# Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 8, 2014)

```
<p><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/36341_1_xl.jpg"><img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-17854" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/36341_1_xl-575x383.jpg" alt="36341_1_xl" width="575" height="383" /></a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/36341_2_xl.jpg"><img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-17855" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/36341_2_xl-575x383.jpg" alt="36341_2_xl" width="575" height="383" /></a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/36341_3_xl.jpg"><img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-17856" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/36341_3_xl-575x383.jpg" alt="36341_3_xl" width="575" height="383" /></a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/36341_4_xl.jpg"><img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-17857" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/36341_4_xl-575x383.jpg" alt="36341_4_xl" width="575" height="383" /></a></p>
<p><strong>Price: $2199 USD | Preorder the <strong>Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II: <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1092632-REG/canon_9524b002_ef_100_400mm_f_4_5_5_6l_is.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">B&H Photo</a> | <a href="http://www.adorama.com/CA1004002U.html?KBID=64393" target="_blank">Adorama</a> | <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00PF39PEY/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00PF39PEY&linkCode=as2&tag=canorumo-20&linkId=DR7JYMNZQZ4LVBHE" target="_blank">Amazon</a></strong>

Release Date: November 11, 2014

Ship Date: Unknown</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Focal Length & Maximum Aperture: 100-400mm 1:4.5-5.6</li>
<li>Lens Construction: 21 elements in 16 groups</li>
<li>Diagonal Angle of View: 24º-6’10’</li>
<li>Focus Adjustment: Inner focus system / USM</li>
<li>Closest Focusing Distance: 3.2 ft. / 0.98m</li>
<li>Filter Size: 77mm</li>
<li>Max Diameter x Length, Weight: 3.7 in. x 7.6 in. / 94mm x 193mm; 3.46 lbs. / 1,570g</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Overview</strong>

The Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM telephoto lens delivers a superb combination of cutting-edge performance, compact construction and brilliant resolving power that’s great for sports and wildlife photography.</p>
<p>The telephoto lens features one fluorite and one super UD element to help provide impressive contrast and resolution with reduced chromatic aberration across the entire zoom range. Canon’s new Air Sphere Coating (ASC) helps significantly reduce backlit flaring and ghosting, while fluorine coatings on the front and rear lens surfaces help lessen smears and fingerprints.A 9-blade circular aperture renders beautiful, soft backgrounds, and a 3 mode (standard, panning and exposure only) Optical Image Stabilizer provides up to 4 steps* of image correction.</p>
<p>The Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM telephoto lens is equipped with a new inner focusing AF system to help ensure fast and accurate focus down to 3.2 ft. with a .31x maximum magnification. Usability enhancements include a rotation-type zoom ring with adjustable zoom torque for more precise, customizable zoom performance, a redesigned tripod mount that can be attached and detached without removing the lens from the EOS camera, and an all-new lens hood with a side window that makes it simple to adjust specialty filters-like polarizers-without the need to remove the hood.</p>
<p>Ruggedly constructed with advanced dust and water sealing for durability in a range of environments, the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM telephoto lens is a stellar performer with refined controls for a wide variety of situations.</p>
<p><strong>Preorder the <strong>Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II $2199: <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1092632-REG/canon_9524b002_ef_100_400mm_f_4_5_5_6l_is.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">B&H Photo</a> | <a href="http://www.adorama.com/CA1004002U.html?KBID=64393" target="_blank">Adorama</a> | <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00PF39PEY/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00PF39PEY&linkCode=as2&tag=canorumo-20&linkId=DR7JYMNZQZ4LVBHE" target="_blank">Amazon</a></strong></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## brad-man (Nov 8, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *

Thanks for the introduction. When do we meet?


----------



## DavidUSMC (Nov 8, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *

It's beautiful, can't wait to get my hands on the legendary unicorn.


----------



## wickidwombat (Nov 8, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *

wow quite a bit cheaper than i was expecting! and i'm sure its gonna be top shelf gonna be interesting to see how it goes with a 1.4 tc the smaller size and panning mode IS might make me sell the tamron for this but i expect its gonna have a long back order


----------



## Marauder (Nov 8, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *

Price isn't bad! Better than I'd expected! Now we wait for some reviews!


----------



## DJL329 (Nov 8, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



DavidUSMC said:


> It's beautiful, can't wait to get my hands on the legendary unicorn.



+1

What's next? A new 50mm f/1.4? The mythical 3D?


----------



## Rockets95 (Nov 8, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *

+1

Hopefully they will be available from CPS soon to borrow and try.


----------



## Haydn1971 (Nov 8, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *

Boom ! Anyone want to buy my 70-300L ?


----------



## ams2d (Nov 8, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *

Went to a local camera store yesterday and there was a Canon Rep.

Jokingly asked him about this lens and he said there is no such lens at this time ... even if he had one in his bag right now it does not exist until officially announced. 

He said that I should maybe come back on Sunday. Figured he was joking but when I first read this post thought they did officially announce it today but don't see it being linked to an official Canon announcement. So will have to wait with everyone else.

Pricing isn't as bad as thought it might be.

Since unicorns appear to exist ... oh Santa!!


----------



## drjlo (Nov 8, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *

So 7D II (1.6x) + 1.4x TC + 100-400 II= 896 mm. Hmm hmm.

Will 2.0 x TC "work" in this situation, without autofocus in phase detect but perhaps intact AF in live view?


----------



## Gcon (Nov 8, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *

Nice! I think I'll offload my 70-300L. I suspect there's going to be a lot of those coming up on the second hand market!


----------



## madspihl (Nov 8, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *

Ohhh - this is interesting news.

One thing will be reviews of the lens itself, but (short of being able to afford the 200-400 f/4 1.4EXT) pairing the 100-400 with th 1.4TC and then comparing it to the Sigma 150-600 Sports is what I am looking forward to seeing image quality comparisons of. One of those solutions are going to be what I will use when the 70-200 2.8 IS II range is not enough.


----------



## Hawker_Driver (Nov 8, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *

Wow, the day will finally come! Can't wait to buy one!!


----------



## lintoni (Nov 8, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *

Realistically priced. Hmm... not just yet, but maybe in a couple of years...


----------



## D. (Nov 8, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *

Very nice. 2014 may not have been the "Year of the Lens" some were hoping, but this lens and the 16-35 f/4, both reasonably priced IMO, significantly bolster Canon's lens line-up, at least in respect to lenses I am interested in. In fact, given the price, I may have to explain to the wife that I have no choice but to pick up this lens and a TC 1.4. Then, of course, I will need to arrange a trip to Yellowstone so may sure the lens is working properly .


----------



## Click (Nov 8, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *

Finally! Too good to be true.


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 8, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *

now the 400F5.6....... please.....


----------



## hoodlum (Nov 8, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *

Slightly bigger and 15% heavier than the older 100-400. I guess this was required for the upgraded IS.


----------



## LSV (Nov 8, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *

You had me at $2199!


----------



## CaptainZero (Nov 8, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *

Would anyone like to buy my 7D with a 100-400 on it? Time to lighten the tax load (and wallet).


----------



## Monchoon (Nov 8, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *

So this lens can use the 1.4 and 2.0 TC?


----------



## srinathpreddy (Nov 8, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *

Hello All,

Few points unclear in the CR description:

1. lens is equipped with a new inner focusing AF system ???

2. Customizable zoom performance??

3. What about the Zoom? There is no mention about whether there is barrel extension or not and if so what would be teh final length?

Can experts clarify....


----------



## Werz (Nov 8, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *

Hmm I wonder when Canon will announce it officially?


----------



## 9VIII (Nov 8, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



D. said:


> Very nice. 2014 may not have been the "Year of the Lens" some were hoping...



No no, it's "year of _the_ lens", the comment was always meant to be singular.


I have a feeling the "Nov 11" date is when they'll do the "official" announcement.

And the lens gap between Canon and Nikon grows yet again.
With the way lens development has been going lately, I'm expecting this to one-up the 400f5.6.


----------



## 9VIII (Nov 8, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *

I might be tempted to glue one of these onto a 7D2.
(the close focus capability makes this one lens good for just about everything I want to do with a camera)


----------



## Harv (Nov 8, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *

Will likely be $2,400 - $2,500 here in Canada. I still want one. I will definitely be on the pre-order list. ;D


----------



## lion rock (Nov 8, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *

If the early adopters give a good review, I'm in for one.
The 200-400 is a bit much to do any significant hand holding and traveling with, this is a good substitution. Just too bad it is not available sooner. I'm taking a 4 weeks travel to HK and NZ. Would just be nice to mount it to my Canon.
Love to hear from the Canoneers who are going to get it soon.
-r


----------



## Dylan777 (Nov 8, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *

Exciting time is ahead of us :


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Nov 8, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *

If the lens performance is significantly better than the original 100-400, I might sell my 300L 2.8. As I age, the weight I can carry for 10 hours a day is being felt. If you see a 100-400, 300, & a 7D listed, you know I pounced on the new 100-400. And... just maybe a 7D II  The new 100-400 in only 2 months worth of my newly acquired SSA check  LOL


----------



## Lee Jay (Nov 8, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *

$2,200. I'll stand by my prediction that it will be available for under $2,000 at some point during the first year. I'd love it to be $1,100, but this is reasonable from Canon.

My opinion on the 400/5.6L IS - there's no need. This lens will likely be the 400/5.6L IS. It should have just as good of optics, it's not too heavy, and it's not really any more expensive than a 400/5.6L IS would be. If you want a 400/5.6L IS, buy this lens and tighten the zoom friction with the lens at the long end.


----------



## Lee Jay (Nov 8, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *

No mention of TC compatibility, but I'm guessing the Canon TCs will mount and work.


----------



## lintoni (Nov 8, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



lion rock said:


> If the early adopters give a good review, I'm in for one.
> The 200-400 is a bit much to do any significant hand holding and traveling with, this is a good substitution. Just too bad it is not available sooner. I'm taking a 4 weeks travel to HK and NZ. Would just be nice to mount it to my Canon.
> Love to hear from the Canoneers who are going to get it soon.
> -r


It may be worth taking advantage of Hong Kong pricing, whilst you're there. Just a thought...


----------



## JonAustin (Nov 8, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



srinathpreddy said:


> Hello All,
> 
> Few points unclear in the CR description:
> 
> ...



Re: The barrel does extend on zoom, but can't tell you what the maximum extended length is.

At last! At this price, I'll be on the preorder list as soon as B&H lists it. I was on the fence about the v1 model, and there's _no way _the v2 won't be significantly better in terms of optical performance.

I actually like the fact that it's a bit heavier than the v1 ... speaks to the quality of the optics in the system.

Now, please ship before Christmas!


----------



## Lee Jay (Nov 8, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *

I said it many years ago, but I'll repeat it here.

The 7D2 + 100-400L II + 1.4x TC is pretty much the ultimate in handholdable reach. Assuming it's as good as it should be, and that it works with the 1.4x, as it should.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Nov 8, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *

I think the optical performance specs will be a significant improvement. What would be the point of a new version if it weren't? Just saying.


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Nov 8, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *

This is the second lens in a few weeks to cost LESS than expected - the other being the 400 DO MkII. What's happening??


----------



## lintoni (Nov 8, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



Steve Balcombe said:


> This is the second lens in a few weeks to cost LESS than expected - the other being the 400 DO MkII. What's happening??


And the 16-35 f4 (okay, that's a couple of months, but still...)


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 8, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *

Most surprising: The unicorn really apeared this year.  
Almost as surprising: $2.200! I'd expected it about $200 to $500 north. 

Now I have a real problem longing for it 

PS: Now I think nobody can't call it "Year of the Lens(es)!" (Hopefully we could call 2015 "Year of the primes"?)


----------



## mrsfotografie (Nov 8, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



hoodlum said:


> Slightly bigger and 15% heavier than the older 100-400. I guess this was required for the upgraded IS.



I suspected it would be heavier, those helicoils add weight; I think the linear extension of the Mk I allows for the lowest possible mechanical complexity, and hence weight for a telezoom.

It's a sleak design - very nice. I feel some excitement but not overly so. The season for short primes has begun and most/all my tele work using slow zooms will be suspended till spring so I can wait. 

I'm torn between this, or a 400DO II. The 100-400 would require a 7DMkII to get the reach I've been missing - de 400DO II will take my 1.4TC. All in all it's a lot of money and like I said, I can wait at least till the prices of these lenses come down a little.


----------



## srinathpreddy (Nov 8, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



JonAustin said:


> srinathpreddy said:
> 
> 
> > Hello All,
> ...



Thanks Jon...

ANy view on 'Customizable zoom performance??'


----------



## serendipidy (Nov 8, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *

HAPPY BIRTHDAY to me...HAPPY BIRTHDAY to me ;D ;D ;D


----------



## sagittariansrock (Nov 8, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



srinathpreddy said:


> JonAustin said:
> 
> 
> > srinathpreddy said:
> ...



I think this is what it is: there is a tightening ring, so you can decide if you want quick but less precise zooming or slower and more precise zooming action.


----------



## Besisika (Nov 8, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *

Long live the unicorn!
Let the "shy lizard" shooting begin (0.98m mfd, .31x m mag)!
Summer will be fun in Canada!


----------



## sagittariansrock (Nov 8, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



Don Haines said:


> now the 400F5.6....... please.....



You might not need it, if this is good enough


----------



## sagittariansrock (Nov 8, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



Lee Jay said:


> No mention of TC compatibility, but I'm guessing the Canon TCs will mount and work.



That was my initial worry when I thought this looked shorter. It isn't though, so I think all is well. 
Looks like the lens will be released just in time for me to buy it refurbished with discount for $ 1500 for the 2016 spring birding season


----------



## JPAZ (Nov 8, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *

I'd say the critical unknown is whether we can use Canon TC's and there is no mention one way or the other. Interesting that it is just a bit heavier and longer than the old "push-pull" but better optics at this price is very enticing.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Nov 8, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



Steve Balcombe said:


> This is the second lens in a few weeks to cost LESS than expected - the other being the 400 DO MkII. What's happening??



This is to make Nikon users bang their head against the wall.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 8, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



Monchoon said:


> So this lens can use the 1.4 and 2.0 TC?



1.4x = I would assume so, but it is not confirmed.

2.0x = I assume it will _fit_ but your AF won't work. MF only. If I understand correctly, your effective max aperture with a 2x will be too narrow for the AF system, at least it will be until Canon offers an F/11 AF point on a body (someday).

- A


----------



## brad-man (Nov 8, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



KeithBreazeal said:


> I think the optical performance specs will be a significant improvement. What would be the point of a new version if it weren't? Just saying.



My copy of v1 is quite sharp. I doubt the new one will be significantly sharper (perhaps I have a particularly good copy). What it will have is greatly improved IS, lens coatings and (hopefully) weather resistance. The slotted hood for filters is also intriguing. Though I'm not particularly interested in upgrading, I will keep an open mind.


----------



## Monchoon (Nov 8, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



dilbert said:


> Steve Balcombe said:
> 
> 
> > This is the second lens in a few weeks to cost LESS than expected - the other being the 400 DO MkII. What's happening??
> ...



And what's wrong with that?


----------



## Lee Jay (Nov 8, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



ahsanford said:


> Monchoon said:
> 
> 
> > So this lens can use the 1.4 and 2.0 TC?
> ...



Or live view/dual pixel.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Nov 8, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



brad-man said:


> KeithBreazeal said:
> 
> 
> > I think the optical performance specs will be a significant improvement. What would be the point of a new version if it weren't? Just saying.
> ...



My lens is quite good and others have noticed the fact. I think it's more about techniques and lighting. This is at f6.3 ISO 200 on a 5D III *(click on the photo for a larger size)*



F-22 Raptor afterburner turn © Keith Breazeal by Keith Breazeal Photography, on Flickr


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 8, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



srinathpreddy said:


> Hello All,
> 
> Few points unclear in the CR description:
> 
> 1. lens is equipped with a new inner focusing AF system ???



The front doesn't rotate or extend when you focus and the focusing elements are closer to the rear of the lens than the front or middle.



> 2. Customizable zoom performance??



The tension on the zooming can be adjusted.



> 3. What about the Zoom? There is no mention about whether there is barrel extension or not and if so what would be teh final length?



There is extension and it's very considerable.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 8, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



Werz said:


> Hmm I wonder when Canon will announce it officially?



11th


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 8, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *

Nice lens! At this point, my $2200 is going to the TS-E 17mm, though.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 8, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> srinathpreddy said:
> 
> 
> > Hello All,
> ...



The current 100-400 is inner focusing. What's unclear from the CR post and your 'answer' is what makes it _new_.


----------



## serendipidy (Nov 8, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



KeithBreazeal said:


> Steve Balcombe said:
> 
> 
> > This is the second lens in a few weeks to cost LESS than expected - the other being the 400 DO MkII. What's happening??
> ...



;D ;D ;D


----------



## Sabaki (Nov 8, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *

So we expect the newer lens to be sharper but should we expect better contrast and less fringing?

I'm also keen to hear whether the performance at 400mm will be as good as every other millimeter on the lens. 

Maybe it'll have 4x the weather sealing of the mark 1 ;D


----------



## serendipidy (Nov 8, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



KeithBreazeal said:


> brad-man said:
> 
> 
> > KeithBreazeal said:
> ...



Wow! Fantastic shot Keith 8)


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 8, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



Sabaki said:


> I'm also keen to hear whether the performance at 400mm will be as good as every other millimeter on the lens.



I often wonder if some people actually skip the 100-399mm focal lengths on the lens and just use the 100-400 as a collapsible 400 prime. 

(Thankfully, I am not afflicted with the reach addiction many CR forum dwellers have. I have little desire to buy this thing, slap a 2x on it and then put it on a crop body. But I do like Canon putting out better options for us.)

- A


----------



## Omni Images (Nov 8, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *

I'm over the moon on this lens. I have been waiting to hear something on a new 400 for over 6 months now, and the reason I started visiting this site almost daily and more recently numerous times a day.
This lens hits all the marks I have wanted in a 400 lens ... bar one, it's a zoom, slightly lower image quality than a prime and the extra weight of a zoom ... but I'll concede that point if image quality is at least better than the 100-400 .. which I am sure it would be of course ... dare I say, it's canon glass ....
The impressive feature for me is the MFD .. 0.98 ! wow .. blows any prime 400 out of the water and any of the other "big whites" for that matter .. for small birds/animals ... even flora .. 
The price is very reasonable for someone like me who may never be able to afford any of the "big whites"
So this lens is long awaited and will be part of my kit as soon as I see a few test reviews just to confirm it's good to go.
Unless of course they announce a 400F5.6LIIis with a mfd of around 1.4m


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 8, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



Omni Images said:


> I'm over the moon on this lens. I have been waiting to hear something on a new 400 for over 6 months now, and the reason I started visiting this site almost daily and more recently numerous times a day.
> This lens hits all the marks I have wanted in a 400 lens ... bar one, it's a zoom, slightly lower image quality than a prime and the extra weight of a zoom ... but I'll concede that point if image quality is at least better than the 100-400 .. which I am sure it would be of course ... dare I say, it's canon glass ....
> The impressive feature for me is the MFD .. 0.98 ! wow .. blows any prime 400 out of the water and any of the other "big whites" for that matter .. for small birds/animals ... even flora ..
> The price is very reasonable for someone like me who may never be able to afford any of the "big whites"
> ...



Just curious -- so many folks are ga-ga about the 0.31x, which I'm interpreting to mean that people want to fill the frame with their subjects and have to crop less. How often are folks pushing their MFD with lenses this long?

Has any company ever tried something like a 1:1 macro in longer focal lengths? Is that technically problematic for some reason? It seems everyone's macro lenses are 50-60mm (for crop), 100mm or 180mm... Why not longer?

- A


----------



## Omni Images (Nov 8, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *

For me when I'm "birding" it means I can get closer ... and for the smaller birds you can ... sometimes you may be there being still and they will fly right up close to you ... it happens a lot .. and with the old 400, a mfd of 3.5m well forget getting a shot, and forget getting those tiny birds or small reptiles etc any where near close enough to get the detail, and yes fill the frame ... so to me it's a game changer.
I think a bigger macro lens is just not really needed, so it's a design thing specifically for macro work ... you can put extension tubes on a bigger lens, but will loose longer focus, but you won't need to get as close to the subject with a longer lens.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 8, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



Omni Images said:


> For me when I'm "birding" it means I can get closer ... and for the smaller birds you can ... sometimes you may be there being still and they will fly right up close to you ... it happens a lot .. and with the old 400, a mfd of 3.5m well forget getting a shot, and forget getting those tiny birds or small reptiles etc any where near close enough to get the detail, and yes fill the frame ... so to me it's a game changer.
> I think a bigger macro lens is just not really needed, so it's a design thing specifically for macro work ... you can put extension tubes on a bigger lens, but will loose longer focus, but you won't need to get as close to the subject with a longer lens.



Sure, but it's technically possible, right? My 100L Macro is also a great short tele prime with the flick of a focus range switch. Why not try the same thing with a longer focal length? 

- A


----------



## Steve (Nov 8, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



ahsanford said:


> Just curious -- so many folks are ga-ga about the 0.31x, which I'm interpreting to mean that people want to fill the frame with their subjects and have to crop less. How often are folks pushing their MFD with lenses this long?



Pretty often. A lot of people think that telephotos are used like telescopes, when the best results (for wildlife anyway) are when they are used like big macro lenses. You often want to use extension tubes with long lenses to get closer, especially when shooting from hides and setups.


----------



## Omni Images (Nov 8, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *

I'm sure it would be, but at what price ... and that's the rub ..
Many companies can do far more than what they finally put out because the market would not pay the price for it.
So it is always a trade of for what they can for the price and if the public would pay that much for it.
I'm Canon could put out many products we are craving for .. but the cost would be more than we would pay... so it sits on the shelf until things change and the technology or what ever it is that is making it too expensive changes.
I also have the 100 macro, love it, but no good for wildlife,300 to 400 I would say is min really for this sort of work.
I would also say the mfd is why many use a tele converter, as they increase range and you still keep the mfd of the lens, add that with a crop sensor camera and you have that tiny bird at full frame.
The new 7Dii along with this new lens is going to be a very common combination, and I think Canon has had this combo in mind for us "birders" and have made sure both would work very well together.


----------



## nda (Nov 8, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



serendipidy said:


> KeithBreazeal said:
> 
> 
> > brad-man said:
> ...



+1


----------



## Bennymiata (Nov 8, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *

I've owned the older version for about 5 years and I love it.
I do use it for bugs and flowers, as well as birds etc., and it looks like my wallet is going to take another hit to buy this lens.
The closer mfd will be very welcome.

I bet it goes under $2K after Xmas.


----------



## JonAustin (Nov 8, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



Omni Images said:


> I'm over the moon on this lens. I have been waiting to hear something on a new 400 for over 6 months now, and the reason I started visiting this site almost daily and more recently numerous times a day.
> This lens hits all the marks I have wanted in a 400 lens ... bar one, it's a zoom, slightly lower image quality than a prime and the extra weight of a zoom ... but I'll concede that point if image quality is at least better than the 100-400 .. which I am sure it would be of course ... dare I say, it's canon glass ....
> The impressive feature for me is the MFD .. 0.98 ! wow .. blows any prime 400 out of the water and any of the other "big whites" for that matter .. for small birds/animals ... even flora ..
> The price is very reasonable for someone like me who may never be able to afford any of the "big whites"
> So this lens is long awaited and will be part of my kit as soon as I see a few test reviews just to confirm it's good to go. Unless of course they announce a 400F5.6LIIis with a mfd of around 1.4m



I'm right there with you, although the MFD isn't the big deal for me. In my case, I want more reach with better image quality than the 100-400 I ... up until now, my longest lens was 70-200/2.8 II + 1.4x TC II. 

I'm also hopeful that this lens performs well in the longer focal lengths (300-400) against the current 400/5.6.

Now, instead of checking Canon Rumors daily for updates, I can start checking B&H (after the 11/11 announcement), to get in my pre-order!



ahsanford said:


> I often wonder if some people actually skip the 100-399mm focal lengths on the lens and just use the 100-400 as a collapsible 400 prime.



Given that many are still waiting for Canon to add IS to the 400/5.6, no doubt some people do use the 100-400 as you suggest!

I'm also intrigued by this little bit from the announcement:

"... a redesigned tripod mount that can be attached and detached without removing the lens from the EOS camera ..."

I wonder if Canon will -- as with their new center-pinch lens caps -- start making updated tripod rings with detachable feet for all their telezooms ...


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Nov 8, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



nda said:


> serendipidy said:
> 
> 
> > KeithBreazeal said:
> ...



Thanks for the comments  ***I use the 100-400 primarily for airshows. The 100-400 is the favorite "Go-To" focal length for most airshow photographers.

***


Peek-A-Boo Preflight © Keith Breazeal by Keith Breazeal Photography, on Flickr


----------



## Gooniesneversaydie11 (Nov 8, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



The current 100-400 is inner focusing. What's unclear from the CR post and your 'answer' is what makes it _new_.
[/quote] 

My guess would be that it focus faster and more accurately than the MK1(one major difference between the 100-400 mk1 and the 400mm f/5.6 ). 

As for the price being lower than expected, I think that as time goes on the technology becomes cheaper. The new lens coating and materials may not simply be about being "Better" as it is about reducing cost so that Canon can market this more aggressively. 

Personally, I always preferred the 400mm f/5.6 Prime over the 100-400 MK1 due to its IQ,speed, and a deep loathing for "push/pull" zooming. Weight never bothered me. If this lens is better than the 400 f/5.6 @ 400mm, then I am sold.


----------



## Rockets95 (Nov 8, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



Monchoon said:


> So this lens can use the 1.4 and 2.0 TC?



I hope so, but the 70-300 L does not. I was interested in that a couple of years ago, but ended up with the 70-200 f/2.8 L II. I purchased a 1.4 extender and they did not play well together. It was a long story, but I sent the extender back.


----------



## Omni Images (Nov 8, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *

I too have been using the 70-200F2.8 for too long now, I got the 2xiii converter, but not impressed with the image quality hit and oh so slow focus, that I all but never use it anymore.
The only other two options for me (wallet) were the old 100-400 and the prime 400F5.6 ... and the 300F4 has been a sneaky fav just for it's mfd of 1.5m and IS also, but wanting 400mm just made not want to commit to that either.
But none have been that great to make me buy anything... so I have been waiting ... and yes even holding my breath till something new came on the horizon.
MFD was a big thing for me which did rule out the old 400F5.6
Image quality (I heard/read) wasn't that great with the old 100-400 ... 1.8m mfd was almost acceptable.
The 300F4 hit all the marks, but was still only a 300mm

I don't see myself using much under 400mm most of the time, so a prime for me would still trump a zoom.
A new 400 F5.6 with shorter mfd would sway me for sure over the 100-400, but I don;t know how much longer I can hold me breath for .... I would be very happy to inhale this new version right now ...

Nice shots too btw Keith ... I love the detail in that tire ...


----------



## Dylan777 (Nov 8, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



neuroanatomist said:


> Nice lens! At this point, my $2200 is going to the TS-E 17mm, though.



I will not pre-order it. However, if the IQ is good as Canon recent releases I might end up with one when they offer $200-$300 rebate. Just like 16-35 f4 IS.

Still waiting for that 1DX II rumor......... : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 8, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



Gooniesneversaydie11 said:


> > The current 100-400 is inner focusing. What's unclear from the CR post and your 'answer' is what makes it _new_.
> 
> 
> My guess would be that it focus faster and more accurately than the MK1(one major difference between the 100-400 mk1 and the 400mm f/5.6 ).



Not sure that would warrant highlighting it as 'new'. Maybe... I'd guess a floating focusing system like the 70-300L, for improved sharpness at the MFD (which is quite close for this new lens, and would possibly be pretty soft there without floating focus).


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Nov 8, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



ahsanford said:


> Just curious -- so many folks are ga-ga about the 0.31x, which I'm interpreting to mean that people want to fill the frame with their subjects and have to crop less. How often are folks pushing their MFD with lenses this long?



Lots of people use lenses like this as walk-around wildlife lenses. A bird in flight will be followed by a static small bird a few feet away, then a butterfly or a dragonfly at 1:3. 

BTW I did a quick calculation. You can easily work out the actual focal length if the magnification is 0.31x at 980 mm, using the lens formula 1/a + 1/b = 1/f while knowing that magnification = b/a:

980/1.31 = 748
980-748 = 232
1/f = 1/748 + 1/232 = 0.00547
f = 177 mm

So this is another lens with extreme focus breathing - no surprise as the 70-300L is also less than 200 mm at 1:1. I don't see this as a problem though - for distant subjects you need maximum focal length and that's fine because it will be ~400 mm down to a few metres. And for near-macro 177 mm is plenty long enough - it's the 0.31x that counts. The big issues will be image quality at MFD, and how well does the IS work for hand-held shots at that distance. The 70-300L's IQ is better than the 300/4L IS for distant subjects, but not as good at MFD.


----------



## MadHungarian (Nov 9, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *

I'm definitely going to have get this one, depending on the reviews. The reported size/weight is a bit more than i was hoping for, but the 77mm filter size means i only have to drag along one set of filters, which cuts the weight by several ounces.


----------



## PureClassA (Nov 9, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *

Heh... I believe I called this at $1999 - $2200 and got a little good natured ribbing for it. Salt with your crow? ;D


----------



## JonAustin (Nov 9, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



PureClassA said:


> Heh... I believe I called this at $1999 - $2200 and got a little good natured ribbing for it. Salt with your crow? ;D



I was right there with you ($2100 - $2400), although in my case, it was more wishful thinking that educated insight ...


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 9, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



JonAustin said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > Heh... I believe I called this at $1999 - $2200 and got a little good natured ribbing for it. Salt with your crow? ;D
> ...


I believe I predicted $2500 to $2600..... this keeps my prediction record perfect... wrong every time


----------



## dolina (Nov 9, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *

I am glad I was wrong at $2,700. I was thinking Canon would match Nikon in pricing. ;D


----------



## PureClassA (Nov 9, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *

The release of this killing me. I want to get one but I feel a 5D4 coming soon and I'm also staring down a Sony A7S for video/cinema shooting with a metabones adapter for all my EF glass  I'm having photography ADD


----------



## slclick (Nov 9, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *

Sounds good to me, next rumor come to fruition please.


----------



## PureClassA (Nov 9, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



dolina said:


> I am glad I was wrong at $2,700. I was thinking Canon would match Nikon in pricing. ;D



Obviously standing by my initial analysis of Canon absolutely NOT abandoning their proven HUGE base for this lens. They would much rather sell waaaay more copies of this at $2199 and strengthen their brand than half as many as $3000. No reason to compete with Nikon price range when they dont have to and can easily eat their lunch and steal their toys


----------



## RichM (Nov 9, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *

Crap! They had to announce this today? I haven't even paid for the 7d2 yet 
It is next on my purchase list, perhaps in the spring!


----------



## dolina (Nov 9, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *

Under the assumption CR's rumor is true

Difference of v2 as compared to v1
- More lens elements and groups
- Differing Focus adjustment
- Shorter focusing distance by 0.82m/2.7ft
- Zoom system possible twist-type rather than push-pull
- Larger Diameter x Length, Weight 2mm x 4mm; 190g
- 2 more stops of IS
- 16 year gap between the introduction of the v1 & v2
- $500 more
- Inclusion of IS Mode 3 http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/standard_display/Lens_Advantage_IS

Version 1 vs 2

v1 
Focal Length & Maximum Aperture 100-400mm 1:4.5-5.6
Lens Construction 17 elements in 14 groups
Diagonal Angle of View 24° - 6° 10'
Focus Adjustment Rear focusing system with USM
Closest Focusing Distance 1.8m/ 5.9 ft.
Zoom System Linear extension Type
Filter Size 77mm
Max. Diameter x Length, Weight 3.6" x 7.4", 3.1 lbs. / 92mm x 189mm, 1,380g
2-stops of IS
Introduced 1998
Price $1,699

v2 
Focal Length & Maximum Aperture: 100-400mm 1:4.5-5.6
Lens Construction: 21 elements in 16 groups
Diagonal Angle of View: 24º-6’10’
Focus Adjustment: Inner focus system / USM
Closest Focusing Distance: 3.2 ft. / 0.98m
Filter Size: 77mm
Max Diameter x Length, Weight: 3.7 in. x 7.6 in. / 94mm x 193mm; 3.46 lbs. / 1,570g
4-stops of IS
Introduced 2014
Price $2,199


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 9, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



9VIII said:


> And the lens gap between Canon and Nikon grows yet again.


 
What are you saying?? Doesn't this pretty match the New Nikon 80-400mm lens announced a little over a year ago for $2700?

difference in quality, we will need to see.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Nov 9, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



RichM said:


> Crap! They had to announce this today? I haven't even paid for the 7d2 yet
> It is next on my purchase list, perhaps in the spring!



Likely not worth the pre-order. Wait for the test results first. Most people will just use it a 400 anyway so might as well get the 400 5.6L prime lens.

However I'm not very enchanted with F5.6 lenses as to realize their sharpness, you have to stop them down even more. Shooting at F7 to F8 really limits what you can shoot and when you can shoot it.


----------



## stochasticmotions (Nov 9, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *

can't wait to see a comparison between this and the other new telephoto zooms. I sold my 100-400 about a year ago after 8 years of birding and nature work. I replaced it with the sigma 120-300 f2.8 for the low light with owls but this lens is definitely not a good travel lens. 

Looks like we are going to have interesting choices for the $1000-2200 range for long lenses all with attributes that will be good for some, and other attributes that different people will want. If this new lens doesn't lose too much with teleconverters it is going to be hard to beat with its size....assuming it is on par with the 70-300L which was much sharper than my 100-400.


----------



## andrewflo (Nov 9, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *

Very cool love the ergonomic updates to this lens. I have high hopes for the optics!

Canon still has one of the best lens lineups out there, despite all the debate over their camera bodies these days.


----------



## Davebo (Nov 9, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



RichM said:


> Crap! They had to announce this today? I haven't even paid for the 7d2 yet
> It is next on my purchase list, perhaps in the spring!



Double crap!! Just pick up my 7D II this afternoon....now Canon is looking for more of my money! . If it ends up being sharper than my 400 f5.6.....I may need to consider,once the excitement dies down. Rarely minded my 400's MFD,since most of my subjects don't want to get any closer than 11.5 feet.


----------



## squarebox (Nov 9, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *

I wonder if the only reason we are getting this lens at $2200 is because the yen tanked against the dollar 15% in the last week alone. Still waiting to hear what price they release it in Japan though, if it is 250,000 JPY than it isn't cheaper than what I was expecting.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Nov 9, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



serendipidy said:


> KeithBreazeal said:
> 
> 
> > brad-man said:
> ...



Thanks serendipidy


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 9, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



PureClassA said:


> Heh... I believe I called this at $1999 - $2200 and got a little good natured ribbing for it. Salt with your crow? ;D


 
Yup, pass the salt  

I'm very surprised at the price, particularly since Nikon gets $2700 for their version and it was introduced over a year ago. I hope that it does not indicate that Canon chose to cut corners in order to match Sigma prices.

I will pre-order, and will return it if it is not up to snuff compared to my existing 100-400L. If it won't take a TC, that would be a issue, but I'll know before the order goes thru.

Eating Crow is much better than Lutefisk! We went to the annual sons of Norway $17 Lutefisk Dinner on paper plates no less.


----------



## Canon1 (Nov 9, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



Don Haines said:


> JonAustin said:
> 
> 
> > PureClassA said:
> ...



LOL... I was predicting $3k. Guess I was the most wrong. Good for those who have this on their wish list. I don't think I will be one of them... I'm selling my 100-400v1 as I don't use it much, and it's not because of the performance of it. I just don't find that I like that focal range paired with that aperture range.


----------



## Gooniesneversaydie11 (Nov 9, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



Omni Images said:


> I don't see myself using much under 400mm most of the time, so a prime for me would still trump a zoom.
> A new 400 F5.6 with shorter mfd would sway me for sure over the 100-400, but I don;t know how much longer I can hold me breath for .... I would be very happy to inhale this new version right now ...



I agree. The MFD is nice on this lens. I used to have the 300mm f/4L and with a small extension tube it was quite nice for moderate closeup/macro work. This lens has an even shorter MFD than that lens so that interests me. While I am not real huge on IS, it definitely would be handy when shooting perched birds.


----------



## dgatwood (Nov 9, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I'm very surprised at the price, particularly since Nikon gets $2700 for their version and it was introduced over a year ago. I hope that it does not indicate that Canon chose to cut corners in order to match Sigma prices.



Given that a $2199 price represents a whopping 47% premium over the street price on the current-generation 100–400L, I think it is probably safe to say that they didn't have to cut corners to hit that price point.


----------



## dolina (Nov 9, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *

I expect the price to normalize within 6 months after first shipment. For all we know it may drop by $500 by this time next year. ;D


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Nov 9, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *

I predict we'll smell a lot of burning plastic by Christmas. Mine is already a few degrees below ignition point.


----------



## 9VIII (Nov 9, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



ahsanford said:


> Just curious -- so many folks are ga-ga about the 0.31x, which I'm interpreting to mean that people want to fill the frame with their subjects and have to crop less. How often are folks pushing their MFD with lenses this long?



With the 400f5.6 it's impossible to fill the frame with a small bird, even on a crop body. This is officially the best "general wilderness" lens ever made.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Nov 9, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *

Great news. This and the 16-35 IS make for a great lens year.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 9, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



dgatwood said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > I'm very surprised at the price, particularly since Nikon gets $2700 for their version and it was introduced over a year ago. I hope that it does not indicate that Canon chose to cut corners in order to match Sigma prices.
> ...


 
As compared to the Nikon Lens? That was intended as the context of my comment. The old 100-400 has had the design, startup, and tooling long paid for, so its a high profit item. A new lens is always expensive initially because of the $$$$$$ invested in bring it to market, and in production. Price usually drops over time as with any other product.

Canon has not been shy about pricing cameras and lenses well above Nikon's price as of late, so I am wondering why its $400 less? The implication is that they found a way to build it for a lot less, or that it is perhaps not as good. I intend to order one, and I hope that its equal or better to the Nikon lens, which has turned out to be very good. 

I'd welcome a return to the days of Canon producing less expensive products that are almost as good as the competition, but cost substantially less.


----------



## greger (Nov 9, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *

More gear envy for me! Do I want to Upgrade? I might after the reviews are out.


----------



## 9VIII (Nov 9, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



Mt Spokane Photography said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > And the lens gap between Canon and Nikon grows yet again.
> ...



http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=915&Camera=614&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=1&LensComp=113&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0

You expect Canon to make a new lens _worse_ than the model they released 16 years ago?
Other reviews put the Nikon ahead of the Canon, but given the discrepancy between reviews I can only assume once variation is accounted for the two will turn out nearly the same

The real competition is with the new third party superzooms.

http://www.lenstip.com/417.4-Lens_review-Sigma_S_150-600_mm_f_5-6.3_DG_OS_HSM_Image_resolution.html

It will be very interesting to see if the 100-400 Mk2 on the 7D2 will be able to compete with the Sigma 150-600S on full frame.
Of course Canon always has the AF advantage, and the MFD is a big deal for me. As much as I like Sigma, unless the 100-400 Mk2 is screwed up somehow I don't think I'm going to be able to give them my cash this time around.


----------



## lion rock (Nov 9, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *

Lintoni,
I'm leaving next Wednesday from North Carolina, and my days in HK is quite limited, lots of running around visiting relatives, so may not have a whole lot of time to look for a suitable store selling it, if ( a big IF ) it is available while I'm there.
However, the suggestion is excellent, I'll keep an eye opened for it when I walk around there.
I may seek out DigitalRev! 
Thanks for putting the idea in my head, appreciate.
-r




lintoni said:


> lion rock said:
> 
> 
> > If the early adopters give a good review, I'm in for one.
> ...


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 9, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



9VIII said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > 9VIII said:
> ...


 
Wow, that image on TDP really seems poor for the Nikon. The reviews I've seen have it much better. The MTF curve also shows it to be very good, so something may be wrong with that lens. My 100-400 produces very good images at 400mm as well, the older units did not seem to do as well.

I agree, besides the image quality, MFD and ability to work with a 1.4 TC is a big factor that would be in favor of the lens, and I plan to pre-order one.

As to the Sigma, I'd like to see more tests from lenses bought from off the shelf in stores rather than one supplied by Sigma for testing.

So far, the images I've seen are good, and beat the Tamron slightly, but they are still just lacking something at 600mm. I really wouldn't expect better at that price, but had hopes. The size of the sport version also puts me off, the new 100-400 looks to be almost as easy to handle as my current 100-400.


----------



## DavidD (Nov 9, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *


My lens is quite good and others have noticed the fact. I think it's more about techniques and lighting. This is at f6.3 ISO 200 on a 5D III *(click on the photo for a larger size)*



F-22 Raptor afterburner turn © Keith Breazeal by Keith Breazeal Photography, on Flickr


Great photograph of the F22 !

Sadly, I'm left underwhelmed by this new lens announcement; 
after waiting so long I was hoping for more.

I have a 100-400 V1 and it is so versatile and sharp for making 
landscape images, it is a major reason I use Canon equipment.

But why would I spend another $1000 (assuming I sell my lens 
for a good price) to get a prettier, but even heavier lens ?

The only useful improvement I can see is 2 more stops of IS.

But on that topic I was hoping (eternal optimist) that Canon 
would provide the 4 stops IS firmware upgrade for my 
existing 100-400 lens. I'd pay a couple hundred for that 
even though the IS I have now on my V1 is darn good.

The extra weight gives me pause as I just spent some time 
climbing mountains with my "lighter" version and am not
thrilled with that "benefit."

I'm hoping the MTF charts show the new lens is a big 
jump forward in resolution. 

My guess is that this upgrade is part of a bigger strategy 
to increase the size of the sensor circle and its resolution 
for the most popular professional lenses -- to get ready 
for much higher resolution sensors. 

If true that's fine, but how does that help me / us now ?


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Nov 9, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *

If Canon was smart, they would have built the lens modular and have an optional version with a flip-in 1.4x like the 200-400.


----------



## PureClassA (Nov 9, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



dilbert said:


> If Canon fixed up the 24-105 then owning a 24-105 Mk II and a 100-400 Mk II would be an awesome pairing. Throw in a 1.4x TC and two lenses gives you continuous coverage from 24 - 560mm for ~$3000. Why wouldn't you do that now? The 24-105 currently available isn't that great (especially when compared to the 24-70/f4L).
> 
> So now it is 24-70+70-300 to max out the IQ without any drops in focal length. However it is likely to be many more years before the 24-105 is fixed (not even 10 years old yet) - if ever!
> 
> ...




Eh.... It seems to me that 24-105 sells the number of copies it does because it's packaged as the official "high end" kit lens (paired with 5d3, 6d, etc...) I don't see Canon spending a lot of rebuilding time here. Maybe they bust out a better IS version in the next few years but I don't see a major optical overhaul. This is a comprehensive standard focal range lens I think they want to keep at a low cost (relatively speaking) for a kit with a red ring on it. 

I think there are other more critical areas Canon will put it's glass attention on. 16-35 and now the 100-400 are major refreshers. the 24-70 and 70-200 are still new and excellent. So that leaves the primes. Update the 35, 50, and 135mm L with MkII versions. Rebuild the optics and add IS at least on the 135. Love mine. IS would be nice though. Sigma has moved in at the 35 and 50 space extremely well. The 85 is next.


----------



## MadHungarian (Nov 9, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



PureClassA said:


> Eh.... It seems to me that 24-105 sells the number of copies it does because it's packaged as the official "high end" kit lens (paired with 5d3, 6d, etc...) I don't see Canon spending a lot of rebuilding time here. Maybe they bust out a better IS version in the next few years but I don't see a major optical overhaul. This is a comprehensive standard focal range lens I think they want to keep at a low cost (relatively speaking) for a kit with a red ring on it.
> . . .



Yeah, i bought a 24-70 f/4 a couple months ago immediately after the big price drop, to hopefully replace my 24-105. But i ended up returning the 24-70. It was definitely better at 24mm, and a wash at other focal lengths, but it had serious focus shift issues at most focal lengths and distances. Turns out that B&H had shipped me an early production model. Maybe the focus shift bug was fixed in later production runs.

But the experience showed me that my current 24-105 isn't really too bad after all. Other than just a little weak at 24mm. Its major failing was lens creep. But i've fixed that for now with a rubber band strategically placed and painted black. Works pretty well for now and is invisible.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 9, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



KeithBreazeal said:


> If Canon was smart, they would have built the lens modular and have an optional version with a flip-in 1.4x like the 200-400.




It will be difficult to use the same lens system in a "modular system" as in the stand-alone 100-400 since the 100-400mm glass will be further away from the sensor when the empty flip out housing is between it and the camera. A flip in housing will be bigger and heavier than having a separate external TC.

So, perhaps Canon has been smart after all and have realised the technical problems and also know that a flip in 1.4xTC will significantly increase the length and weight of the 100-400 so that it will lose its portability advantage, and such a version will appeal only to a few. 

Canon 100-400 II
94x193 mm
1570 g

Canon 100-400 II + 1.4xTC
94x220 mm
1795 g

Canon 100-400 II + flip in 1.4xTC
94x >220 mm
> 1795 g

For comparison, 
Tamron 150-600
105.6 x 257.8 mm
1951 g


----------



## expatinasia (Nov 9, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



KeithBreazeal said:


> If Canon was smart, they would have built the lens modular and have an optional version with a flip-in 1.4x like the 200-400.



Seriously. Considering how much the 200-400 costs. Would you be willing to pay the extra it would cost?

I doubt this lens is aimed at that type of market.


----------



## blindcat (Nov 9, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *

Bought when out


----------



## rrcphoto (Nov 9, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



DavidD said:


> Sadly, I'm left underwhelmed by this new lens announcement;
> after waiting so long I was hoping for more.



I'm confused. it looks like it has a brand new never seen before IS - and brand new never seen before coatings. what would you expect out of a 100-400 Mark II?



DavidD said:


> I have a 100-400 V1 and it is so versatile and sharp for making
> landscape images, it is a major reason I use Canon equipment.


IS, optical, coating improvements are all welcomed and many didn't like the push pull zoom.


DavidD said:


> But why would I spend another $1000 (assuming I sell my lens
> for a good price) to get a prettier, but even heavier lens ?
> 
> The only useful improvement I can see is 2 more stops of IS.


coatings as well and quite possibly optical. the original was okay at 400mm but really got handed it's collective ass compared to the nikkor 80-400 at every other focal length.


DavidD said:


> But on that topic I was hoping (eternal optimist) that Canon
> would provide the 4 stops IS firmware upgrade for my
> existing 100-400 lens. I'd pay a couple hundred for that
> even though the IS I have now on my V1 is darn good.


it's hardware. not sure why you'd think this - it's NEVER been offered.


DavidD said:


> The extra weight gives me pause as I just spent some time
> climbing mountains with my "lighter" version and am not
> thrilled with that "benefit."


it's .36lbs heavier really?


DavidD said:


> I'm hoping the MTF charts show the new lens is a big
> jump forward in resolution.


would not be that hard to do.


----------



## rrcphoto (Nov 9, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



dilbert said:


> If Canon fixed up the 24-105 then owning a 24-105 Mk II and a 100-400 Mk II would be an awesome pairing. Throw in a 1.4x TC and two lenses gives you continuous coverage from 24 - 560mm for ~$3000. Why wouldn't you do that now? The 24-105 currently available isn't that great (especially when compared to the 24-70/f4L).
> 
> So now it is 24-70+70-300 to max out the IQ without any drops in focal length. However it is likely to be many more years before the 24-105 is fixed (not even 10 years old yet) - if ever!
> 
> ...



canon seriously needed a consumer FF kit lens - what did they have the old 28-135mm IS USM from the stone age as the only option?


----------



## mrsfotografie (Nov 9, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



ahsanford said:


> Sabaki said:
> 
> 
> > I'm also keen to hear whether the performance at 400mm will be as good as every other millimeter on the lens.
> ...



Maybe being stuck at 400mm all the time is an indication you're lacking the reach you would like to have, or were used to having. On my 5D MkIII I do zoom but mostly use this lens at 400mm, on the 7D I owned previously I would use much more of the zoom range. I have never used a TC on this lens though and do not intend to slap one on a lens with an aperture slower than f/4. As for 'reach', the 7D would solve that, but then I've vowed not to go back to APS-C for my EF mount system. The new 100-400 will not solve this issue for me either. Mind, I prefer having a little less range - the full frame results are worth it


----------



## Grummbeerbauer (Nov 9, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *

After Sigma announced their 150-600 siblings, I had almost lost interest in Canon's unicorn lens - after all, with their Global Vision line, Sigma has shown that they can deliver quality at reasonable prices, and at least the Sports variant simply has to be better than the Tamron for APS-C bodies on the long end (first reviews tend to confirm that, e.g. http://www.lenstip.com/417.1-Lens_review-Sigma_S_150-600_mm_f_5-6.3_DG_OS_HSM.html).

But then came today:
100-400LII @2199$ (with probably the usual "rip-off the old worlders" $=€ conversion rate :, but cheaper than feared for nonetheless)
+ roughly same price as the Sigma 150-600 S, but for a Canon, not for 3rd party lens
+ red ring 
+ less chances of AF gamble (my 18-35 is optically stellar, but AF could still be a tad more reliable on my 7D)
+ fantastically short MFD (<1m versus Sigma's 2,6m, the latter of which could really be annoyingly limiting in practice)
+ roughly half the weight
+ _much _more compact (94mm x 193mm vs. 121mm x 290mm)
+ (assumedly) better AF speed
- only 400mm

So even if the 150-600S seems to be good as the lenstip review suggests, the question is now, if the 100-400II is good enough to have little practical resolution disadvantage against the Siggy when both are at their long end (I don't think I will be getting a 7DII, so I am not that interested in using a teleconverter)


----------



## Stu_bert (Nov 9, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *

If Canon allow extenders on this and not on the 70-300 L that will be interesting. I think, but hope I am wrong, that Canon may limit teleconverters to avoid encroaching too much on the 200-400. But as others have said, I also will think about a "trade in" against my 70-300 if it matches it optically, unless the Sigma provides comparable in the same range, leaving the 400-600 as a "bonus"

Good that Canon have finally announced it - but a little bizarre they didn't announce it with the 7d mk ii - agree it looks like a great pairing...


----------



## Khalai (Nov 9, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



Stu_bert said:


> If Canon allow extenders on this and not on the 70-300 L that will be interesting. I think, but hope I am wrong, that Canon may limit teleconverters to avoid encroaching too much on the 200-400. But as others have said, I also will think about a "trade in" against my 70-300 if it matches it optically, unless the Sigma provides comparable in the same range, leaving the 400-600 as a "bonus"
> 
> Good that Canon have finally announced it - but a little bizarre they didn't announce it with the 7d mk ii - agree it looks like a great pairing...



Not allowing to use TCs on this beauty would cripple it substantialy. Since 200-400 is a totally different league of lens (monetary, weight, speed...) I really doubt that Canon would cripple 100-400 II out of the fear or cannibalizing 200-400 sales. Those, who want/need 200-400 already have it, those who want to upgrade their 100-400 or want/need budget friendly wildlife telephoto lens are 100-400 II market target customers.

And since the original version is compatible with TCs, there is little to fear that this one will be not IMHO.


----------



## dufflover (Nov 9, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *

What are current satisfied 100-400 owners thinking?
I don't really see any faults with mine (not to be confused with knowing there's room to improve) so I'm in two minds lol. I was actually more tempted to get the Siggy 150-600, because my main big gun Sigma 120-300 is a little average on the 2x TC side, but the 100-400 is my trusty workhorse.

Ofcourse the gearhead in me wants it cos I love super sharp lenses (yet to be proven but I have no doubts given recent releases) but I concede I don't think it would really change my gear capability at all, compared to getting say a native 600mm in the Sigma. Again I don't mean to imply the two are really comparable at all, except on price.


----------



## Canon1 (Nov 9, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *

This kind of lens really isn't made to play well with TC's. Even on bodies that AF at f8 it will be slow, hunt and no doubt need to be stopped down even more to produce barely acceptable image quality (for anyone who is very critical). Shooting bare at 400mm will produce far more " in focus" images, with better iq after cropped in post, and won't require full sun to shoot in. 

Shouldn't be a deal breaker if it can't accept tc's....


----------



## lintoni (Nov 9, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



dufflover said:


> What are current satisfied 100-400 owners thinking?
> I don't really see any faults with mine (not to be confused with knowing there's room to improve) so I'm in two minds lol. I was actually more tempted to get the Siggy 150-600, because my main big gun Sigma 120-300 is a little average on the 2x TC side, but the 100-400 is my trusty workhorse.
> 
> Ofcourse the gearhead in me wants it cos I love super sharp lenses (yet to be proven but I have no doubts given recent releases) but I concede I don't think it would really change my gear capability at all, compared to getting say a native 600mm in the Sigma. Again I don't mean to imply the two are really comparable at all, except on price.


I pretty much concur with you - I'm interested in the mark II, but not _that_ interested. I'm happy with my 100-400 and am in no big rush to replace it. For me, replacing the 17-40 with the 16-35 f4 would be a higher priority and I'm also thinking about a couple of primes. If I suddenly had a large surplus of £££s, then yeah, it'd be on my shopping list...


----------



## Lee Jay (Nov 9, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



Canon1 said:


> This kind of lens really isn't made to play well with TC's. Even on bodies that AF at f8 it will be slow, hunt and no doubt need to be stopped down even more to produce barely acceptable image quality (for anyone who is very critical). Shooting bare at 400mm will produce far more " in focus" images, with better iq after cropped in post, and won't require full sun to shoot in.
> 
> Shouldn't be a deal breaker if it can't accept tc's....



If it can't take TCs, I won't ever consider it again, same as the 70-300L.


----------



## wsheldon (Nov 9, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



lintoni said:


> dufflover said:
> 
> 
> > What are current satisfied 100-400 owners thinking?
> ...



My thoughts exactly. Short term I have other lenses I'm more anxious to upgrade (like the 17-40), and I'd like to see how the Sigma tests out compares to a 100-400 mark II with 1.4 (or without). I'd certainly like more effective IS so I can shoot slower than 1/160 hand-held, but I'd like another 200mm even more for the money.


----------



## Canon1 (Nov 9, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



Lee Jay said:


> Canon1 said:
> 
> 
> > This kind of lens really isn't made to play well with TC's. Even on bodies that AF at f8 it will be slow, hunt and no doubt need to be stopped down even more to produce barely acceptable image quality (for anyone who is very critical). Shooting bare at 400mm will produce far more " in focus" images, with better iq after cropped in post, and won't require full sun to shoot in.
> ...



As I said... It just depends on how critical you are with respect to image quality (and camera/lens performance for that matter). For many people, a tc on a f5.6 lens is good enough. For me, and others with lower tolerance thresholds for soft images, these combinations are just not acceptable.


----------



## tayassu (Nov 9, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *

A very nice lens! 
If my €€€ wouldn't be needed for a new phone, a compact camera and a trip to Scotland, it would be second priority on the list (after the 7DII  ).


----------



## LovePhotography (Nov 9, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *

Please, CameraGods, may it have incredible specs, like the 70-200 2.8 II (or even better). Incense going up....


----------



## Lee Jay (Nov 9, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



Canon1 said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Canon1 said:
> ...



You're assuming it will be lousy optically. You know what they say about assuming.


----------



## Canon1 (Nov 9, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



Lee Jay said:


> Canon1 said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



No, I'm being realistic. It won't perform as well as you assume it will with respect to AF and optical quality. It just won't. If you want an optically excellent 560mm zoom lens that performs well you will need to purchase a 200-400 w/1.4x... You just won't find it in a $2200 lens by adding a $500 tc.... It just won't happen. But, as I stated, your expectations and mine are unlikely the same and yours may be met much more easily.


----------



## PureClassA (Nov 9, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *

The wide swing in expectations on this lens are entertaining to read to say the least. Here's my second prediction on this lens, so let's see if I can go 2 for 2:

The lens will clearly be a better optical performer than the Mk I particularly with lower CR and better sharpness to the corners. It will essentially be on PAR with the 16-35 f4. It will NOT however equal or beat the venerable 70-200 IS MK II. It's just physics. 100-400 is a variable aperture lens covering twice the range of the fixed, larger ap 70-200 .... all for the same price. It will be a fantastic lens and clear step up from the original... but let's not setting the bar unreasonably high and then all get disappointed when it's not quite there.


----------



## lintoni (Nov 9, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



Mitch.Conner said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > You know what they say about assuming.
> ...


Surely you've heard of Ming The Merciless? Works for DXO, testing Canon sensors...


----------



## aldvan (Nov 9, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



dufflover said:


> What are current satisfied 100-400 owners thinking?
> I don't really see any faults with mine (not to be confused with knowing there's room to improve) so I'm in two minds lol. I was actually more tempted to get the Siggy 150-600, because my main big gun Sigma 120-300 is a little average on the 2x TC side, but the 100-400 is my trusty workhorse.



Me too have the present 100-400 as a trusty workhorse. I've always considered it my standard lens, and I use it on the whole focal range. All the features of the new lens satisfy my idea of an old one's substitute, may be I hoped that in the third milennium something could be done about weight, in particular since I use it as a standard lens always hanging from my neck paired with a 1Ds MkIII. The example of the 100 L macro II made me think that a good amount of top class resin could reduce its weight but, actually, 21 glasses can leave the mechanical part as a marginal contribution.
I don't know if waiting for a rebate could be a good choice for us old version's owners, since the new one's rebate will imply an old one's depreciation too, may be not of the same measure, but enough for not waiting to enjoy the upgrade...


----------



## Lee Jay (Nov 9, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



Canon1 said:


> No, I'm being realistic. It won't perform as well as you assume it will with respect to AF and optical quality. It just won't.



You have no idea what I'm assuming.

So I'll tell you.

I'm assuming it will perform better optically than the old one did with two 1.4x TCs attached. And this is the old one with two 1.4s.







I'm also assuming that it will AF at least as well at 560mm and f/8 on a 7D2 as my 70-200/2.8L IS II does with a 2x TC III on my 20D (for which I use only the center AF point as well).


----------



## Lee Jay (Nov 9, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



dufflover said:


> What are current satisfied 100-400 owners thinking?
> I don't really see any faults with mine (not to be confused with knowing there's room to improve) so I'm in two minds lol.



My 100-400L has the same faults as the other four copies I tests.

First, it's got lousy handling. The lock ring is the reasonable place to put my hand, and that means zooming causes AF changes if you aren't really careful because turning the lock ring turns the AF ring with it.

Second, the IS is so bad, it's nearly useless. It can even be worse than useless (see below).

Third, from 300-400mm wide-open with the IS on, the position of the IS elements greatly affects the results. The results can be great if the elements happen to be in the middle, or horrid if they aren't. In practice, this means 300-400mm with IS means f/8, and since the IS is good for *maybe* 1 stop, it's no better than f/5.6 with the IS off (for which the optics are quite good).

I suspect they fixed all this nonsense in the new version.


----------



## Canon1 (Nov 9, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



Lee Jay said:


> Canon1 said:
> 
> 
> > No, I'm being realistic. It won't perform as well as you assume it will with respect to AF and optical quality. It just won't.
> ...



Lee Jay,

Thank you for clarifying, I took your digression as an assertion of assumption, I apologize for this. 

Virtually ANY lens on ANY camera body will produce an image that looks great for web-sharing. I hope that your expectations are met, I really do... 

Do you believe that the 70-200/2.8 IS II + 20D performs well with respect to AF? If so, I believe that you will be happy with the 100-400II+1.4XIII. 

Personally, I believe that the 70-200f2.8II+2.0xIII mounted on my 5DIII or 7DII has marginal AF. Acceptable for stationary subjects as well as general walk around, but not great for BIF or fast moving targets. The IQ however is not that great. It is soft (relatively) at all apertures. 

Again, this is an expectation thing (and all of us have different expectations of gear or tolerances). I print big and what I would consider excellent is: 70-200 f2.8II (bare or with 1.4x), 300 f2.8II (bare or with 1.4x... 2.0x is also decent), 24-70 f2.8II, 400 f5.6... this is not the complete list... just the "sharp" lenses in my kit. 

I hope I'm wrong... obviously, no one really knows how well the the 100-400II will perform, with a TC, but I doubt it will be exceptionally great, in any department.


----------



## Lee Jay (Nov 9, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



Canon1 said:


> Virtually ANY lens on ANY camera body will produce an image that looks great for web-sharing. I hope that your expectations are met, I really do...



That moon shot is a 100% pixel-for-pixel crop from an 18MP 1.6-crop Canon sensor.



> Do you believe that the 70-200/2.8 IS II + 20D performs well with respect to AF? If so, I believe that you will be happy with the 100-400II+1.4XIII.



Pretty well. I have relatively good success capturing 200mph+ R/C aircraft with shallow DOF at 400mm and f/6.3, even with very busy backgrounds.




















> Personally, I believe that the 70-200f2.8II+2.0xIII mounted on my 5DIII or 7DII has marginal AF. Acceptable for stationary subjects as well as general walk around, but not great for BIF or fast moving targets. The IQ however is not that great. It is soft (relatively) at all apertures.



I've printed 20x30s from that combo, and they are quite nice.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Nov 9, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



Lee Jay said:


> Canon1 said:
> 
> 
> > Virtually ANY lens on ANY camera body will produce an image that looks great for web-sharing. I hope that your expectations are met, I really do...
> ...



Great R/C captures! I've shot them and it's crazy to keep them in frame, let alone in focus. The only thing more challenging is Dragonflys.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Nov 9, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *

The only thing Canon could have done that would make this focal range a killer is a continuous f4 across the range, but that would have jacked up the price beyond many user's price point.
For sure we will get better optics and a better IS- that's because the lens technology has come so far since it was first released.
Back in the day when the lens hit the market, sensor megapixels were less than what we have now. If Canon develops something in the 30-40 megapixel range, lens quality has to be there or it's a fruitless gain.
Also, the new bodies capable of more rapid focusing need lenses that can match that performance.
When the 5D Mark IV arrives with a dual-pixel sensor and mirrorless, we will again melt down our remaining credit cards.
PS: I will miss the "push/pull" for high speed sports.


----------



## PureClassA (Nov 9, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *

aaaaand it would be as big as a Smart Car by comparison ;D


----------



## lintoni (Nov 9, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



KeithBreazeal said:


> The only thing Canon could have done that would make this focal range a killer is a continuous f4 across the range, but that would have jacked up the price beyond many user's price point.
> For sure we will get better optics and a better IS- that's because the lens technology has come so far since it was first released.
> *Back in the day when the lens hit the market, sensor megapixels were less than what we have now*. If Canon develops something in the 30-40 megapixel range, lens quality has to be there or it's a fruitless gain.
> Also, the new bodies capable of more rapid focusing need lenses that can match that performance.
> ...


Back in the day when the lens hit the market (1998), almost everybody shot film!


----------



## rrcphoto (Nov 9, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



KeithBreazeal said:


> The only thing Canon could have done that would make this focal range a killer is a continuous f4 across the range, but that would have jacked up the price beyond many user's price point.


beyond most.. you're talking a lens with a longer zoom range than the 200-400/4 and it's 12K and how big?


----------



## PureClassA (Nov 9, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *

Haha... some folks have some crazy unrealistic expectation in this lens. I guess they're all fine if you want to spend $25k.

Canon makes a lens for you. it's the 200-400 for $12k. To expect one for 100-400 at one fifth the price that performs and does everything as well as the $12k does .... i dunno what to tell you...


----------



## Etienne (Nov 9, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *

This lens is very tempting. I wish it was a little lighter but it's now on my wish list. Can't wait to see the reviews, but Canon seems to be on a roll with good lenses. I hope they replace the 50 1.4 soon. Also a new 85 with IS would be awesome.


----------



## e17paul (Nov 9, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



KeithBreazeal said:


> Back in the day when the lens hit the market, sensor megapixels were less than what we have now.


Back in 1998 most SLR cameras used a roll of film.


----------



## JonAustin (Nov 9, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



Lee Jay said:


> I'm assuming it will perform better optically than the old one did with two 1.4x TCs attached. And this is the old one with two 1.4s.
> 
> I'm also assuming that it will AF at least as well at 560mm and f/8 on a 7D2 as my 70-200/2.8L IS II does with a 2x TC III on my 20D (for which I use only the center AF point as well).



Hi Lee Jay,

First, awesome moon shot!

I'm curious why -- since you (apparently) have a 2x TC III -- you chose the 100-400 + 2 1.4x TCs for your moon shot, instead of the 2x TC III? (Maybe you didn't own the 2x at the time?)


----------



## JonAustin (Nov 9, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



KeithBreazeal said:


> The only thing Canon could have done that would make this focal range a killer is a continuous f4 across the range, but that would have jacked up the price beyond many user's price point.



While I'm fully aware of why the 100-400 II isn't a constant f/4 max aperture, it would have been nice had Canon elected to make it start at f/4 at 100mm. (Of course, had they done so, this would no longer be the 100-400 *f/4.5-5.6 II*!)


----------



## Lee Jay (Nov 9, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



KeithBreazeal said:


> Great R/C captures! I've shot them and it's crazy to keep them in frame, let alone in focus. The only thing more challenging is Dragonflys.



Thanks. Most people don't realize how hard it is to shoot these things.


----------



## Lee Jay (Nov 9, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



JonAustin said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > I'm assuming it will perform better optically than the old one did with two 1.4x TCs attached. And this is the old one with two 1.4s.
> ...



Thanks, and correct.


----------



## PureClassA (Nov 9, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



Etienne said:


> This lens is very tempting. I wish it was a little lighter but it's now on my wish list. Can't wait to see the reviews, but Canon seems to be on a roll with good lenses. I hope they replace the 50 1.4 soon. Also a new 85 with IS would be awesome.



They just rebuilt the 85L. Not gonna happen again soon. If any prime gets rebuilt with IS I figure it will be the 135L due to the focal length. That one is also long in the tooth, and even SIgma didn't bother with putting IS on the new 35 & 50 ART.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Nov 9, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *

The thing I changed in my shooting was to put the 100-400 on the 5D III instead of the 7D. The look and performance of this combo is really good and now is my go to combo for airshows and other sports. The lens will produce excellent images "when all the stars align". I think I would rent one and compare the two before deciding. The difference would have to be substantial.
*click on the photo for the large image*



B-17 sentimental Journey Chino 2014 sat 0395 © Keith Breazeal by Keith Breazeal Photography, on Flickr


----------



## JonAustin (Nov 9, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



KeithBreazeal said:


> The thing I changed in my shooting was to put the 100-400 on the 5D III instead of the 7D. The look and performance of this combo is really good and now is my go to combo for airshows and other sports. The lens will produce excellent images "when all the stars align". I think I would rent one and compare the two before deciding. The difference would have to be substantial.



I'm shooting with a 5D3, so if the new 100-400 II performs as well as or better than your copy of the 100-400 I (as I fully expect it to), I'll have no complaints.

What did you mean about the "look" of the 100-400 / 5D3 combo?

How is the 100-400 better on the 5D3 than on the 7D?

Minor comment: From the large view of your (excellent) image, it looks like your sensor needs cleaning. There's a circular spot along the left edge, slightly higher than the midpoint between the right elevator and your (c) signature. Darn blue sky!


----------



## JonAustin (Nov 9, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



PureClassA said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > This lens is very tempting. I wish it was a little lighter but it's now on my wish list. Can't wait to see the reviews, but Canon seems to be on a roll with good lenses. I hope they replace the 50 1.4 soon. Also a new 85 with IS would be awesome.
> ...



I think Etienne was referring to the 85/1.8, not the 85L II. Although the 85L was refreshed ~17 years after the original design, the 85/1.8 design is now 22 years old.

And while Sigma didn't put IS in its new 35 and 50 Art models, Canon did just add it to the 35/2 a couple of years ago.

I, too, would like to see the 50/1.4 updated, to a 50/1.x (true ring) USM IS version.


----------



## PureClassA (Nov 9, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



JonAustin said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > Etienne said:
> ...



Canon had 50mm f1.0L ... it sells on ebay for $5000 if you can find one. I'm not sure they bring this one back. If they felt there was enough a market for it I'd have to assume they would still be producing new copies of it. It's enormous and heavy and expensive as all hell and obviously not enough people bought into it regardless how awesome it was


----------



## lescrane (Nov 9, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *

As far as the "low" 2200.00 price, I think we can thank Mr. Tamron and Mr. Sigma. 

I spent a lot of time at a local photo show/sale, all the major vendors were there. I don't work there, but my observations were:

Lot's of Tamzooka's (150-600) being sold for nikon and canon. I spoke to the tamron rep who encouraged me to send in my early copy to get a new chip and firmware to improve AI focusing. In general, a huge buzz around Tamron, more than I remember in past years.

The Canon booth was very quiet compared to previous years. A few people I know bought SLRs and they were practically giving away PIxMA pro printers with cameras.

I handled the Sigma 150-600 Sport, well, barely, the thing is a tank. I wouldn;t even consider it for that reason. I asked them when the "C" version will be out; they don't know.

Sony seemed to be selling the mirrorless like hotcakes. 

Sorry to go OT, but the take away here is that Canon has to be more competitive on pricing and offer higher quality for the price. Since I have the Tamzooka already, I would not look at the 100-400 II for a while. however, since everyone seems to think that this will cut sales of 70-300L, maybe if Canon cuts that price I would buy one for when I don't need the 400- 600 reach and want something I can hand hold.


----------



## Lee Jay (Nov 9, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



KeithBreazeal said:


> The thing I changed in my shooting was to put the 100-400 on the 5D III instead of the 7D.



Effective approach, if you don't have to crop (i.e. if you can shoot at 400mm versus 250mm on the 7D). If you do (shoot at 400mm on both, crop to match), you've gained nothing.


----------



## JonAustin (Nov 9, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



PureClassA said:


> Canon had 50mm f1.0L ... it sells on ebay for $5000 if you can find one. I'm not sure they bring this one back. If they felt there was enough a market for it I'd have to assume they would still be producing new copies of it. It's enormous and heavy and expensive as all hell and obviously not enough people bought into it regardless how awesome it was



Okay ... not sure what bringing back discontinued models has to do with updating current models.


----------



## Skulker (Nov 9, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



JonAustin said:


> Minor comment: From the large view of your (excellent) image, it looks like your sensor needs cleaning. There's a circular spot along the left edge, slightly higher than the midpoint between the right elevator and your (c) signature. Darn blue sky!






: : : : : : : : 
Just when you think you won't be surprised by comments on here. Someone will reach a new standard.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Nov 9, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



Lee Jay said:


> KeithBreazeal said:
> 
> 
> > The thing I changed in my shooting was to put the 100-400 on the 5D III instead of the 7D.
> ...



Yes, but a keeper shot that might need some cropping is better than a fuzzy or lost shot. It comes down to how many keepers. If I need more reach, I'll put the 300 2.8 + the 1.4x on the 7D.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Nov 9, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



Skulker said:


> JonAustin said:
> 
> 
> > Minor comment: From the large view of your (excellent) image, it looks like your sensor needs cleaning. There's a circular spot along the left edge, slightly higher than the midpoint between the right elevator and your (c) signature. Darn blue sky!
> ...


----------



## JonAustin (Nov 9, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



Skulker said:


> JonAustin said:
> 
> 
> > Minor comment: From the large view of your (excellent) image, it looks like your sensor needs cleaning. There's a circular spot along the left edge, slightly higher than the midpoint between the right elevator and your (c) signature. Darn blue sky!
> ...



Hurry for me! (Just trying to help ...)


----------



## Lee Jay (Nov 9, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



KeithBreazeal said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > KeithBreazeal said:
> ...



With a big, slow, lumbering full-scale B-17, you should have 100% keepers.


----------



## PureClassA (Nov 9, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



JonAustin said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > Canon had 50mm f1.0L ... it sells on ebay for $5000 if you can find one. I'm not sure they bring this one back. If they felt there was enough a market for it I'd have to assume they would still be producing new copies of it. It's enormous and heavy and expensive as all hell and obviously not enough people bought into it regardless how awesome it was
> ...



Ahhh "50 f 1.x" I read right over the "x" That said, I dont see them going bigger than 1.4 because of the size and price issue. But yes, I agree as I mentioned some pages ago that I would have to think the 50mm L is the next rebuild along with the 35mm L. I dont think there's anything else more pressing in Canon's glass line right now, especially considering the new Sigs and the fact that it seems there isn't much left in their line (apart from the 135mm) that needs a major reboot


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Nov 9, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



Lee Jay said:


> KeithBreazeal said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



It also works when they are haulin' ass



F-22 Raptor afterburner turn © Keith Breazeal by Keith Breazeal Photography, on Flickr


----------



## Lee Jay (Nov 9, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



KeithBreazeal said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > KeithBreazeal said:
> ...



Full-scale airplanes aren't ever really a challenge to keep in focus. This was done with the 20D and the 70-200/2.8L IS and 2xTC III, and this is easy and reliable.


----------



## jeffdo (Nov 10, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *

Has it been confirmed that it comes with a tripod mount? I am still unhappy that the 70-300L did not.


----------



## dufflover (Nov 10, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *

Pretty sure this one will include the tripod foot by default.
Unless they really really do suddenly lump it in the same group as the 70-300L and 70-200L/4 (as in the "smaller" whites, but it's not _that_ small).

There is one big indicator I would still upgrade, eventually - I went from a 70-200 mk1 to mk2 LOL
(sadly it gets very very little use considering the price  )


----------



## JonAustin (Nov 10, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



dufflover said:


> Pretty sure this one will include the tripod foot by default.
> Unless they really really do suddenly lump it in the same group as the 70-300L and 70-200L/4 (as in the "smaller" whites, but it's not _that_ small).



It would seem that the tripod mount is included, since it's shown in the photos and mentioned in the description. Seems to me the official images of the 70-200/4 and 70-300L don't include the tripod mount. 

Also, given the pictures of the new lens and the description of the removable _foot_, it's possible that the "ring" part of the tripod mount isn't removable.



dufflover said:


> There is one big indicator I would still upgrade, eventually - I went from a 70-200 mk1 to mk2 LOL
> (sadly it gets very very little use considering the price  )



Right there with you. Probably my highest quality lens; certainly my highest quality zoom, but not my most used.


----------



## JonAustin (Nov 10, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



PureClassA said:


> Ahhh "50 f 1.x" I read right over the "x" That said, I dont see them going bigger than 1.4 because of the size and price issue. But yes, I agree as I mentioned some pages ago that I would have to think the 50mm L is the next rebuild along with the 35mm L. I dont think there's anything else more pressing in Canon's glass line right now, especially considering the new Sigs and the fact that it seems there isn't much left in their line (apart from the 135mm) that needs a major reboot



I was actually thinking more in terms of the 50/1.4 getting updated with true ring USM and IS. Compared to the current 50L, the 1.4 is ancient.


----------



## CanonOregon (Nov 10, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *

I think I'll wait until the adaptor comes out for the Canon CINE-SERVO 50-1000mm to EOS mount. I know I'll have to sell the house and live in a tent, but....


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 10, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



JonAustin said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > Ahhh "50 f 1.x" I read right over the "x" That said, I dont see them going bigger than 1.4 because of the size and price issue. But yes, I agree as I mentioned some pages ago that I would have to think the 50mm L is the next rebuild along with the 35mm L. I dont think there's anything else more pressing in Canon's glass line right now, especially considering the new Sigs and the fact that it seems there isn't much left in their line (apart from the 135mm) that needs a major reboot
> ...



Respectfully, this is OT. There are copious threads on the 50 f/1.4 replacement, included my 'can recite my personal rant verbatim' content here:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=21377.msg406009#msg406009

But let's stay on target, good people. This is a Unicorn thread. 

- A


----------



## cellomaster27 (Nov 10, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *

this lens is so freaking sexy. just sayin.. the recent lenses are aesthetically better than previous lenses. not just canon.


----------



## Canon1 (Nov 10, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



cellomaster27 said:


> this lens is so freaking sexy.



You need to get out more... I find that my wife in Lingerie is sexy... My cameras and lenses... not so much.... But my 100-400 is a mark 1 afterall : : :


----------



## JonAustin (Nov 10, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



ahsanford said:


> JonAustin said:
> 
> 
> > PureClassA said:
> ...



You're correct, of course. Just keepin' the thread alive until the official announcement ...


----------



## Etienne (Nov 10, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



JonAustin said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > Etienne said:
> ...



Yes I was referring to the 85 1.8, add IS, true USM, rounded aperture blades and we're good to go ... But an 85 1.4 would be cool too.


----------



## Lee Jay (Nov 10, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



Etienne said:


> JonAustin said:
> 
> 
> > PureClassA said:
> ...



The 85/1.8 has true ring USM and is one of the fastest focusing lenses around.


----------



## e17paul (Nov 10, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *

Has anyone noticed the odd profile of the focus ring? I wonder how it will be to use.


----------



## AndreeOnline (Nov 10, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



e17paul said:


> Has anyone noticed the odd profile of the focus ring? I wonder how it will be to use.



Do you mean the focal length/zoom ring? The inner ring, closest to the mount?

The focus ring is the outer, broad ring.


----------



## dufflover (Nov 10, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *

Front fat ring is the zoom. Can even see half an FL marker in the graphic.


----------



## tron (Nov 10, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



dufflover said:


> Front fat ring is the zoom. Can even see half an FL marker in the graphic.


Indeed! But it's a shame it is the opposite of what is comfortable for use (and consistent to 70-200 lenses  ) I hoped that they wouldn't adopt the 70-300 L design...


----------



## dufflover (Nov 10, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *

Couldn't it have depended on the optics and/or size though? Like if the focusing group is at the back there?


----------



## fragilesi (Nov 10, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



jeffdo said:


> Has it been confirmed that it comes with a tripod mount? I am still unhappy that the 70-300L did not.



I think this one is of a size and usage profile that makes the tripod collar a shoe-in.

With the 70-300L, it's arguable but as I said in other threads I very much doubt I'm alone in being glad not to be forced to pay extra for an accessory I would not have used.


----------



## adhocphotographer (Nov 10, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *

Since i've just picked up a 500L... i think i would be hard pressed to justify this purchase to the wife.... Finally, it has been released and I've been excited to see it!


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Nov 10, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



dufflover said:


> Couldn't it have depended on the optics and/or size though? Like if the focusing group is at the back there?



The focusing group is at the back of the 70-300L and this will no doubt be the same. The rear elements are the smallest and therefore the lightest, so rear-focusing designs need smaller AF motors - good for AF performance and battery consumption. Several very popular EF-S lenses have the focusing ring at the rear, including the 15-85 and the 17-55 so a large sector of the market is used to it. The same was also true of the old consumer grade USM lenses like the 35-135 which was my standard zoom in the 1990s. I'm not sure why it was the cause of so much comment on the 70-300L - maybe just because the 70-200/4L is the other way round?


----------



## dolina (Nov 10, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *

Looking for this lens to drop to $1,699 levels in 6 months.


----------



## wtlloyd (Nov 10, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *

Now, there's a unicorn wish.



dolina said:


> Looking for this lens to drop to $1,699 levels in 6 months.


----------



## dolina (Nov 10, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



wtlloyd said:


> Now, there's a unicorn wish.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It can & does happen. ^_^ That's why I'm not in a hurry to get it.

The 7D Mark II on the other hand is something I've been waiting for nearly half a decade.


----------



## PureClassA (Nov 10, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *

$1699 in six months?!?! Don't hold your breath :


----------



## wookiee2cu (Nov 10, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *

The price is a whole lot better than I thought it would be considering what Canon did with the 70-200 MII and the 24-70 MII. I have an original 100-400 but it has only been used a handful of times, if I used it a lot more I would definitely be tempted to upgrade. Nice job Canon... took you long enough ;D


----------



## Etienne (Nov 10, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



wtlloyd said:


> Now, there's a unicorn wish.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It could happen. I bought my 70-200 f/2.8 IS MkII for $1850 from B&H about a year after it was release at $2499.

I am interested in this new 100-400, but I'm in no hurry for it. If it drops to $1699 I'll bite for sure.


----------



## Etienne (Nov 10, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



Lee Jay said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > JonAustin said:
> ...



I owned the 85 1.8, and liked it quite a lot, but there's a lot of CA. A small bump caused the manual focus to stick and be unreliable, which made it useless for video, so I sold it to a guy who never uses manual focus and he's quite happy with it.

I recently bought the Bower 85 f1.4, and it is very nice for video, extremely smooth focus and clickless aperture, but no AF and no IS. I'd really like a Canon 85 f/1.8 with IS.


----------



## grey4 (Nov 10, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *

The tripod ring look exciting. It appears in the images that the foot is removable but the ring is not.


----------



## lintoni (Nov 10, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



grey4 said:


> *The tripod ring look exciting. *It appears in the images that the foot is removable but the ring is not.



You need to get out more...

(sorry, couldn't resist it!  )


----------



## millsrg1 (Nov 11, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *

So. Same filter size, same F range, same focal length, except heavier, longer, wider and also 50% more expensive than the previous version. Am I missing something? Unless the AF performance or sharpness or something blows the prior version away (hard to imagine at the same F stop) we just waited 10 years and are paying 50% more for turn-style zoom? Please someone tell me I am missing something major here.


----------



## Lee Jay (Nov 11, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



millsrg1 said:


> So. Same filter size, same F range, same focal length, except heavier, longer, wider and also 50% more expensive than the previous version. Am I missing something? Unless the AF performance or sharpness or something blows the prior version away (hard to imagine at the same F stop) we just waited 10 years and are paying 50% more for turn-style zoom? Please someone tell me I am missing something major here.



The old one had lousy handling, terrible optical performance from 300mm to 400mm wide open with the IS activated, and the IS was just this side of useless.

Fixing those serious faults would definitely be worth it. And, yes, I do own one of the old ones, and tested four other copies all with the same faults.


----------



## fotoray (Nov 11, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



millsrg1 said:


> So. Same filter size, same F range, same focal length, except heavier, longer, wider and also 50% more expensive than the previous version. Am I missing something? Unless the AF performance or sharpness or something blows the prior version away (hard to imagine at the same F stop) we just waited 10 years and are paying 50% more for turn-style zoom? Please someone tell me I am missing something major here.



While more expensive, 50% higher isn't so. Increase from $1699 to $2199 is about 29% - which is real money, for sure!!!


----------



## gecko (Nov 11, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



Lee Jay said:


> And, yes, I do own one of the old ones, and tested four other copies all with the same faults.


Not faults, features.

I'm almost certainly to going to update mine.


----------



## Harv (Nov 11, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



Lee Jay said:


> millsrg1 said:
> 
> 
> > So. Same filter size, same F range, same focal length, except heavier, longer, wider and also 50% more expensive than the previous version. Am I missing something? Unless the AF performance or sharpness or something blows the prior version away (hard to imagine at the same F stop) we just waited 10 years and are paying 50% more for turn-style zoom? Please someone tell me I am missing something major here.
> ...



I owned 4 copies over the span of 7 years and had exactly the same experience. I will gladly pay the asking price if it's sharp at the long end, has the current IS and focuses faster than the original. If the optical performance is on par with the 70-300L, I will be ecstatic.


----------



## Werz (Nov 11, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *

So... tomorrow is release day... supposedly 

I just want to know the shipping date.


----------



## hoodlum (Nov 11, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



Werz said:


> So... tomorrow is release day... supposedly
> 
> I just want to know the shipping date.



December according to this pre-announcement.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:yJt5SAo6zBIJdnpulse.pdnonline.com/2014/11/canon-100-400mm-lens-new.html&lr=lang_en%7Clang_de&hl=en&gl=us&tbs=lr:lang_1en%7Clang_1de&strip=1


----------



## dolina (Nov 11, 2014)

It's official...

http://usa.canon.com/cusa/professional/products/lenses/ef_lens_lineup/lens_telezoom_pro/ef_100_400mm_f_4_5_5_6l_is_ii_usm




Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM Lens in shelves by December 2014 @ $2,199

As compared to Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR Lens that sells for $2,696.95

http://www.flickr.com/groups/ef_100-400mm_f45_56l_is_ii_usm/


----------



## PureClassA (Nov 11, 2014)

Well, Canon itself is showing MTF charts with BOTH 1.4 and 2x extenders so I suppose that answers the question of whether this lens works with them. It does.


----------



## Lee Jay (Nov 11, 2014)

PureClassA said:


> Well, Canon itself is showing MTF charts with BOTH 1.4 and 2x extenders so I suppose that answers the question of whether this lens works with them. It does.



That link doesn't work for me. Where did you find the MTF charts?


----------



## docfrance (Nov 11, 2014)

http://usa.canon.com/cusa/professional/products/lenses/ef_lens_lineup/lens_telezoom_pro/ef_100_400mm_f_4_5_5_6l_is_ii_usm

This worked for me... Quick glance shows me that with the 2.0X teleconverter it performs better than the original with no teleconverter. Across the range (as we'd hope/expect) performance looks to be hugely better. I'll be buying one.


----------



## dolina (Nov 11, 2014)

Works with 1.4x & 2.0x Extenders / TCs
























Official Tech Specs

Focal Length & Maximum Aperture	100-400mm 1:4.5-5.6
Lens Construction	21 elements in 16 groups
Diagonal Angle of View	24°-6°10'
Focus Adjustment	Inner focus system / USM
Closest Focusing Distance	3.2 ft. / 0.98m
Zoom System	Rotation Type
Filter Size	77mm
Max. Diameter x Length, Weight	Approx: 3.7" x 7.6" / 94 x 193mm
Approx: 3.46 lbs. / 1570g (lens only, including removable tripod mount)
3.62 lbs. / 1640g (lens + tripod mount)


----------



## PureClassA (Nov 11, 2014)

Agreed. This thing looks like it will be a beast. I have the 2xII (not the newest) but I'm wondering how much difference there really is between the two.


----------



## tapanit (Nov 11, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



Lee Jay said:


> The old one had lousy handling, terrible optical performance from 300mm to 400mm wide open with the IS activated, and the IS was just this side of useless.


While I strongly disagree on the first point (I really like push-pull zoom) and wouldn't use anywhere near as strong words on the others either (having taken thousands of pictures with it and been happy with the results), I would definitely like better optics and IS and while the extra weight worries me (as I'd be hiking with it in the wilderness), I probably will upgrade mine if the new one is good enough. I'll wait for reviews first, though.


----------



## Sabaki (Nov 11, 2014)

Anybody have a chance to compare this lens at 400mm to the 400mm f/5.6?


----------



## lintoni (Nov 11, 2014)

Jon_D said:


> Sabaki said:
> 
> 
> > Anybody have a chance to compare this lens at 400mm to the 400mm f/5.6?
> ...


Canon are making lenses with a Minolta mount?


----------



## Sabaki (Nov 11, 2014)

lintoni said:


> Jon_D said:
> 
> 
> > Sabaki said:
> ...



Haha! Now I feel foolish! Especially with Jon_D's goo-goo eyes 

I meant to ask how they compare via the MTF charts


----------



## Lee Jay (Nov 11, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



tapanit said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > The old one had lousy handling, terrible optical performance from 300mm to 400mm wide open with the IS activated, and the IS was just this side of useless.
> ...



I like the push pull too. That wasn't the lousy handling part.


----------



## 2n10 (Nov 11, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



Lee Jay said:


> tapanit said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



I use mine wide open at 400mm all the time and it takes sharp shots. The IS is a little weak I will agree.


----------



## Lee Jay (Nov 11, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



2n10 said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > tapanit said:
> ...



With the IS on, that setting will be hit and miss depending on where the IS elements happen to be at the time of the shot. If you're lucky and they are in the middle, they'll be great. If they are off to a side, they'll be terrible.


----------



## Lenscracker (Nov 11, 2014)

I see that the new lens has increased optical components by 4 elements and 2 groups. I wonder if that increase has only to do with the improved image stabilization because the fluorite and UD count remain the same.


----------



## dolina (Nov 11, 2014)

Canon Hon Kong's video comparison between the v1 & v2

http://youtu.be/phutXDbmkyw


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Nov 11, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



2n10 said:


> I use mine wide open at 400mm all the time and it takes sharp shots.



These things are relative - my 300/4L IS takes sharp shots, but my 70-300L is sharper. And my 300/2.8L IS II makes them both look poor.

The 100-400L had scope for improvement in just about every area. Let's hope the MkII lives up to all the possibilities and expectations...


----------



## brad-man (Nov 11, 2014)

dolina said:


> Canon Hon Kong's video comparison between the v1 & v2
> 
> http://youtu.be/phutXDbmkyw



Yup. That's a genuine Canon video. Who else would use a Canon CPL  Thanks for the link.


----------



## Canon1 (Nov 12, 2014)

PureClassA said:


> Agreed. This thing looks like it will be a beast. I have the 2xII (not the newest) but I'm wondering how much difference there really is between the two.



Optically, there is not much difference, however the electronics have seen a big upgrade and AF is much faster on V2 Superteles with 5D3, 1DX (7D2?), Etc... Not sure if this would apply to this new 100-400, but I suspect so.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 12, 2014)

PureClassA said:


> I have the 2xII (not the newest) but I'm wondering how much difference there really is between the two.



There were some optical improvements with the 2xIII in addition to the AF changes that benefit the MkII supertele lenses. The 1.4xIII brought mainly just the AF improvements.


----------



## siegsAR (Nov 12, 2014)

Sample Pictures, here you go. 





1/1250, f/11






1/2000, f/5






1/125, f/16






1/320, f/5






1/400, f/11






1/5, f/8


via
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=13877


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 12, 2014)

Looks like it works just like the Canon EOS-m to EF adapter, yes it is a screw and it you are so inclined you will want to Loctite it.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 12, 2014)

GraFax said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Looks like it works just like the Canon EOS-m to EF adapter, yes it is a screw and it you are so inclined you will want to Loctite it.
> ...



Never really bought into the replacement foot thing, I was always happy just sticking a plate on whatever Canon gave us, but I am sure RRS et al will be on the ball


----------



## sagittariansrock (Nov 12, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



millsrg1 said:


> So. Same filter size, same F range, same focal length, except heavier, longer, wider and also 50% more expensive than the previous version. Am I missing something? Unless the AF performance or sharpness or something blows the prior version away (hard to imagine at the same F stop) we just waited 10 years and are paying 50% more for turn-style zoom? Please someone tell me I am missing something major here.



You must have missed all the clamoring for an "improved" 100-400 on this and other forums that has been going on for years, and all the people who were ready to pay $ 3K. 
I think apart from a rotating zoom (to which people seem to have mixed feelings) the usability with the TCs as confirmed by the MTFs, a reliable and more powerful IS, along with the much improved IQ is a sufficiently good reason for the widespread welcome this lens is getting.


----------



## Omni Images (Nov 12, 2014)

Don't forget the .98m min focus distance ... WOW ! I'm excited and willing to throw Canon cash for this...


----------



## simonbratt99 (Nov 13, 2014)

For some reason i thought this is internal focusing, but the Oriental foreign video shows external focusing extension.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 13, 2014)

simonbratt99 said:


> For some reason i thought this is internal focusing, but the jap video shows external focusing extension.



Wow,

First, the video doesn't show focus, it shows zoom.
Second, it is internal focus.
Third, the "jap" video is from Hong Kong, so in your parlance would be the ch--k video, don't be so disrespectful it is unnecessary and unbecoming.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Nov 17, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Third, the "jap" video is from Hong Kong, so in your parlance would be the ch--k video, don't be so disrespectful it is unnecessary and unbecoming.



+1


----------



## Rams_eos (Nov 17, 2014)

Just to share my experience.

This weekend I tried the 100-400 II at a photo exhibition in Paris.
Canon did not allowed me to use my SD card in the 5DMK3 because “it not a released product yet”.

I have been very impressed by this lens. I compared it with the Canon 100-400 1(push pull) and the Sigma and Tamron new 150-600.
The IS seems to be vastly improved and I could do clear picture handheld at 400 with a very low light. Compared to Nikon zoom on D810, it seems far better.
The lens was also very sharp, probably sharper than the Sigma zoom that is already impressive.
Of course this is just my feeling as I could not take the shot with me and compare directly.

I am looking forward to more accurate comparisons but for me, the GAS syndrome is not too far


----------



## simonbratt99 (Nov 17, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> simonbratt99 said:
> 
> 
> > For some reason i thought this is internal focusing, but the jap video shows external focusing extension.
> ...


a 
My most humblest of apologies would only be a woefully inadequate token of how bad I feel. Written in haste, regretted for a lifetime. Should have said Oriental.


----------



## Old Sarge (Nov 17, 2014)

simonbratt99 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > simonbratt99 said:
> ...


I missed the sarcasm emoticon and feel like this post should have it. If I am wrong, you might want to know that oriental is considered pejorative among the Asian population. Japanese would have been proper in the first post....except it was a Hong Kong video so Chinese might be the most polite way to have expressed it.


----------



## Eclectik (Nov 17, 2014)

Rams_eos said:


> Just to share my experience.
> 
> This weekend I tried the 100-400 II at a photo exhibition in Paris.
> Canon did not allowed me to use my SD card in the 5DMK3 because “it not a released product yet”.
> ...



+1 : I tried it at "Salon de la Photo" event in Paris today. I was neither not allowed to use my SD card, same reason. Neither my camera (a 7D), since not attached with a security cable . Hence, I tried it on a 7D II. It's so impressive : AF is so fast (at 100 mm & 400mm), much than my 70/200 F4 IS, images look so sharp, in low light and low speed (around 1/60, I think). Lightweight. (half of the sigma 150-600 Sport...). A lot of advantages wrt Sigma & Tamron. Just a raw feeling, once again.


----------



## simonbratt99 (Nov 17, 2014)

Old Sarge said:


> simonbratt99 said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Thanks Sarge, all lessons learnt are lessons of improvement and appreciated. Emote icon wasn't missing as it shouldn't have been there. :-\ j_p Orential foreign


----------



## Cosmicbug (Nov 17, 2014)

simonbratt99 said:


> Old Sarge said:
> 
> 
> > simonbratt99 said:
> ...



From which perspective is the video foreign?...I am sure many on this site will find yourself just as foreign!


----------



## JonAustin (Nov 18, 2014)

Cosmicbug said:


> From which perspective is the video foreign?...I am sure many on this site will find yourself just as foreign!



Oh, lighten up already. The guy has already sincerely apologized.


----------



## JorritJ (Nov 19, 2014)

Just heard from the camera shop - they don't expect to get their first stock until the end of december...


----------



## mrsfotografie (Nov 20, 2014)

JonAustin said:


> Cosmicbug said:
> 
> 
> > From which perspective is the video foreign?...I am sure many on this site will find yourself just as foreign!
> ...



I agree 8)

Now in the mean time I'm killing myself with the prospect of this new 100-400, vs my affection for the old push-pull and how much I'd *really* like the power of f/4 and the option of extra reach of an f/5.6 [400DO II + 1.4x] (but that's a hell of a lot of 'extra' money) :-\ And no way I want to get a 7D MkII instead.


----------



## lintoni (Nov 20, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> Now in the mean time I'm killing myself with the prospect of this new 100-400, vs *my affection for the old push-pull* and how much I'd *really* like the power of f/4 and the option of extra reach of an f/5.6 [400DO II + 1.4x] (but that's a hell of a lot of 'extra' money) :-\ And no way I want to get a 7D MkII instead.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pqs2pIhxO2M


----------



## mrsfotografie (Nov 20, 2014)

lintoni said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > Now in the mean time I'm killing myself with the prospect of this new 100-400, vs *my affection for the old push-pull* and how much I'd *really* like the power of f/4 and the option of extra reach of an f/5.6 [400DO II + 1.4x] (but that's a hell of a lot of 'extra' money) :-\ And no way I want to get a 7D MkII instead.
> ...



Cool! Thanks 8)


----------



## dolina (Dec 2, 2014)

A little bit of trivia. This lens is the top selling L lens since pre-ordering was announced online.


----------



## dgatwood (Dec 2, 2014)

dolina said:


> A little bit of trivia. This lens is the top selling L lens since pre-ordering was announced online.



No surprise. There's a lot of pent-up demand. After all, everybody has been expecting an upgrade to this lens since... well, roughly since the 70–300L shipped back in 2010, and anybody who could afford to wait has waited....


----------



## dolina (Dec 2, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> dolina said:
> 
> 
> > A little bit of trivia. This lens is the top selling L lens since pre-ordering was announced online.
> ...


It is outdone by the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III Lens and Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Lens.


----------



## lintoni (Dec 2, 2014)

dolina said:


> dgatwood said:
> 
> 
> > dolina said:
> ...


Neither of which are L lenses...


----------



## MadHungarian (Dec 2, 2014)

I just noticed some updated release info on the B&H website about this lens:

"Pre order. Released in limited qty.
Expected availability: December 15 2014"

(not sure if anyone else has posted this yet or not...)


----------



## Werz (Dec 2, 2014)

MadHungarian said:


> I just noticed some updated release info on the B&H website about this lens:
> 
> "Pre order. Released in limited qty.
> Expected availability: December 15 2014"
> ...



Thank you for posting this, that's great news! Hopefully cameracanada will also ship that date.


----------



## miah (Dec 3, 2014)

B&H now states that it's shipping even sooner -- on Dec 12.


----------



## rossstevens (Dec 7, 2014)

Anybody know when this lens is coming out?


----------



## dolina (Dec 9, 2014)

miah said Dec 12.


----------



## JorritJ (Dec 10, 2014)

JorritJ said:


> Just heard from the camera shop - they don't expect to get their first stock until the end of december...



And... they just shipped mine, should arrive tomorrow. These guys... original estimate of delivery 2nd week of December, then updated to last few days of December, then shipped the 2nd week of December.

Assuming I'm home when the delivery guy comes by, I will have it in-hand tomorrow.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Dec 10, 2014)

rossstevens said:


> Anybody know when this lens is coming out?



I think it comes out when you turn the zoom ring!


----------



## monkey44 (Dec 18, 2014)

Finally broke down -- tried to resist the 100-400 v2 and just keep my v1 ... as it is sharp and still looks great, works great. Never been a fan of push-pull design tho, and after watching a few images, decided to bit the bullet.

I ordered it from Adorama Sunday afternoon, it arrived yesterday (Wednesday = seventy three hours later) and this lens was worth the wait! Incredible! My v1 is always a tiny bit soft at 400 and with any light loss, altho', still has always been the favored lens in my bag - and I have NO complaints over the years. Altho lately, the 70-200 L IS has gotten lots of use since I quit shooting so much sports. But this v.2 lens became the favorite as soon as it left it's shipping box and I spun it on the 7D2 ... One very amazing lens.

I read a lot of "negative posts" about Canon gear in general, and as with any manufactured equipment, every once in a while, one may get a bad one. I've never had that experience with Canon gear -- so can't even get into those discussions. My luck holds - this lens is as good as it gets in the Zoom category. 

So for any Canon naysayers that immediately jump out and scream about Canon 'inferior' products -- this one will stick those back in a closet for awhile. Looks like the 7D2 and the 100-400 v2 were made for one another!


----------



## curby (Dec 19, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



sagittariansrock said:


> I think apart from a rotating zoom (to which people seem to have mixed feelings) the usability with the TCs as confirmed by the MTFs, a reliable and more powerful IS, along with the much improved IQ is a sufficiently good reason for the widespread welcome this lens is getting.



Seems like the only thing missing is the much improved IQ. Roger's initial, cursory tests over at the rental place indicate it's only around 4% sharper on average. Of course there are other IQ considerations like flare, CA, distortion, contrast, color reproduction, etc., but 4% better sharpness isn't exactly a slam dunk. ???

To be clear, I'm looking forward to getting this guy and I want to love the heck out of every aspect of it. But 4% pales in comparison to the 40% improvement of the 400 DO II over its predecessor.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 19, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



curby said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > I think apart from a rotating zoom (to which people seem to have mixed feelings) the usability with the TCs as confirmed by the MTFs, a reliable and more powerful IS, along with the much improved IQ is a sufficiently good reason for the widespread welcome this lens is getting.
> ...



As I keep telling people, the old one was very good optically, but only under ideal conditions (IS off or stopped down a stop). The new one seems to be massively better under regular high stress conditions (wide oopen with the IS in, and in resisting flare and CA.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Dec 19, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



Lee Jay said:


> curby said:
> 
> 
> > sagittariansrock said:
> ...



The mkI 100-400L has some notoriously bad copies out there. I've tried a number of copies over the years. Back in early 2008, I tried a copy which was just awful. Soft every where and it wasn't the AF system....something in the lens alignment must have been really out of place. Earlier copies which I had tried were like night and day on comparison. When I chose a 400L f5.6 over a 100-400, there were a few reasons why. The AF on every 100-400 which I tried was pretty slow, especially in lower light. I found the push pull at 400mm caused the lens to unbalance on a tripod and the 2 stop IS wasn't that great. 
But that was then and this is now...the new lens looks like it's address all these issues and it's got slightly better IQ than the sharpest and best 100-400L's which came off the Canon line. It's it's reliable, sharp, quick and accurate AF with a great IS implementation and it's handling works better...then it's a worthy successor!
Will I be buying one? Not yet, I'll wait until the prices have stabilised a bit more.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 19, 2014)

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/12/a-brief-400mm-comparison

A very brief IQ comparison is at the link above. First they compare the 400 DO lenses, and then they report sharpness data for the white unicorns against its predecessor, but he only reported wide open data at 400mm.

More to come, hopefully, but it appears we'll be waiting for LensTip or Photozone to get the lens and do their thing.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 19, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



Lee Jay said:


> curby said:
> 
> 
> > sagittariansrock said:
> ...



My 100-400 was very sharp. I think a key criterion for the MkII will be performance with the 1.4xIII, given the availability of f/8 AF on multiple bodies including the 7DII. The MkI didn't take a TC well. Given the 3rd party 150-600 options which are substantially larger and heavier, a lighter, more easily transportable 560mm f/8 would be a great option. Looking at the TDP crops, the 100-400 II takes a 1.4x quite well, and the resulting combo delivers better IQ than the Tamron 150-600 @ 600mm.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 19, 2014)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



neuroanatomist said:


> My 100-400 was very sharp. I think a key criterion for the MkII will be performance with the 1.4xIII, given the availability of f/8 AF on multiple bodies including the 7DII. The MkI didn't take a TC well.



Yeah, it did. But the new one is quite a bit better, especially off-axis.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=0&LensComp=113&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=8&APIComp=2


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jan 6, 2015)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



neuroanatomist said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > curby said:
> ...


Yep, my experience with the mkI was that it's weakest points were it's bokeh when compared to the 400 f5.6L prime and it's pedestrian AF speed in anything other than bright light. It's optical performance (with a good sample) was excellent. I didn't particularly like the tripod collar placement when on a tripod racked out to 400mm, which still looks to be the case with the new one...but at least the old issues have been more than rectified. 
Like all the recent mkII models from Canon. There's probably not enough to justify buying the mkII if you already have a great copy of the mkI....but if you don't already have one or it's a bit iffy...then they mkII makes a lot of sense.


----------



## curby (Jan 6, 2015)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



Lee Jay said:


> As I keep telling people, the old one was very good optically, but only under ideal conditions (IS off or stopped down a stop). The new one seems to be massively better under regular high stress conditions (wide oopen with the IS in, and in resisting flare and CA.



I think those ideal conditions must also include using a full frame sensor with relatively large subsensors. I was reading another thread here yesterday that discussed how high density sensors put more stringent requirements on lenses. Something tells me that the first version's proponents were more likely using full frame bodies with it than crop bodies.* If the new version also excels on crop bodies, then that in itself is a big improvement.

* I'm a newbie, so of course there could be another explanation. But quality reports on the first version are unarguably widely varying. It's likely that Canon had silently been improving the design and tolerances over the decade+ span of the first version. It's possible that there was a lot of sample variation. But it could also be that those factors were at times combined with sensors of varying pickiness. So ultimately, the optical benefit of the new design might not be that it's improving the best samples, but rather that it's decreasing sample variation (so they're all the "best" ones) and thereby offering more consistently positive performance even on dense sensors.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jan 6, 2015)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



curby said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > As I keep telling people, the old one was very good optically, but only under ideal conditions (IS off or stopped down a stop). The new one seems to be massively better under regular high stress conditions (wide oopen with the IS in, and in resisting flare and CA.
> ...



I used it with teleconverters on crop bodies and it was fine, under ideal use conditions (a stop down and/or IS off).


----------



## Hector1970 (Jan 18, 2015)

Eventually got my copy.
It's a great lens. I've probably been using it under fairly ideal conditions but it's performing great.
Autofocus is fast and slick.
I love the feel of the photos out of it .
The 70-200mm II is in danger of becoming my second favourite.
Has worked very well with both the 5D Mark III and 7D Mark II .
10FPS is a nice experience with it (the downside being the number of similar photos you get. Lots of post deleting required).
An expensive lens but undoubted quality.
I'm looking forward to taking more great photos with it.


----------



## Besisika (Feb 3, 2015)

Hector1970 said:


> Eventually got my copy.
> It's a great lens. I've probably been using it under fairly ideal conditions but it's performing great.
> Autofocus is fast and slick.
> I love the feel of the photos out of it .
> ...


Got mine too.
Will test it this week-end during Montreal pond hockey - good conditions (but cold - frozen river).
Pre-test shows great results. Mine will be used mainly under tough conditions and I foresee satisfaction. Tried to handheld it, for non-moving subject, at 1/50s ISO 6400 at 400mm and I really liked what I saw. The slight handshake can easily be removed in post.


----------



## chhaprahiya (Feb 20, 2015)

Where did you buy this lens and how much did it cost? Neither Adorama nor B&H have it in stock. Amazon has 1 in stock selling for $300 over list.


----------



## Renato (Feb 20, 2015)

chhaprahiya said:


> Where did you buy this lens and how much did it cost? Neither Adorama nor B&H have it in stock. Amazon has 1 in stock selling for $300 over list.


I got mine form Camera Canada- Excellent service and cheaper price due to currency conversion!
http://www.cameracanada.com/enet-cart/product.asp?pid=9524B002
Call them and check if it is in stock, tell them Renato sent you.


----------



## candyman (Feb 25, 2015)

It is a wonderful lens. Though vignetting is more present than the 70-300L but not so much to worry about. I also noticed that the IS is more noisy than with the 70-300L. Did anyone (who owned the 70-300L) noticed that as well? Or is that my copy of the 100-400L II? Is that something to worry about? :-\


----------



## chhaprahiya (Feb 25, 2015)

Renato said:


> chhaprahiya said:
> 
> 
> > Where did you buy this lens and how much did it cost? Neither Adorama nor B&H have it in stock. Amazon has 1 in stock selling for $300 over list.
> ...



Thanks! I ordered their last but one stock unit today. Eagerly awaiting shipment.


----------



## Besisika (Feb 25, 2015)

chhaprahiya said:


> Renato said:
> 
> 
> > chhaprahiya said:
> ...


Got mine from there too.
I like their service. They let me know couple of days before they shipped.
It is worth the waiting. The lens is amazing.


----------



## e_honda (Feb 26, 2015)

*Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II *



Steve Balcombe said:


> These things are relative - my 300/4L IS takes sharp shots, but my 70-300L is sharper.



I noticed the same thing, but should add that the "300mm" on the 70-300L looks noticeably shorter than the prime.

I'm wondering if anyone has compared the "400mm" on the 100-400 (new or old version) to the 400m f/5.6 prime.


----------



## chhaprahiya (Feb 26, 2015)

chhaprahiya said:


> Renato said:
> 
> 
> > chhaprahiya said:
> ...



Camera Canada price was $2049 US$ incl shipping to US. They may be sold out; call and ask. Vistek stores in Ottawa, Calgary, Edmonton had stock, but only Toronto office can ship -- didn't sound too experienced with US orders. No US vendor has it in stock.


----------



## Finn M (Mar 4, 2015)

I bought the lens about a month ago, but because of the dark Norwegian winter I haven't used it much yet. But my first experiences are very positive: the lens is very sharp! Much sharper than the new Nikon AF-S 80-400/4,5-5,6 VR which is very soft between 300 and 400mm. In my opinion it can compete with the 70-200/2,8L IS II in terms of sharpness and contrast. And the big surprise for me is the IS which is far better than with the mk.I. Very effective! 
This lens is slowly becoming my favourite tele lens and have reduced the 70-200/2,8L IS II to be used only for portraits. My old favourite may be sold...


----------



## curby (Mar 4, 2015)

Thanks for posting your impressions! I'm hoping it can replace my 70-200/4, but I'm a little surprised that you think it might replace your 2.8. Do you not miss the extra light of the 2.8, or is the weight and size savings just worth more to you than that stop and a half or so?


----------



## Finn M (Mar 4, 2015)

curby said:


> Thanks for posting your impressions! I'm hoping it can replace my 70-200/4, but I'm a little surprised that you think it might replace your 2.8. Do you not miss the extra light of the 2.8, or is the weight and size savings just worth more to you than that stop and a half or so?



For portraits, sport and pictures of people/children f2,8 is important, for pictures like this the 70-200/2,8L IS II is superior, but my primary use now is landscape photography. My "high season" is in April - July. I will decide when I have compared the lenses then. I take a lot of pictures against the sun of details in the nature. Lens flare is then critical. The 70-200 is very good in this respect. We have to see...


----------



## Skulker (Aug 14, 2015)

I got this lens and now looking at the images I am very please. I can't tell looking at the output if they were taken with this lens or my 300 f2.8. And that is high praise indeed.


----------



## valkerie (Aug 17, 2015)

Just a question. I have the mkll and only one issue. I loosen the ring for focus, and still it seems hard to zoom. does anyone have this issue? I'm seriously thinking of sending back to canon to check out. thanks...........

oops, my bad.. I meant the zoom ring is stiff even when the adjuster is on the loose end.. again sorry.. I think I will send back to canon after a call..


----------



## tevscale (Aug 17, 2015)

valkerie said:


> Just a question. I have the mkll and only one issue. I loosen the ring for focus, and still it seems hard to zoom. does anyone have this issue? I'm seriously thinking of sending back to canon to check out. thanks...........



I'm not quite sure I understand. The lens has a ring that adjusts the zoom tension, but that has nothing to do with focus. Anyway, I find that zooming is very easy at the lowest tension setting (I usually keep the tension at about the midway setting just so that it "feels right"/doesn't creep).


----------



## Deleted member 20471 (Sep 21, 2015)

The best review of the 100-400/4.5-5.6L IS II, http://www.objektivtest.se/tester/canon-ef-100-400-mm-f45-56-l-is-ii-usm-test/ (Swedish) or with Google translate, https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.objektivtest.se%2Ftester%2Fcanon-ef-100-400-mm-f45-56-l-is-ii-usm-test%2F&edit-text=&act=url


----------



## jeffa4444 (Apr 18, 2016)

Well lets re-awaken this thread! 

Used in March the MK1 version extensively in South Africa at a game reserve it was on the 5DS 90% of the time. Images back in the UK looked pretty good except corner fall -off at 400mm where the lens was used 60% of the time. The trombone effect did pull some dust into the camera & onto the ground glass which was annoying as lens changes only occurred in my hotel room. 

However the versitility of this lens convinced me that this would be ideal for getting shots of local deer & sea birds at our second home. A month after getting the lens which mechanically is different from the MK1 as your all aware I can say I really enjoy using it. The IQ into the corners is definately an improvement over the MK1 lens at 400mm and the IS is much improved allowing lower shutter speeds than the MK1. Overall Im pleased with this lens it really is a jack of all trades and is good for landscape as well as wildlife. Build quality is first rate and I think an improvement over the MK1 justifying the increase in price over the older lens.


----------



## stevelee (Apr 27, 2018)

I received my 100-400 II yesterday and had a few moments free to try it out to make sure it got here OK. I shot handheld with all settings on auto. I shot birds at the feeders next door and the remaining blooms on the dogwoods in the woods behind the house. I was standing on my deck, which is about 20 feet off the ground at the edge. I used image stabilization mode 1 and all camera settings on automatic, shooting RAW on a 6D2.

It is my first L series lens. It is also the biggest and heaviest and most expensive lens I own. From these quick shots, I've decided it is definitely worth the price, and I'm glad I chose this particular lens for my current purchase. The IS does an amazing job. 

Here are a few 100% crops for you pixel peepers. The software of this board shows them enlarged a bit, so they appear noisier than in reality. Birds were shot at f/5.6 1/320 sec. I did the dogwoods in AV mode at f/16, so the camera used 1/400 and raised the ISO a bit.


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 29, 2018)

stevelee said:


> I received my 100-400 II yesterday and had a few moments free to try it out to make sure it got here OK. I shot handheld with all settings on auto. I shot birds at the feeders next door and the remaining blooms on the dogwoods in the woods behind the house. I was standing on my deck, which is about 20 feet off the ground at the edge. I used image stabilization mode 1 and all camera settings on automatic, shooting RAW on a 6D2.
> 
> It is my first L series lens. It is also the biggest and heaviest and most expensive lens I own. From these quick shots, I've decided it is definitely worth the price, and I'm glad I chose this particular lens for my current purchase. The IS does an amazing job.
> 
> Here are a few 100% crops for you pixel peepers. The software of this board shows them enlarged a bit, so they appear noisier than in reality. Birds were shot at f/5.6 1/320 sec. I did the dogwoods in AV mode at f/16, so the camera used 1/400 and raised the ISO a bit.



Congratulations on the lens! The "L" virus grows and you'll find it spreading, especially if you are shooting full frame. That is my experience. Full frame and "L" together makes the angels sing.


----------

