# Canon EF 100-400mmL IS



## JTPAIN (Jan 29, 2012)

Hey,

Does anyone know if Canon will be replacing their old 100-400mmL lens any time soon? - I know some have said that the 70-300mmL is a replacement, because of crop body users, But for birding, that extra length is pretty vital. I've heard mixed revues of the 70-300mm with 1.4x tele, and think it would probably be too much of a compromise to loose AF.

Many thanks


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 29, 2012)

There have been rumors of a new 100-400mm for several years. So far, there have been two patents published (about a year apart, IIRC). Still no new lens. 

I'd skip the TC on a 70-300L; won't work at all with a Canon TC, and the optical quality of the 3rd party TCs isn't as good. 

Personally, I'd like a 400/5.6L IS, wouldn't mind a new 100-400mm, but I'm quite happy with my 100-400mm now.


----------



## candyman (Jan 29, 2012)

I thought the replacement was the 200-400mm?
Maybe I got it wrong?


Here


----------



## photophreek (Jan 29, 2012)

The 200-400mm is a different lens and belongs in the super tele group. I really don't think it's a replacement for the 100-400mm given it's anticipated weight and cost.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Jan 29, 2012)

im waiting too...

either for a new 400mm f5.6 with IS or a new 100-400mm.

i really don´t like the current 100-400 and it´s push/pull design.
my father has one and it´s by far the lens that attracts the most dirt.


----------



## mb66energy (Jan 29, 2012)

Canon-F1 said:


> im waiting too...
> 
> either for a new 400mm f5.6 with IS or a new 100-400mm.
> 
> ...



I have stopped to wait and decidetd to get a 400mm f5.6 NON-IS, because
the 100-400 air pump should be addicted to dust - as you wrote.
Another reason is that the old 400 mm prime has just 6 lens elements and
should show less flare than a zoom with 14 (!) lens groups.

Another reason to buy the old 400mm is that I don't want to pay twice
the money for an IS version which has - maybe - 12 or 15 lens elements too.
In germany only a few dealers have listed the 5.6 400 and I hate to be too
late - after many frustrating decisions!

I observed that classic lenses are perhaps not as sharp as modern zooms (and
IS lenses) but have better contrast and render the object with higher fidelity. So
the percepted authenticity of photographs is better than that of the zooms.

My first impressions with that lens: very sharp, very contrasty, easy for hand-holding,
absolutely sturdy design (one metal tube enclosing/supporting the movable parts) and
a big advantage: the built-in hood with rubberized rim to take some rough bumps (I do
not plan them but they might happen).


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 29, 2012)

The rumor has sporadically appeared for at least five years. Don't wait, the existing one is a super value for the price. Any better one will cost a lot more.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 29, 2012)

The 400/5.6 is only 20% less than the 100-400 here in the US. FWIW, I don't have a speck of dust in mine - FYI, the 100-400 has weather seals at the switches and zoom extension/focus ring, i.e. it lacks the mount gasket but is otherwise a sealed lens (it's cousin the 28-300L has the mount gasket and is billed as 'weather sealed').


----------



## vlim (Jan 29, 2012)

> Personally, I'd like a 400/5.6L IS



Ho yes ! or finally a 300 f/4 L IS II

Both weather sealed of course and under 1800$


----------



## smirkypants (Jan 29, 2012)

The whole dust issue in the 100-400mm is an urban legend. I use mine on polo fields with horses flying by all the time and I have never, ever had a problem with dust. EVER. Somewhere, somebody decided that the push-pull system just HAD to attract dust, the idea caught on and it's attained a life of it's own. It's crap. It's not a problem. It never was a problem.

Now image quality... that's hit or miss. And the autofocus is slow. I don't love this lens, but it's serviceable.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 29, 2012)

smirkypants said:


> The whole dust issue in the 100-400mm is an urban legend.



+1. But, of course, the 17-55mm _does_ have a dust problem. Mine doesn't, but they all do. So sayeth the Internet. :


----------



## wickidwombat (Jan 29, 2012)

smirkypants said:


> The whole dust issue in the 100-400mm is an urban legend. I use mine on polo fields with horses flying by all the time and I have never, ever had a problem with dust. EVER. Somewhere, somebody decided that the push-pull system just HAD to attract dust, the idea caught on and it's attained a life of it's own. It's crap. It's not a problem. It never was a problem.
> 
> Now image quality... that's hit or miss. And the autofocus is slow. I don't love this lens, but it's serviceable.



ditto for the dust on the 28-300 never had a problem with it, once ou get the hang of the push pull zoom its very fast I found the AF speed on the 28-300 very quick, maybe not as quick as the 70-200 f2.8 but not too far off the mark, but As far as I know the 28-300 is rated as weather sealed where as the 100-400 is not "weather sealed"


----------



## pranav (Jan 29, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> smirkypants said:
> 
> 
> > The whole dust issue in the 100-400mm is an urban legend.
> ...


I am sure some of it is "Canon Rumor", but you can't make those sweeping statements unless you were in Boston/NY (or similar low dust places). Your answers would be more cautious if you were living in southwest. I dont have dust in/on my lenses as I am super careful but it does take my energy and time. When I use to live on Long Island, dust was not something I ever thought much about.


----------



## smirkypants (Jan 30, 2012)

pranav said:


> Your answers would be more cautious if you were living in southwest.


Obviously I need to show you the extent of dust that I deal with on Argentine polo fields. When there has been rain and the fields are well attended, it's not bad. When it's dry, I am often taking photos literally in swirls of dust. 

Dust pump = urban legend, pure and simple.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Jan 30, 2012)

smirkypants said:


> Please do not accuse me of "talking BS."



oh but you can say other tell lies and making things up? :


----------



## aldvan (Jan 30, 2012)

smirkypants said:


> The whole dust issue in the 100-400mm is an urban legend.



I fully agree. I live in a very windy and dusty island. I traveled to deserts with my 100-400 that is for me something like a standard lens. After two years of travelling in very hard environment I never got a dust particle inside. Obviously you have to perform regularly a good maintenance, avoiding dust or other kind of dirt to build up for weeks on the barrel. As I wrote in other occasion, I had it rocket launched from my backpack in Beijing last year and it needed just a new YA2-3629 zooming ring and barrel. No glass was minimally damaged, although the cinetic energy due to the heavy weight was huge.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 30, 2012)

Tijn said:


> I'm not sure if either of you can dismiss the other party as any kind of "legend" or myth, but I personally doubt it really commonly is a dust magnet. Lack of a filter could be a cause of dust for at least some unenlightened people. Others might be unfortunate. No two lenses are the same and all that.



+1. I'm sure there are people with 100-400's that have dust, and people with no dust. I don't know that I'd call it an urban legend, but it's a popular lens and things do get blown out of proportion on the Internet. Try an experiment - search Google for 'your car make/year' and 'transmission problems'. You'll get hits - probably lots of hits. Assuming you've never had such a problem, your initial reaction will probably be, "That's BS." If you have had such a problem, those results will confirm for you that it's a pervasive issue. The real question is, if you had run that search _before_ buying that car, would you still have bought it? If you say 'no', expand that concept - if you had done that search on every car you had been considering, you'd be taking the bus to work.


----------



## sawsedge (Jan 30, 2012)

I have yet to hear of a person who *actually owns* the 100-400 complaining about dust.


----------



## aldvan (Jan 30, 2012)

In the Land Rover Defender forum I attend, there is a member that used to own the latest model of that off road car. He should be very unfortunate getting his sample, or, may be, he wasn't very able to drive such a particular car or to perform a regular maintenance. He post regularly any sort of smear on the new Defender, affirming very unlikely that he owned four samples of the car and each of them was a lemon. Now, you can live very well ignoring that kind of obsession, but the problem is that is quite disturbing to read nasty and hardly demonstrated (a huge number of customer are very happy about that) things about something you had paid a lot of money and that you suppose to resell a day.
Conclusion: on the Internet is very easy to transform an individual case in a general opinion. And it is very easy that this opinion should be built on very specific situation. So, please, before stating some nasty opinion, consider if yours just a specific experience or a real flaw, since in few weeks a lot of people that never got in touch with the object, will sell themselves as great expert on that...


----------



## Peerke (Jan 30, 2012)

aldvan said:


> In the Land Rover Defender forum I attend, there is a member that used to own the latest model of that off road car. He should be very unfortunate getting his sample, or, may be, he wasn't very able to drive such a particular car or to perform a regular maintenance. He post regularly any sort of smear on the new Defender, affirming very unlikely that he owned four samples of the car and each of them was a lemon. Now, you can live very well ignoring that kind of obsession, but the problem is that is quite disturbing to read nasty and hardly demonstrated (a huge number of customer are very happy about that) things about something you had paid a lot of money and that you suppose to resell a day.
> Conclusion: on the Internet is very easy to transform an individual case in a general opinion. And it is very easy that this opinion should be built on very specific situation. So, please, before stating some nasty opinion, consider if yours just a specific experience or a real flaw, since in few weeks a lot of people that never got in touch with the object, will sell themselves as great expert on that...



Funny that someone owns four lemon cars. Why buy a sencond lemon? What a lemon.

BTW, if the 100-400 sucks in air and dust when pulling, what will it do when pushing?


----------



## jrista (Jan 30, 2012)

While I can't say that I've taken my copy of the 100-400L lens onto five different continents like @smirkypants, I have used it pretty extensively for the last couple years in some of the worst weather Colorado has to offer. I've used it in torrential rains, near-whiteout blizzards, sub-zero temperatures, and highly dusty winds. Even though it does not carry a "weather sealed" label, I've never gotten any moisture or dust inside of the lens, and I've never noticed any accumulation of dust on my sensor due to its use.

While I don't have any patents or diagrams to back it up at the moment, I think its a bit naive to think that Canon did not design this lens with an adequate filtration system around the push/pull design. Yes, the lens sucks in air, but its highly unlikely it directly sucks in unfiltered air.


----------



## Admin US West (Jan 30, 2012)

Several posts were removed, due to the insulting language made and then being quoted.

Its ok to disagree, but be civil!


----------



## unfocused (Jan 30, 2012)

scalesusa said:


> Several posts were removed, due to the insulting language made and then being quoted.
> 
> Its ok to disagree, but be civil!



Giving you some good Karma, as it sucks to be an administrator. (on the other hand, it never hurts to suck up to administrators)


----------



## vbi (Jan 30, 2012)

Never had a problem with my 100-400 even though I have taken it to many game reserves over the last 4 years.

And, contrary to urban legend, it is pretty sharp wide open...sharp enough that I now always shoot wide open and get good results.


----------



## keithfullermusic (Jan 30, 2012)

I've only had mine for a few months,must I bout it used and have taken it to some very dirty places and I still don't have a problem with dust. I also love the push/pull. It's super fast, and I wish all big zooms had it.


----------



## StevenBrianSamuels (Jan 31, 2012)

JTPAIN said:


> Hey,
> 
> Does anyone know if Canon will be replacing their old 100-400mmL lens any time soon? - I know some have said that the 70-300mmL is a replacement, because of crop body users, But for birding, that extra length is pretty vital. I've heard mixed revues of the 70-300mm with 1.4x tele, and think it would probably be too much of a compromise to loose AF.
> 
> Many thanks




They will update it as soon as you or I push BUY NOW.

I'm still waiting for an update.


----------



## Kahuna (Jan 31, 2012)

unfocused said:


> scalesusa said:
> 
> 
> > Several posts were removed, due to the insulting language made and then being quoted.
> ...



+1


----------



## lynx0069 (Jan 31, 2012)

i love my 100-400, its attached to my XSi prob about 80% of the time because i enjoy wildlife photography and aircraft. have i ever experienced a dust problem? no, i have not, so i would agree that the "dust pump" statement is definatly an urban legend. in fact, one of my first lenses that i owned was a 70-210f/4 way back when i bought my first slr, an eos 650, and that lens is still in use today as i gave it to my niece when i purchased my 70-200f/4L. so, i use both types of zooms, both the push pull and 2 touch, and i actually enjoy the speed of a push/pull design. IF canon were to update the 100-400, would i buy it? hard to say, if it wasnt massively more expensive than the current one, i would think about it just for an improvement in the IS.


----------



## davisje011 (Feb 2, 2012)

I have to be the exception I guess, I own a 100-400 and mine got pretty dusty in the 3 years I have owned it. however, I never experienced any undue dust on my sensor, just the lens elements. It got to be so much that I started to get a haze on my daytime photos.

I solved that last night.

I am now dust free on my 1st 2 elements, I didn't want to go further because it just would have been a technical nightmare. This lens is much more simple than it seems.

BTW, I bought this thing on craigslist, I had no warranty or service contracts. I am proficient with electro-mechanical repair, and did not go into this blind. So save me the "You're a fool to do this" I recorded the calibration of the 1st element and retested after reassembly. Every thing is in working order and is in fact smoother than before, due to some long overdue re-lubing and cleaning.


----------



## samkatz (Feb 9, 2012)

*why I want a 100-400 IS L II updated lens..now..*

Had one 100-400 L, it was not as sharp as I wanted, sold it. Have rented them from lensrentals.com a few times, the sharpness have been fine. Why don't I just buy one??

The I S really is dated. 2 stops is less than new equipment coming out from Canon or Tamron or anyone else doing IS/VR. No tripod mode for IS. I don't care about push pull vs ring zoom, don't believe in the dust issue.
I don't mind paying more than the current lens for an update. Yes, I'm wasting money by renting, but I only need the lens for 3-4 weeks per year, my 70-300 (non L) is fine for many uses. I may just give up and buy the current model if no update by this fall. Knowing my luck the update will come out immediately after I buy.


----------

