference in price. I think the MK1 will look like a much more attractive package to the most.

Talking about alternatives... never heard of Sigma 50-500? I'm holding on for my purchase of an expensive telezoom until Sigma and Tamron announce something in this range. In the meanwhile I enjoy the cheapolicius Tamron 70-300.


----------



## psolberg (Apr 30, 2013)

hard to tell if this is the obligatory Nikon echo (where every time Nikon releases a lens, there is a rumor of canon doing the same thing, but rarely happens) or the real thing.

Then again, the infamous push puller from canon has been in need of a refresh just as badly as the Nikon one.


----------



## Random Orbits (Apr 30, 2013)

Albi86 said:


> Good for Canon to upgrade the lens, but as for everyone else, I wonder about the price.
> 
> Nikon is charging a ridiculous amount of money for their 80-400G (though prices are going down quickly). However, they could do it because the new lens is _much better_ than the old 80-400.
> 
> ...



It's interesting. Before the 6D came out, many people claimed they'd get a 5DII over the 6D, but it seems like the 6D has done just fine and people are happy with its advantages over the 5DII. When the 24 IS, 28 IS and 35 IS came out, people complained about price gouging and said they'd never get those lenses, but some of those prices have fallen into the 400 range already. When the 24-70 II came out, people complained that it lacked IS and was priced through the roof, but people are still buying it even though the Tamron 24-70 has VC and is significantly less costly.

The problem with the 100-400 is that it does some things well, and that other lenses have eroded many of the advantages it had when it was released. The 70-200L II + 2x is said to come close in IQ at 400mm and is longer when stored and is slightly heavier with the 2x. The 70-300L is more compact and lighter and has very good IQ. I'd expect the new 100-400 to soundly beat the current 70-200L II, 70-300L and 400L f/5.6 IQ-wise, especially at the long end. It might come out closer to 3k initialy but give it a year or two. Early adopters pay a premium.


----------



## Albi86 (Apr 30, 2013)

Random Orbits said:


> Albi86 said:
> 
> 
> > Good for Canon to upgrade the lens, but as for everyone else, I wonder about the price.
> ...




The 24-70 MK2 is optically better than the Tamron. If you can afford it and you don't mind IS, the Tamron is not a strong competitor. 

As far as the rest is concerned, it's Canon offer at a certain price point. If you want a 35mm prime and you can't afford anything better than that (e.g. 35L) and/or you don't want to buy products from other brands (e.g. Sigma), there's not much of a choice. Afterwards you can only try to get the best out of what you bought.

None of those product is "bad". There's just a discrepancy between their price point vs performance ratio when you compare them to other offerings on the market.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 30, 2013)

psolberg said:


> hard to tell if this is the obligatory Nikon echo (where every time Nikon releases a lens, there is a rumor of canon doing the same thing, but rarely happens) or the real thing.
> 
> Then again, the infamous push puller from canon has been in need of a refresh just as badly as the Nikon one.



Hard to tell if this is the obligatory Nikon troll echo (where people who feel compelled to bash Canon must do so in every thread they can find) or you're honestly dissatisfied with your previously or currently owned 100-400L. 

Because while an update would be nice, with the latest coatings, newest IS, and weight-saving advancements, the 'infamous push puller' remains an excellent lens. BTW, as others have pointed out, the old Nikon 80-400 was optically inferior to the Canon, by a wide margin...it certainly 'needed' an update, badly. Nikon has finally responded (and they're certainly charging a premium, they've learned well from Canon on that front).


----------



## K-amps (Apr 30, 2013)

polarhannes said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Plainsman said:
> ...



I worked there in 1998 and it was DaimlerChrysler. Jurgen Shcrempp was the Head boy form the EU.... They might have been bought a year or two earlier.


----------



## RGF (Apr 30, 2013)

Canon Rumors said:


> <div name=\"googleone_share_1\" style=\"position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;\"><glusone size=\"tall\" count=\"1\" href=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/04/ef-100-400-replacement-in-2013-cr2/\"></glusone></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/2013/04/ef-100-400-replacement-in-2013-cr2/\">Tweet</a></div>
> <p><strong>Speculation has started again
> 
> 
> ...



Not surprised about the comment regarding backlog. Seems to be their Achilles heel recently


----------



## brett b (Apr 30, 2013)

Mick said:


> On a slightly different tack, I was wondering what the old lens is like? I need a zoom of this range for animals and sport moving toward and away and I've missed a few shots with the 300 prime. The prices seem ok, used top quality ones are a decent price. Best buy one before the price changes. New one will be a bit sharper, better I.s and lighter but way more expensive and for what I need the old one seems good enough. So is it any good? If not any alternative zoom? It's the wide range and a zoom I need.



I suggest you rent one first. 

I bought one and returned it two days later. Not because of IQ or focus speed. Optically, I liked the lens and the images it produced. I just could not get used to the push/pull zoom. 

I shoot production photos for theaters in my area. Generally these shoots take place during the final dress rehearsal when they run the entire show without stopping as if an audience is present. I get the run of the empty house...can go anywhere I need to within the seating area. I have the 70-200II on my 1DX and the 24-70II on my 1DIV...using the 70-200II for 85%+ of the shots. 

On two recent occasions I've been asked to shoot the same show again to get shots of new cast members. The most recent was because the male lead in "Singin' in the Rain" ruptured his ACL during previews and they had to bring in a new lead. The media hadn't reviewed the show yet, so the producers wanted the newspaper & web review sites to have shots of the new guy.

They never did another dress rehearsal, so I had to shoot during a show from behind the audience...behind the back row. I needed more reach and the 70-200 wasn't enough. 

I'd shot like this before using the 1.4 converter on the 70-200 and that setup was ok, but I decided I had to have the 100-400. You wouldn't think it, but shooting a musical with a lot of movement and dancing is a lot like shooting sports, except the lighting is constantly changing. 

The push/pull zoom of the 100-400 slowed me down. When zooming in, you are literally pulling your camera away from you and when zooming out you are pushing your camera into your face. Plus, I had to change the way I hold my camera. I usually zoom using a finger on my left hand while cradling the lens in my palm...this wasn't possible with the 100-400. I shoot in manual mode and I'm constantly changing aperture and shutter speed along with continually moving my focus point around the viewfinder. This technique is second nature to me, but the push/pull zoom was very distracting and I know I missed shots that I wouldn't have missed. I just wasn't as fast with that lens. 

In the end, I wasn't willing to change the way I shoot to accommodate one lens. I hope version II of the 100-400 will have the traditional zoom. I would buy it in a heartbeat.


----------



## Mick (Apr 30, 2013)

Thanks for the advice everyone.Fantastic idea to rent one. Never thought of that. Actually, think I know someone who has one. I was pretty impressed by the comparisons in the digital picture, for what i want, seems to be a good lens. Holding its value used aswell.


----------



## mrsfotografie (May 1, 2013)

brett b said:


> When zooming in, you are literally pulling your camera away from you and when zooming out you are pushing your camera into your face. Plus, I had to change the way I hold my camera. I usually zoom using a finger on my left hand while cradling the lens in my palm...this wasn't possible with the 100-400. I shoot in manual mode and I'm constantly changing aperture and shutter speed along with continually moving my focus point around the viewfinder. This technique is second nature to me, but the push/pull zoom was very distracting and I know I missed shots that I wouldn't have missed. I just wasn't as fast with that lens.
> 
> In the end, I wasn't willing to change the way I shoot to accommodate one lens. I hope version II of the 100-400 will have the traditional zoom. I would buy it in a heartbeat.



You are aware that there is a tension/friction ring on the barrel that lets you adjust the amount of friction needed to move the zoom position, right? If I need to zoom fast I back it off a little so the zoom action is fast and easy 

For MF I like the fact that your hand stays in the same position on the barrel (next to the focus ring!). Also, as the lens gets longer your left hand automatically stays on the long end of the barrel which helps to stabilise the lens. 

Just another opinion. I love the 100-400 push/pull


----------



## motorhead (May 1, 2013)

Just another opinion. I love the 100-400 push/pull 
[/quote]

Me too.


----------



## xps (May 1, 2013)

motorhead said:


> Just another opinion. I love the 100-400 push/pull



Me too.
[/quote]

+1. But mine stucks between 300-400mm and needs some force to change the focal length. Tried to repair it, but the 300€ did not change it sufficiently.
So, if the new lens will be under 200€ I will switch. 
Most of my bird pics are taken by this lens, I own for 12 years now.


----------



## Plainsman (May 1, 2013)

Personally I would be happy to retain the push/pull design.
It would keep costs down for a Mk II.
All I want is IS2 and a super ED lens element to improve the optics.
It will never happen like this of course...reinvent the wheel etc
So there will be a brand new design at $3k instead of $2k for a new push/pull.
Serious competition for it from the new Nikon which from early reports is a very good zoom particularly when allied to the high res 24Mp DXs.


----------



## Albi86 (May 1, 2013)

Plainsman said:


> Personally I would be happy to retain the push/pull design.
> It would keep costs down for a Mk II.
> All I want is IS2 and a super ED lens element to improve the optics.
> It will never happen like this of course...reinvent the wheel etc
> ...



The Sony 70-400G seems to be a great lens too.

However, if recent history is of any value, I think that Canon will do an incremental upgrade - i.e. solving the problems of the current version more than reinventing it. There's a 400/5.6 prime too, and they probably wouldn't cannibalize it.

So sharpness-wise I don't think the new model is going to be a lot better. I think they will keep the best selling points being new IS and smoother bokeh. Maybe weather sealing? The push-pull design is a specific feature of this lens and they might well want to keep it.


----------



## Bob Howland (May 1, 2013)

xps said:


> mine stucks between 300-400mm and needs some force to change the focal length. Tried to repair it, but the 300€ did not change it sufficiently.



My lens sticks too, at the other end, and Canon USA hasn't been able to fix it. After not using the lens for a week, initially zooming the lens from minimum can take considerable force.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 1, 2013)

Albi86 said:


> However, if recent history is of any value, I think that Canon will do an incremental upgrade - i.e. solving the problems of the current version more than reinventing it. *There's a 400/5.6 prime too, and they probably wouldn't cannibalize it.*
> 
> So sharpness-wise I don't think the new model is going to be a lot better. I think they will keep the best selling points being new IS and smoother bokeh. Maybe weather sealing? The push-pull design is a specific feature of this lens and they might well want to keep it.



Hey, thanks for my morning laugh – it was a good one!! How could a brand-new lens with the latest image stabilization system and the same focal length and max aperture NOT cannibalize sales of a 20 year old lens?? The only possible answer is by the 20-year-old lens being substantially cheaper, and no matter what, the old prime is going to be substantially cheaper. Besides, there are four 70-200 zooms and a 70-300 zoom in the L-series, along with the 100-400, and you think Canon is worried about cannibalization? For most people, a telezoom is the second Glenn's purchased after a standard zoom - Canon is very wisely offering a great selection for that choice.

As for sharpness, don't worry, the new lens will be significantly sharper than the one it replaces. Think 70-200/2.8 IS differential. I suspect the only people who believe there won't be a substantial boost in sharpness are Nikon fanboys (in or out the closet) who want Nikon to finally have an xx-400mm zoom with IQ that rivals Canon, which they do...and will continue to for however long it takes Canon to get the new 100-400 to market.


----------



## Albi86 (May 1, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Albi86 said:
> 
> 
> > However, if recent history is of any value, I think that Canon will do an incremental upgrade - i.e. solving the problems of the current version more than reinventing it. *There's a 400/5.6 prime too, and they probably wouldn't cannibalize it.*
> ...



Great, I'm glad that I made your day. However...


I don't see cannibalization between the 70-200 as they are differentiated in price, aperture, and IS. They go by the simple principle that you pay more for wider aperture and IS and they serve different segments of the market.

The 70-300L and non-L are differentiated very well in price and performance.


The 70-300L and 100-400L are differentiated by those 100mm of focal length and portability.


The 400/5.6 has been for many a 1:1 alternative to the zoom. Similar price, similar application, better IQ at the price of less flexibility. If the new 100-400 puts it to shame, the price will reflect it and so again no cannibalization. If they can make a much better zoom, they can make an even better prime. Eventually Canon will release a new 400/5.6 and the situation will be even again.

In my previous post I clearly stated that the price of the new Nikon 80-400G is ridiculous, but Nikon can get away with that because the previous version was crappy and the upgrade is substantial. The current 100-400L is quite good and making it astonishingly better will be more difficult. If they do, the price will be such that many will wonder if the previous version was a better deal. So I don't know of what imaginary fanboyism you're talking about.


----------



## Hobby Shooter (May 1, 2013)

Albi86 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Albi86 said:
> ...


You're missing the point. On the other hand I don't think you want to get it.


----------



## Albi86 (May 1, 2013)

I actually think that we are all agreeing that if the new version is much better, its price will be much higher than the current offering. 

To make an analogy, for Nikon users their 300/4 is the best choice for IQ at a reasonable price. The new 80-400G is better in many ways, but the price is exhorbitant. Canon users are even better served by the current 100-400 and 400/5.6 prime. So I wonder if a new killer 100-400 at a killer price is going to be such a good deal for Canon users.

Somehow this simple observation has activated the Canon Patrol.


----------



## candyman (May 1, 2013)

Albi86 said:


> Somehow this simple observation has activated the Canon Patrol.




Yes, you know what it is with rumors. And where there are canon rumors, there is Canon Patrol. 8)


----------



## RGF (May 1, 2013)

It would nice if Canon would give a review site both the 100-400 II and 200-400 to compare.

Then i (we) could make intelligent choices about the $ vs IQ or more likely $ vs desire to owner the latest and greatest toy


----------



## brett b (May 8, 2013)

mrsfotografie said:


> brett b said:
> 
> 
> > When zooming in, you are literally pulling your camera away from you and when zooming out you are pushing your camera into your face. Plus, I had to change the way I hold my camera. I usually zoom using a finger on my left hand while cradling the lens in my palm...this wasn't possible with the 100-400. I shoot in manual mode and I'm constantly changing aperture and shutter speed along with continually moving my focus point around the viewfinder. This technique is second nature to me, but the push/pull zoom was very distracting and I know I missed shots that I wouldn't have missed. I just wasn't as fast with that lens.
> ...



Yes...but I couldn't find a comfort zone and, in the end, decided I wasn't willing to try. I suppose I could've gotten used to it with time, but I had to think too much instead of shooting instinctually.


----------



## MichaelHodges (May 9, 2013)

Albi86 said:


> There's a 400/5.6 prime too, and they probably wouldn't cannibalize it.



Why would it matter if they still buy a Canon lens in the end?


------------------

http://michaelhodgesfiction.com/


----------

