# Canon EF 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS Update [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 6, 2013)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=14143"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=14143">Tweet</a></div>
<p><strong>The long awaited replacement….

</strong>We’re told production for the <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/162616-USA/Canon_2577A002AA_100_400mm_f_4_5_5_6L_IS_USM.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS</a> will be “coming to an end soon”. Production for the replacement will begin sometime in late 2013 or early 2014.</p>
<p>Canon’s lens production has had its share of issues in the last few years with the new super-telephotos and to some extent the <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/843008-USA/Canon_5175B002_EF_24_70mm_f_2_8L_II.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">EF 24-70 f/2.8L II</a>. We’re told until the <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/973129-REG/canon_5176b002_ef_200_400mm_f_4l_is.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x</a> production reaches demand, Canon will not be producing the replacement to the long-in-the-tooth EF 100-400. All issues are apparently going to be resolved sometime this fall.</p>
<p>An announcement and release may depend on how fast Canon can sell off existing stock of the 100-400.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## mrsfotografie (Aug 6, 2013)

Interesting. I can see myself upgrading to the new model when prices level out because it's a safe bet the new 100-400 will outperform the old model, and the 200-400 is out of my reach both in budget and bulk anyway. I'm hoping for the same sort of image quality improvement of the 70-200 f/2.8 IS Mk I vs MkII.

Note: I challenge you all not to have any more discussions about push/pull vs rotary zoom!!! Let's wait and see what Canon comes up with...  ??? :


----------



## tron (Aug 6, 2013)

mrsfotografie said:


> Note: I challenge you all not to have any more discussions about push/pull vs rotary zoom!!!


Oh, how much I like push/pull zooms... ;D


----------



## Sabaki (Aug 6, 2013)

This is cool!!!

If its at least as sharp as the 400 f/5.6 from 100mm all the way to AND INCLUDING 400mm, this may become another iconic Canon lens!

I would be prepared to sell my excellent copy of the 400 f/5.6 I have for this


----------



## tron (Aug 6, 2013)

mrsfotografie said:


> Note: I challenge you all not to have any more discussions about push/pull vs rotary zoom!!!


Oh, how much I like rotary zooms... ;D


----------



## AlanF (Aug 6, 2013)

Sabaki said:


> This is cool!!!
> 
> If its at least as sharp as the 400 f/5.6 from 100mm all the way to AND INCLUDING 400mm, this may become another iconic Canon lens!
> 
> I would be prepared to sell my excellent copy of the 400 f/5.6 I have for this



There is very little to chose between the 100-400mm L and the 400mm f/5.6 L in the centres - see http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=14296.msg259688#msg259688

If the new zoom lens is only as good as the 20 year old 400mm f/5.6, then I'll give it a miss as it won't be much better than the current - we want something better.


----------



## Gary Irwin (Aug 6, 2013)

"We’re told until the EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x production reaches demand, Canon will not be producing the replacement to the long-in-the-tooth EF 100-400. "

LOL Based on my experience with Nikon's 200-400VR and the new 80-400VRII, if/when Canon update and release the 100-400L, trust me, that will take care of any and all excess demand with the 200-400IS II.


----------



## docsmith (Aug 6, 2013)

No real substance to this post....just sayin' this is the lens I am waiting for. If it is in the ball park of the recently released telephoto lenses, I will be buying one. Wish list is improved IQ, faster AF, 4 stop IS, and better weather sealing. The current version is one of my most used lenses. I love it but the areas for improvement are obvious.


----------



## heptagon (Aug 6, 2013)

Holding back the 100-400 for the 200-400 1.4x doesn't really make sense to me because the latter is so much more expensive.... except if the new 100-400 costs 5000$ upwards. But then again it wouldn't really replace the old model. So something about this sounds fishy if you ask me.


----------



## scottkinfw (Aug 6, 2013)

I am with you on that. Also on the block will be my 300mm F4L. combine 2 lenses in one, better IQ, hopefully great IS, not push pull (sorry to bring it up), and light weight with fixed aperture. And while I am at it, affordable. Why not?

sek



mrsfotografie said:


> Interesting. I can see myself upgrading to the new model when prices level out because it's a safe bet the new 100-400 will outperform the old model, and the 200-400 is out of my reach both in budget and bulk anyway. I'm hoping for the same sort of image quality improvement of the 70-200 f/2.8 IS Mk I vs MkII.
> 
> Note: I challenge you all not to have any more discussions about push/pull vs rotary zoom!!! Let's wait and see what Canon comes up with...  ??? :


----------



## mrsfotografie (Aug 6, 2013)

heptagon said:


> Holding back the 100-400 for the 200-400 1.4x doesn't really make sense to me because the latter is so much more expensive.... except if the new 100-400 costs 5000$ upwards. But then again it wouldn't really replace the old model. So something about this sounds fishy if you ask me.



It seems valid to me to first sort out production issues and satisfy customers that have ordered a lens that has been officially announced over putting effort into producing a lens that hasn't yet officially seen the light of day.


----------



## Random Orbits (Aug 6, 2013)

I'm hoping for better IQ in a lighter package. It will get the former, but the latter seems unlikely. Can't wait for reviews of this lens to start dribbling out. Hoping it will start shipping sooner rather than later, so that it might be on the rebate list that much sooner. ;D


----------



## Aaron78 (Aug 6, 2013)

I think there is confusion here, they way i understood the CR report is that they want to get a steady flow of 200-400 lens shipping before they start producing a new lens. I did not take that as them being worried that the 100-400 and 200-400 would be competing against each other for market share.


----------



## dgatwood (Aug 6, 2013)

tron said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > Note: I challenge you all not to have any more discussions about push/pull vs rotary zoom!!!
> ...



Burn the heretic! ;D

In all seriousness, if this were available today, I'd probably buy one for shooting the Papal blessing on our Europe trip next month. It isn't, though, and I'm not about to buy the current-generation dust sucker, so I guess I'll just stick a TC on my 70-300L to make up for the loss of reach resulting from my FF upgrade. *sigh*


----------



## AlanF (Aug 6, 2013)

[/quote]

Burn the heretic! ;D

In all seriousness, if this were available today, I'd probably buy one for shooting the Papal blessing on our Europe trip next month. It isn't, though, and I'm not about to buy the current-generation dust sucker, so I guess I'll just stick a TC on my 70-300L to make up for the loss of reach resulting from my FF upgrade. *sigh*
[/quote]

It is not a "dust sucker". Many of us in the forum do actually use the old lens and know its strengths and weaknesses. Dust penetration is not generally a problem.


----------



## Sabaki (Aug 6, 2013)

AlanF said:


> Sabaki said:
> 
> 
> > This is cool!!!
> ...



Hi Alan. Some fair comment there. I can tell from personal experience that the 400 f/5.6 handily outperforms the current 100-400. 
Read the review at Luminous Landscapes. Pretty much echoes what I've seen.


----------



## mycanonphotos (Aug 6, 2013)

Cant wait for this thing to come out. Be cool if it was a straight f4... (Damn Jack...)


----------



## dhofmann (Aug 6, 2013)

mycanonphotos said:


> Be cool if it was a straight f4...



Such a lens would cost at least $6,000. A straight f/5.6 would be much more affordable.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 6, 2013)

tron said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > Note: I challenge you all not to have any more discussions about push/pull vs rotary zoom!!!
> ...



Oh, how much I love primes.... ;D


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 6, 2013)

Would be awesome if it was 70-400 or at least 80-400. Requires MUCH less lens swapping on FF if so (IMO doesn't matter for APS-C or H usage though).


----------



## GmwDarkroom (Aug 6, 2013)

My bet is, much like the aforementioned 70-200 2.8, the improvements will not show up on paper, but in performance.

To do otherwise wouldn't be an upgrade. It would be a new tier of lens.

My prediction for what little it's worth: 100-400 or close to that, non-push-pull, better optics, better IS.

And I'll throw in with the heretic and say for fast zooming, I like the push-pull. However for general use, I do prefer the twist ring.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 6, 2013)

Sabaki said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > Sabaki said:
> ...



I know that review inside out - he can't read MTF charts despite supposedly being an expert. Look at the MTFs at the beginning of the thread in the link above: Photozone; SLRgear and Canon have both lenses the same in the centre, which where the action is in nature photography, as do the TDP charts. I owned both lenses for a while also and both my copies were just as would be expected from the numbers - about the same at the centre. There were production problems with the 100-400mm and there are some soft copies. It's a lens you have to test before buying. I am not a great fan of the lens but I don't like it being talked down either as it is a very useful zoom, which was exceptionally good for the 1990s. I just want to see a more modern sharper version with 4 stops IS to bring it in line with the new generations of lenses.


----------



## viggen61 (Aug 6, 2013)

AlanF said:


> If the new zoom lens is only as good as the 20 year old 400mm f/5.6, then I'll give it a miss as it won't be much better than the current - we want something better.



Some of us would be perfectly happy with the same optics, but with up-to-date AF and IS. Faster & better AF is welcome, as would be 4 stops of IS. That lens is 15+ years old technologically

I don't expect leaps and bounds better IQ from the new version (gotta leave something for the f/2.8 primes and the 200-400...  ), but somewhat less vignetting and corner sharpness would be fantastic.

I, for one, don't particularly care about twist to zoom or push/pull, so long as I can still fit it in my bag!


----------



## brad-man (Aug 6, 2013)

Oh how much I love reasonable pricing. I just hope the price settles to under $2300 after initial gouge release price.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 6, 2013)

AlanF said:


> Sabaki said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...


Two years ago, I had the opportunity to try out four lenses together... the Sigma 120-400, the sigma 150-500, the canon 100-400, and the canon 400F5.6.
The rating, based on real world tests, was Sigma 150-500 worst, Canon 100-400 next, Sigma 120-400 SLIGHTLY better, and Canon 400F4 a bit better than the Sigma 120-400. 
Since then I have had other oportunities to use the canon 100-400 and I would now rate it as slightly better than the Sigma 120-400, but not by a whole lot. I think that the earlier copy of the 100-400 that I was trying out was a "soft copy".....

However you slice it, if the new 100-400 has the same improvements as the other "2" lenses released recently, it should be a superior lens to all of them.... the only one with any hope of beating a 100-400F5.6 II would be a 400F5.6 II.....


----------



## schill (Aug 6, 2013)

dhofmann said:


> mycanonphotos said:
> 
> 
> > Be cool if it was a straight f4...
> ...



Much more affordable, but who wants a 100mm f/5.6? 

I expect a straight f/4 version would cost more than $6000. Except for the teleconverter, that's the 200-400 f/4 but with an even larger zoom range.


----------



## preppyak (Aug 6, 2013)

dhofmann said:


> mycanonphotos said:
> 
> 
> > Be cool if it was a straight f4...
> ...


Actually, since the 200-400 f/4 from Canon costs $12k, I'd venture a guess that a 100-400 f/4L would probably cost even more


----------



## tron (Aug 6, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > mrsfotografie said:
> ...


I love primes too... ;D


----------



## FunPhotons (Aug 6, 2013)

Lovely, I'm looking forward to it. I've been waiting for some three or four years. No rush, people advised "buy buy buy" on the current model, but I like getting lenses on the first rebate after they come out or sometimes before then. Anticipation is half the fun. 

I think non push pull, the latest IS, better weather sealing and better IQ is a given. Oh and plus the annoyingly slightly changed white which won't match my slightly older 70-200 f/2.8.


----------



## schill (Aug 6, 2013)

From the first post:


> An announcement and release may depend on how fast Canon can sell off existing stock of the 100-400.





FunPhotons said:


> Lovely, I'm looking forward to it. I've been waiting for some three or four years. No rush, people advised "buy buy buy" on the current model, but I like getting lenses on the first rebate after they come out or sometimes before then. Anticipation is half the fun.



If people don't keep buying the current one, you'll never see your new one. Maybe you should buy the current one as a service to the rest of us so that we can get the new one sooner.


----------



## tron (Aug 6, 2013)

Well, there is a CR2 that next year we will make the same discussion about a CR2 for a new 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS ;D


----------



## brad-man (Aug 6, 2013)

tron said:


> Well, there is a CR2 that next year we will make the same discussion about a CR2 for a new 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS ;D



Que in _"I got you, babe"._


----------



## Nawaf (Aug 7, 2013)

Sell it already! :'(


----------



## tnargs (Aug 7, 2013)

$2,200? What do you reckon?


----------



## Irishpanther (Aug 7, 2013)

I've got the old 100-400 and love it but my IS recently went buggy. It'd gone out in January but came back to life and then died again about a month ago.

Does anyone know about or have experience with getting a lens repaired near end of life? I'd send it in now if I had the cash available, but just finishing grad school and so it hasn't been a priority. I figure they'll have some spare parts around still once the new lens is released. But for the sake of hassle and cost, should I save up and send my copy in as soon as I can?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 7, 2013)

AlanF said:


> Sabaki said:
> 
> 
> > This is cool!!!
> ...


 
+1


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 7, 2013)

Sabaki said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > Sabaki said:
> ...


Not for me. They are very similar, and the actual lens tests show it. Luminous Landscapes is a good site, but they do not have lens testing facilities, its merely the perception of the evaluator.
There is no way I'd pay $3000 for a 100-400L that just matched the old 400mm f/5.6.


----------



## mycanonphotos (Aug 7, 2013)

preppyak said:


> dhofmann said:
> 
> 
> > mycanonphotos said:
> ...



I know I know....Not asking for a teleconverter to be built in..just a straight 4. Is that too much to ask for..? LOL!!


----------



## MichaelHodges (Aug 7, 2013)

Between the 300 F4 L IS, 400 5.6 L, and 100-400, I'd take the primes. Even the 300 with Canon TC is sharper than the 100-400 in my experience (as well as WCastleman and Photozone's).

The 100-400 has nice versatility, but so does a Canon S3.


----------



## dslrdummy (Aug 7, 2013)

I'll wait for the 400 5.6 IS.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 7, 2013)

dilbert said:


> But isn't perception what everyone here argues in favour of because measured metrics using testing in a controlled environment on websites like DxO don't favour Canon?



I don't see many people arguing that here. DxOMark's 'measured metrics using testing in a controlled environment' are just fine (usually, although they have gotten bad copies of lenses, refused to admit it, and then later quietly re-done the measurements on another lens). They don't seem to favor any one brand. 

But when they take those 'measured metrics using testing in a controlled environment', put them in a bias blender and whirl them around at several thousand rpm, then take the goo that pours out and feed it to scum-digesting bacteria, then take the bacteria excrement and bake it in an oversimplifying oven at several thousand degrees, then take the steaming pile of baked crap and call it a Score...that's the problem, right there.


----------



## Sabaki (Aug 7, 2013)

dilbert said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Sabaki said:
> ...


+1


----------



## mrsfotografie (Aug 7, 2013)

Irishpanther said:


> I've got the old 100-400 and love it but my IS recently went buggy. It'd gone out in January but came back to life and then died again about a month ago.
> 
> Does anyone know about or have experience with getting a lens repaired near end of life? I'd send it in now if I had the cash available, but just finishing grad school and so it hasn't been a priority. I figure they'll have some spare parts around still once the new lens is released. But for the sake of hassle and cost, should I save up and send my copy in as soon as I can?



I would suggest you to contact your Canon service center and get a quote.


----------



## mycanonphotos (Aug 7, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > But isn't perception what everyone here argues in favour of because measured metrics using testing in a controlled environment on websites like DxO don't favour Canon?
> ...



Hey...Wait....I don't think DXO has even TESTED the 100-400... What the Heck!!?? all the other lenses, why not this one..!!


----------



## AlanF (Aug 7, 2013)

MichaelHodges said:


> Between the 300 F4 L IS, 400 5.6 L, and 100-400, I'd take the primes. Even the 300 with Canon TC is sharper than the 100-400 in my experience (as well as WCastleman and Photozone's).
> 
> The 100-400 has nice versatility, but so does a Canon S3.



I did choose a prime - the 300mm f/2.8mm II to get a huge stonking increase in performance not a tiny quantum, if any, with the antique ones. And I travel with an SX50 because it is versatile and fits in my briefcase. But, I want a really sharp 100-400 zoom with modern AF and IS to go with my Canon body for those occasions when zooming is needed and when I don't want to lug the big white primes.


----------



## lycan (Aug 7, 2013)

dslrdummy said:


> I'll wait for the 400 5.6 IS.



Now that would be something worth getting


----------



## noncho (Aug 7, 2013)

Come on Sigma, make 400/4 OS for crop cameras and kill them all 8)


----------



## Plainsman (Aug 7, 2013)

dslrdummy said:


> I'll wait for the 400 5.6 IS.



...wait till hell freezes over.

There seems to be a conspiracy between Can/Nik not to produce a simple easy to design lightweight 400/5.6 IS prime. It would such a sharp handy hand holdable long lens.

It would be best seller but won't be made by Canon because it would stop the production line of the mediocre but profitable 400/4 DO and impinge on sales of a new 100-400L whenever that one turns up.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 7, 2013)

Plainsman said:


> There seems to be a conspiracy between Can/Nik not to produce a simple easy to design lightweight 400/5.6 IS prime.



Nikon took it a step further, and didn't even make a 400/5.6 prime at all.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 7, 2013)

noncho said:


> Come on Sigma, make 400/4 OS for crop cameras and kill them all 8)



The Canon f/2.8 300mm II with a 1.4xTC III is a 420/4 IS with MTFs, AF and quality of construction that Sigma could only dream about (at a price, unfortunately).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 7, 2013)

AlanF said:


> noncho said:
> 
> 
> > Come on Sigma, make 400/4 OS for crop cameras and kill them all 8)
> ...



Sigma couldn't design a better lens than Canon? (*cough* 35/1.4 *cough*) And have you seen the new Sports-series 120-300/2.8 OS? No, it's not a 300 II - but it's a zoom, and still comes close...especially at half the price!


----------



## AlanF (Aug 7, 2013)

Plainsman said:


> dslrdummy said:
> 
> 
> > I'll wait for the 400 5.6 IS.
> ...



On my very frequent bird photo outings, I have seen several 500s and 600s, dozens and dozens of 100-400s, one or two 400 f/5.6s and 300 f/4s, and only my 300 f/2.8 and one 400/4 DO, and lots of Sigma zooms. The 100-400 is where the sales are, and a new one at a reasonable price will be a best seller.


----------



## Irishpanther (Aug 7, 2013)

mrsfotografie said:


> Irishpanther said:
> 
> 
> > I've got the old 100-400 and love it but my IS recently went buggy. It'd gone out in January but came back to life and then died again about a month ago.
> ...



Thanks. I've done that a while back and am set for that. I was more curious what's going to happen as the new lens rolls out. Was hopeful some had some experience with other lenses as they reached the end of their production sales and could comment on the effects that has on repairs.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 7, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > noncho said:
> ...



300 is too short and you need TCs. Look at the image quality of the Sigma Sports series with a 2xTC at 600/5.6 vs the Canon 300 at 600/2.6.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=844&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=2&LensComp=739&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0

The Sigma is unusable. You have to stop down to f/11 to get on a par with the Canon at f/5.6


----------



## noncho (Aug 7, 2013)

AlanF said:


> noncho said:
> 
> 
> > Come on Sigma, make 400/4 OS for crop cameras and kill them all 8)
> ...


It's for FF cameras, 400/4 for crop should be smaller, lighter, cheaper


----------



## Tiosabas (Aug 7, 2013)

AlanF said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...



Comparing a prime with a 2x to a zoom with a 2x thats costs half as much means your comparison is unusable.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 7, 2013)

AlanF said:


> 300 is too short and you need TCs.



Fair point, but then you bought a lens that's too short. I would never buy a lens with a native focal length that didn't meet my needs, planning to use it with a TC all the time (especially not a 2x TC).


----------



## AlanF (Aug 7, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > 300 is too short and you need TCs.
> ...



No, I did not buy a lens that is too short for my purposes. 300-600mm with TCs is the range I use most and my modus operandum is hand holding. Your 600mm at 8.65 lb is 3.5 lb heavier than the 300, which is too heavy by far for me (but not for you) (and the Sigma at 7.5 lb is too heavy for me, but not for some others).

The IQ of the 300x2 at f/5.6 is not far short of the 600 native.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=748&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=739&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=2


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 7, 2013)

noncho said:


> It's for FF cameras, 400/4 for crop should be smaller, lighter, cheaper



A 400/4 for crop cameras would be......wait for it......drum roll......exactly the same size, weight, and cost as a 400/4 for FF cameras. It would still need to fill a 100mm (400mm / 4) pupil, meaning it would still need a front element at least 100mm in diameter. With a telephoto lens, the image circle isn't really a limiting factor.


----------



## ewg963 (Aug 7, 2013)

mrsfotografie said:


> Interesting. I can see myself upgrading to the new model when prices level out because it's a safe bet the new 100-400 will outperform the old model, and the 200-400 is out of my reach both in budget and bulk anyway. I'm hoping for the same sort of image quality improvement of the 70-200 f/2.8 IS Mk I vs MkII.
> 
> Note: I challenge you all not to have any more discussions about push/pull vs rotary zoom!!! Let's wait and see what Canon comes up with...  ??? :


+1 on the price of the 200-400 way out my budget.


----------



## ewg963 (Aug 7, 2013)

I hope they keep the push pull method...


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Aug 7, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > noncho said:
> ...



Optically the 120-300 is very strong, but it's not in the same league as the top Canon Whites. All the other parts of the Sigma are lagging too. The IS and AF...again, the Canon Whites are in a different league. The Siggi lens is a very god lens, the Canon Whites are exceptional and state of the art...which is why they are SO expensive.


----------



## Marsu42 (Aug 7, 2013)

ewg963 said:


> I hope they keep the push pull method...



I'm pretty sure they won't, but rejoice, no one prevents you form grabbing the lens hood and just pull/push that, at least that's what I often do with my 70-300L.



Canon Rumors said:


> An announcement and release may depend on how fast Canon can sell off existing stock of the 100-400.



Canon should just leak the price of the mk2, then the existing stock of the mk1 will be gone in no time just like the 24-70 mk1 was


----------



## Plainsman (Aug 7, 2013)

Canon could loose a lot of business by "delaying" their new 100-400 for tactical reasons if that is the case. So what are the alternatives?

The latest Sony 70-400 is reputedly sharp especially at 400/5.6 and pretty good value.

More expensive is the new Nikon 80-400 - also pretty good.

(Personally I don't like the telescopic designs of either but suspect that the Canon will also drop their robust push/ pull and offer the same).

I can't see the 100-400 - if it is that - being any cheaper. With camera bodies being relatively cheap quite a few loyal Canon customers might say can't wait so lets switch brands just this once to get a decent 400 zoom now. Brand loyalty is basically stupid and only suits the manufacturer.


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 7, 2013)

It's overdue, and in high demand. I'm sure this lens will be well received if it stays under 2k.


----------



## hoodlum (Aug 7, 2013)

Plainsman said:


> Canon could loose a lot of business by "delaying" their new 100-400 for tactical reasons if that is the case. So what are the alternatives?
> 
> The latest Sony 70-400 is reputedly sharp especially at 400/5.6 and pretty good value.
> 
> ...



This is especially true of bird/wildlife shooters. Many have the lens permanently attached to their body and use it for one purpose (myself included). I would have no issues switching systems for the birding I do, as the camera/lens is just a tool and birding is our first hobby. 

But at the same time I don't like switching to a new tool until there are much better solutions available. I'll likely wait until next year for Canon's response and then choose the best system to go with. I would prefer a prime this time around but so far no one is releasing an updated light hand holdable prime with the latest IS (ie. 300mm f4+tc or 400mm f5.6).


----------



## mrsfotografie (Aug 7, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> It's overdue, and in high demand. I'm sure this lens will be well received if it stays under 2k.



This statement has been made before for new Canon products and is almost definitely untrue - I expect the new lens to easily be priced above 2k.


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 7, 2013)

mrsfotografie said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > It's overdue, and in high demand. I'm sure this lens will be well received if it stays under 2k.
> ...



So your saying it's not over due and not in demand and wouldn't be well received if it was under 2k? ???


----------



## tron (Aug 7, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...


 ;D


----------



## mrsfotografie (Aug 7, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



Corrected, see quote above. Also I'm sure this lens will be well received _even though it will be priced above_ 2k


----------



## tron (Aug 7, 2013)

mrsfotografie said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > mrsfotografie said:
> ...


Still, it would be well received under 2K too :


----------



## tron (Aug 7, 2013)

OK, seriously now, I would want it below 2K but I believe it would be slightly above that...


----------



## Etienne (Aug 7, 2013)

The photographer in me is hoping for a home run on this lens, 
and the banker in me is already crying.


----------



## GuyF (Aug 7, 2013)

mrsfotografie said:


> Note: I challenge you all not to have any more discussions about push/pull vs rotary zoom!!!



Without wanting to get all Beavis and Butthead on your ass, any lens that "trombones", sucks. The only thing suckier than a tromboner (stop sniggering at the back) is a trombonist. Fact.

Quod erat demonstrandum, as Butthead would say.


----------



## dstppy (Aug 7, 2013)

GuyF said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > Note: I challenge you all not to have any more discussions about push/pull vs rotary zoom!!!
> ...



Uhhhhh huhuhuhuh you said . . .


----------



## GuyF (Aug 7, 2013)

Dstppy - Even I refrained from saying that. You had to go and spoil it for everyone now, didn't you.

See me after class and remember to bring your pink oboe.


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 7, 2013)

tron said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



My original point exactly.


----------



## tron (Aug 7, 2013)

Hmmm, I thought that many zoom lenses , how to put it... well trombone. 100-400 is not alone.
They just trombone by ...rotation instead of push pull. (24-70 both versions, 24-105, 70-300 L and non-L, etc) 
;D ;D ;D


----------



## JonAustin (Aug 7, 2013)

I'm looking forward to seeing how the II version of this lens is designed and performs ... and I'm potentially in the market for it ... but I'd rather see a 300mm f/4 IS II with built-in 1.4x TC!


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 7, 2013)

Plainsman said:


> dslrdummy said:
> 
> 
> > I'll wait for the 400 5.6 IS.
> ...


 
Canon looks at sales and the competition (none). I've owned the 300mm f/4L, the 400mm f/5.6, and two 100-400mm L's. All were excellent lenses for which there is no real competition at the current price.

They could all benefit from a upgrade, but the new price would also mean that a lot of buyers could not afford one. Canon does consider the price into the factor of deciding if a new and better design would sell. There seems to be a self imposed limit of about $2500 or $2600 for that type of lens, so they might have to raise the bar to $3K if they produce a new one. Will it sell for 2X the price? I think its likely that they have found a formula for the new100-400 that will let them sell it for $2600 and still make their usual huge profit.


----------



## hoodlum (Aug 7, 2013)

JonAustin said:


> I'm looking forward to seeing how the II version of this lens is designed and performs ... and I'm potentially in the market for it ... but I'd rather see a 300mm f/4 IS II with built-in 1.4x TC!



Sound interesting but based on the premium Canon charged for the TC in the 200-400mm I would expect it to cost close to $5k. Just too much for the flexibility of not having to remove the TC.


----------



## schill (Aug 7, 2013)

hoodlum said:


> JonAustin said:
> 
> 
> > I'm looking forward to seeing how the II version of this lens is designed and performs ... and I'm potentially in the market for it ... but I'd rather see a 300mm f/4 IS II with built-in 1.4x TC!
> ...



I think a built-in teleconverter would also significantly affect the compactness of the 300/4.


----------



## tron (Aug 8, 2013)

schill said:


> hoodlum said:
> 
> 
> > JonAustin said:
> ...


The last thing a 300mm f/4L needs is a built-in teleconverter :-\


----------



## JonAustin (Aug 8, 2013)

hoodlum said:


> Sound interesting but based on the premium Canon charged for the TC in the 200-400mm I would expect it to cost close to $5k. Just too much for the flexibility of not having to remove the TC.



Without a doubt, the 200-400 + TC is a pricey piece of glass, but what we don't know is how much of this price is for the build of the basic lens, how much for the built-in TC and how much is new-product premium on this recently released lens that Canon reportedly still can't (hand-)build fast enough to meet current demand.

Given the current price of the latest versions of Canon's TCs ($500), it would seem generous to double that price and say a built-in TC for a _prime_ lens (as opposed to the 200-400 zoom) would add $1,000 to the price.

And let's say that a 300 f/4 IS II would be priced at twice the current model. OK, that's $2,700. So add these together, and I would speculate an announcement price around $3,700 ... let's just round that up to $4,000. That's still 20% below your $5K estimate. 

Maybe that's "too much for the flexibility of not having to remove a TC" for _you_, but maybe not for _me_!

As for Schill's post that a built-in TC would "significantly affect the compactness of the 300/4; well, sure. But it would no longer be just a 300/4 ... it would now be a "300/4 + 420/5.6"!

And as for Tron's comment that "the last thing a 300mm f/4L needs is a built-in teleconverter," well, I don't know about that either. I'd say that the LAST thing a 300 f/4L needs would be a built-in nightlight, a pink-with-purple-polka-dots paint job or integrated Bluetooth. Personally, I'd put a built-in TC much higher up the list of things this lens could benefit from. ("Needs" seems a little strong to me.)


----------



## tron (Aug 8, 2013)

JonAustin said:


> hoodlum said:
> 
> 
> > Sound interesting but based on the premium Canon charged for the TC in the 200-400mm I would expect it to cost close to $5k. Just too much for the flexibility of not having to remove the TC.
> ...


Well a 300mm f/4L IS could benefit by getting the basics: the sharpness of 300mm f/4L non-IS plus 4 stops of IS for a start...

That would put the cost at around $2K. Compare that with a $4K 300mm f/4L IS 1.4X.


----------



## dstppy (Aug 8, 2013)

GuyF said:


> Dstppy - Even I refrained from saying that. You had to go and spoil it for everyone now, didn't you.
> 
> See me after class and remember to bring your pink oboe.


Actually, thinking back 20 years, I believe I still owe detention because I left with so many days owed, so I can't stay after tonight . . .


----------



## MichaelHodges (Aug 10, 2013)

The only negative of the 300 F4 L IS, IMHO, is the weak 1st gen IS system. I know photogs who have sold their 300 2.8's for 300 F4's, insisting on a combo of 300 F4 IS and 600 F4 IS or 500 F4 IS.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Aug 10, 2013)

MichaelHodges said:


> The only negative of the 300 F4 L IS, IMHO, is the weak 1st gen IS system. I know photogs who have sold their 300 2.8's for 300 F4's, insisting on a combo of 300 F4 IS and 600 F4 IS or 500 F4 IS.



I have considered this idea before; with a DOF as thin as it is at 300 mm f/4 (and a lens that is sharp wide-open), who needs f/2.8?


----------



## AlanF (Aug 10, 2013)

mrsfotografie said:


> MichaelHodges said:
> 
> 
> > The only negative of the 300 F4 L IS, IMHO, is the weak 1st gen IS system. I know photogs who have sold their 300 2.8's for 300 F4's, insisting on a combo of 300 F4 IS and 600 F4 IS or 500 F4 IS.
> ...



I do. The 300mm f/2.8 II works brilliantly with the 2xTC III to give a 600mm at f/5.6. The 300mm f/4 with the 2xTC is poor and also is f/8. The bokeh at f/2.8 is superb, and the extra stop gives greater versatility.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Aug 10, 2013)

AlanF said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > MichaelHodges said:
> ...



Thanks, hadn't considered that. Aside from the benefits of TC versatility, and obviously the AF benefit of having f/2.8, how hit and miss is f/2.8 at this focal length?


----------



## AlanF (Aug 10, 2013)

Very, very fast and accurate. Apart from the modern feedback loop technology employed in the newest lenses, the wider the aperture the more the light that is used for processing and the greater the sensitivity. Remember, your lens focusses at its widest aperture when stopped down.


----------

