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



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 25, 2012)

```
<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=""></g:plusone></div><div id="fb_share_1" style="float: right; margin: 0 0px 0 10px;"><a name="fb_share" type="box_count" share_url="" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php">Share</a></div><div><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript"></script></div><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px; margin-bottom: 70px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href=""></a></div>
<p><strong>More information

</strong>Now that the EF 24-70 f/2.8L has been redone, the most requested lens to be replaced with a new version is the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS.  A few patents exist for a new 100-400, you can see them <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/11/another-ef-100-400-patent/" target="_blank">here</a> and <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/09/canon-ef-100-400-f4-5-6l-is-patent-pending/" target="_blank">here</a>.</p>
<p>The lens isn’t for an immediate announcement, as we’re told they may be waiting for Nikon to announce the much needed replacement to their 80-400.</p>
<p>We’re told 2 designs currently exist for the lens, and at least one of them has a zoom ring instead of the polarizing “push/pull”. The lens is also said to be weather sealed, slightly faster starting at f/4, a bit heavier than the current version and has the latest and greatest IS system.</p>
<p>This lens could also be considered the IS replacement for the EF 400 f/5.6L, especially if it’s better optically. I’m sure this point may not be what a lot of people wanted to read.</p>
<p>No mention of a timeframe for an announcement. I suspect it’ll be after the 200-400.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 25, 2012)

This is one lens I'll definitely pre-order, if it becomes a reality... I really like my current 100-400mm, the push-pull is fine (and the new lens definitely need to be an extending zoom of some sort to preserve the relatively compact size), but weather sealing, better IS, and a bit more sharpness would be very welcome!


----------



## FunPhotons (Jun 25, 2012)

To help keep my spending in check I only buy a new lens or gadget just after a new version has been released. What I've gotten so far is 580exII, 16-35II, 70-200II and 600RT's. The 100-400 II is definitely on my list.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 25, 2012)

*My future gear:*
Body: 5D III + 7D II or 70D crop
Lenses: 50L + 14-24L + 24-70L II + 70-200L 2.8 IS II + 100-400L II


----------



## Astro (Jun 25, 2012)

the current version cost around 1300 euro.. so can we expect the new one will cost 2600 euro?


----------



## vlim (Jun 25, 2012)

That would be great ! I only hope it won't cost more than 2000 € :-\

Do you think it could be the new lens that replace the 400 f/5.6 and also the 300 f/4


----------



## FunPhotons (Jun 25, 2012)

It's a popular lens, maybe lower ... $2200? They might surprise and keep the price below $2k due to the popularity, as $2k is seen as a barrier point.


----------



## bp (Jun 25, 2012)

Astro said:


> the current version cost around 1300 euro.. so can we expect the new one will cost 2600 euro?



yeah, cost is the big question for me. The last rumor here mentioned a $3k price tag (yikes). 

after just taking the plunge on a used one of the current model 2 days ago (haven't even received shipment yet), my stomach lurched a bit at seeing the title of this post... but frankly, if the new version is priced anywhere in the $3k neighborhood I doubt mk1 used prices will be affected much


----------



## Lee Jay (Jun 25, 2012)

This lens needed a replacement far worse than the 24-70 or 70-200.

I used mine on Friday and the IS system just flat stinks compared to even the old version of the 70-200. I lost about 90% of the shots I would have gotten with my 70-200 at the same focal lengths and shutter speeds.

I don't mind the push-pull, but the handling of the current 100-400 is the pits. The most comfortable place to put your hand is on the locking ring and focus ring meaning your constantly messing up focus while zooming. The focus ring should be on the very end like it is on the 70-200, and the locking ring shouldn't move the focus ring.


----------



## Etienne (Jun 25, 2012)

This could be my poor-man's nature/wildlife lens.
The 70-200 2.8 II with 2x converter is ok, but a little slow focus and soft at 5.6. Better at f8.


----------



## rpt (Jun 25, 2012)

Lee Jay said:


> This lens needed a replacement far worse than the 24-70 or 70-200.
> 
> I used mine on Friday and the IS system just flat stinks compared to even the old version of the 70-200. I lost about 90% of the shots I would have gotten with my 70-200 at the same focal lengths and shutter speeds.
> 
> I don't mind the push-pull, but the handling of the current 100-400 is the pits. The most comfortable place to put your hand is on the locking ring and focus ring meaning your constantly messing up focus while zooming. The focus ring should be on the very end like it is on the 70-200, and the locking ring shouldn't move the focus ring.


That is not my experience now. Before AFMA though, I was very unhappy with my shots using the 100-400. However, I shot 400 odd pictures on Saturday most of a hawk while doing AFMA. I shot about 200 after I was happy with the AFMA and all were hand shot with my 100-400 on the 5D3. All those came out sharp. I put up a few images yesterday that you can check. The link is http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=7576.msg138751#msg138751.

I hold the lens under the tripod mount as I feel that is the most balanced location for me.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jun 25, 2012)

rpt said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > This lens needed a replacement far worse than the 24-70 or 70-200.
> ...



This had nothing to do with AF, it had to do with IS being pretty darned worthless on this lens, at least compared to more modern lenses.


----------



## rpt (Jun 25, 2012)

Lee Jay said:


> This had nothing to do with AF, it had to do with IS being pretty darned worthless on this lens, at least compared to more modern lenses.


Hmmm... Again not my experience. My daughter who is 5'3 hand shot the moon a couple of times on my 300D at 400mm and 1/60th. And the shots were sharp. Sorry you are not happy with yours.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jun 25, 2012)

rpt said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > This had nothing to do with AF, it had to do with IS being pretty darned worthless on this lens, at least compared to more modern lenses.
> ...



I got about 50% at 1/60th and 300mm. I get 90+% at 1/30th and 300mm on my 70-200 (with TCs).


----------



## tron (Jun 25, 2012)

Astro said:


> the current version cost around 1300 euro.. so can we expect the new one will cost 2600 euro?



Or, if the algorithm is not 2X but +1000 it will be around 2300 euro which is no good either


----------



## tomscott (Jun 25, 2012)

I have had nothing but good experiences with this lens. In the day before IS people didnt complain. If you are relying on technology like IS too much you need to go back to how you shoot and improve.


----------



## Astro (Jun 25, 2012)

tron said:


> Astro said:
> 
> 
> > the current version cost around 1300 euro.. so can we expect the new one will cost 2600 euro?
> ...



yep.... i have a few hobbys but photography is the only one where the gear gets more expensive each year (beside the normal rate of price increases).

to bad the photography world does not work like the computer world.
or we would have cheap FF cameras by now. 

of course the bad thing for us photographers is that a FF sensor can not be shrinked so that more of them fit on a wafer.


----------



## lol (Jun 25, 2012)

The push-pull is probably the feature (other than focal length range) I like most about the existing version. So expect it to go to a slower less accurate modern twist design for the next version. Radical thought: is there any way they could come up with a reliable physical design that allows both twist and push-pull zoom on the same lens?

I don't have any major complaints of the existing version. About the only problem I have is water ingress and I've dried it out on more than one occasion, so better sealing on a new version would be a big plus for me. The other is that a shorter minimum focus distance would be really nice, and faster focus speed.


----------



## Astro (Jun 25, 2012)

dilbert said:


> Astro said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...



na wie gut kann der herr klugscheißer wohl deutsch?
oder wollen wir uns in schwedisch unterhalten, spanisch hatte ich auch 3 jahre lang!

mal wieder ein typischer dämlicher amerikaner, der gerade mal seine eigene landesprache beherrscht?

warum schreibt die welt englisch?
weil die amis dank ihrem schulsystem ja nichts anderes beherrschen.

LOL

http://translate.google.de/


----------



## Canon-F1 (Jun 25, 2012)

Astro said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Astro said:
> ...



Lach, ja ich würde es auch mal ganz erfrischend finden, wenn die Amis einfach mal ihre Fresse halten würden. 

+1

Würde nicht nur ihrem EX-Presidenten "Afrika ist ein Staat" G.W. Bush gut zu Gesicht stehen.

Aber viele Amerikaner merken gar nicht wie ungebildet sie eigentlich sind.
Wer nichts von der Welt kennt oder über sie lernt, kann leicht denken er wäre etwas besonderes.

Ich bin übrigens gebürtiger Franzose.. man entschuldige bitte meine Deutsche Rechtschreibung.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 25, 2012)

Ne pas juger tout le monde à cause des paroles d'un troll.

Urteilen Sie nicht alle, weil der mit den Worten eines Troll.

Not all Americans think the world revolves around us.


----------



## t.linn (Jun 25, 2012)

This probably sounds laughable to anyone used to using the super zooms but I'm disappointed that the weight is going up instead of down. _Down _has been the trend on all the newly announced lenses that come to mind. Perhaps my attitude will change once the new version has been released but right now "heavier" is a deal killer for me.


----------



## t.linn (Jun 25, 2012)

unfocused said:


> Ne pas juger tout le monde à cause des paroles d'un troll.
> 
> Urteilen Sie nicht alle, weil der mit den Worten eines Troll.



What's with the talking in code?



> Not all Americans think the world revolves around us.



The world doesn't revolve around us? Now that's just crazy talk! ;D


----------



## preppyak (Jun 25, 2012)

By the way, these are past rumors, for comparison sake



> I was told it would be in the $3000 price range, have a rotating zoom, weigh less, be slightly faster on the wide end at f/4 and carry the latest and greatest coatings and IS.





> Ring zoom (not push/pull)
> Latest IS System
> 82mm Filter Size
> Weather Sealed
> ...


So, that's 2 mentions of being heavier, 2 mentions of the price in the $3k range, all mention it at f/4, and the rotating zoom seems to also be likely. Then gain, this was rumored at CR2 in 2010 before they scrapped that lens, so, who knows

I'd say set your expectations at $2500 to be the lowest possible price point, and be surprised if its cheaper. Especially if they wasted R&D on a previous design


----------



## HarryWintergreen (Jun 25, 2012)

Provided IQ is close to excellent, for an amateur phtographer with wild-life ambitions what would be the alternative to spending more than 2k for a (highly speculative) mark II version of the Canon 100-400? Sigma 120-300 f/2,8 is too short in reach and @ f/5,6 not superior to the current Canon 100-400. The other serious alternatives are way too expensive. Unfortunately


----------



## wtlloyd (Jun 25, 2012)

Current (old) lens is f/4.5-5.6, this one will have a larger objective so bigger, heavier glass...





t.linn said:


> This probably sounds laughable to anyone used to using the super zooms but I'm disappointed that the weight is going up instead of down. _Down _has been the trend on all the newly announced lenses that come to mind. Perhaps my attitude will change once the new version has been released but right now "heavier" is a deal killer for me.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 25, 2012)

wtlloyd said:


> Current (old) lens is f/4.5-5.6, this one will have a larger objective so bigger, heavier glass...



How do you figure that? Same ratio at the long end - 400/5.6 = 71.4mm diameter element. 100/4.5 = 22.2mm, 100/4 = 25mm, both much smaller than dictated by the long end, i.e that's where the limitation is, not the wide end.


----------



## wtlloyd (Jun 25, 2012)

Clearly, I wasn't figuring, I just ass-umed 

I'd be interested in your thoughts accounting for (presumed) the weight increase..




neuroanatomist said:


> wtlloyd said:
> 
> 
> > Current (old) lens is f/4.5-5.6, this one will have a larger objective so bigger, heavier glass...
> ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 25, 2012)

wtlloyd said:


> I'd be interested in your thoughts accounting for (presumed) the weight increase..



I'm guessing additional elements for better optical correction.


----------



## preppyak (Jun 25, 2012)

HarryWintergreen said:


> The other serious alternatives are way too expensive. Unfortunately


Well, the 400mm f/5.6 is well regarded, but, obviously doesnt have IS. Maybe the 300 f/4L with a teleconverter? Or you could stick with the original 100-400. All are around the same price and have sufficed for many a wildlife shooter.



wtlloyd said:


> I'd be interested in your thoughts accounting for (presumed) the weight increase..


A couple of guesses, based on the rumors and patents. For one, it'd be 19 elements in 14 groups instead of the 17/14 of the previous lens, so extra glass means more weight. The different body style and weather sealing could add weight. And if it truly is 82mm instead of 77mm, then the glass itself is larger, which would be more weight. It doesn't say how much more weight...so, even like 3.25lbs would be considered "heavier", even if its truly not "heavy"


----------



## Daniel Flather (Jun 25, 2012)

Why not make it a 200-400 f4/5.6L? I doubt most of its users will use it below 200mm. It's seen as an alternative to the 400/5.6L as it's reportedly(1) sharper at 400mm versus the prime lens.


(1) As per many forum threads. Actual use and experience does not apply on my behalf.


----------



## lol (Jun 25, 2012)

I don't know about others, but I definitely use mine at 100mm. I wouldn't say no to even more wide angle, like the Sony 70-400mm for example. Or perhaps that belongs in a new lens above it, to go one up on Sigma's 50-500.


----------



## sovietdoc (Jun 25, 2012)

I don't get the hype about this lens. There is already a 70-300L out, which does have 100mm less, but you can get that with a 1.4x TC for cheaper than this 100-400 is supposed to be.

For every f/2.8 70-200 II owner, this 100-400 lens is just pretty useless. 

First, you're blowing away 100mm worth of f/2.8 super high IQ goodness
Then, if you need the reach, just add a TC and you got it with probably similar IQ.

What any 70-200 II owner needs is a 200-400 f/4 and not this rubbish.

If you dont have a tele lens at all, 100-400mm gets you covered nicely in once package, but if you have a 70-200, it's kinda useless.


----------



## alan_k (Jun 26, 2012)

sovietdoc said:


> I don't get the hype about this lens. There is already a 70-300L out, which does have 100mm less, but you can get that with a 1.4x TC for cheaper than this 100-400 is supposed to be.
> 
> For every f/2.8 70-200 II owner, this 100-400 lens is just pretty useless.
> 
> ...



I have the 70-300L + Kenko 1.4x TC (one of the only ones that will fit). I've done a couple of tests and didn't see much point to the TC. Slows down af, and you can crop @300mm and get something that looked as good as if it were shot with the tc. At least in my experience.

That said, not everyone wants to drag the 70-200 2.8 around due to the weight. If I were hiking around for a few hours, I'd much rather have the 70-300L or 100-400L.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 26, 2012)

sovietdoc said:


> I don't get the hype about this lens.



Wow, that's a lot of misconception there, to be charitable...or trolling, to be uncharitable. 



sovietdoc said:


> There is already a 70-300L out, which does have 100mm less, but you can get that with a 1.4x TC for cheaper than this 100-400 is supposed to be.



Do the Canon TC's work with the 70-300L? In case you didn't know, they don't. 3rd party TCs do, but the newer ones will not AF, and regardless, that option is pretty inferior, optically.

Or maybe you're suggesting no one needs that extra 100mm? If you don't fine - say so. Personally, I do...



sovietdoc said:


> For every f/2.8 70-200 II owner, this 100-400 lens is just pretty useless.



Ok, I own both, and a 2x TC. Does that make me an idiot? Do you own both? If so, maybe that makes you an idiot. If not, then how do you know the 100-400mm is useless? Maybe having both would give you the opportunity to test the 70-200mm + 2x against the 100-400mm, in which case you'd find out that the 100-400mm @ 400mm f/5.6 is optically better... 



sovietdoc said:


> First, you're blowing away 100mm worth of f/2.8 super high IQ goodness
> Then, if you need the reach, just add a TC and you got it with probably similar IQ.



This makes no sense at all. They are different lenses, and no, adding a TC doesn not give simliar IQ. Decent IQ, yes. IQ that will do if you don't have the 100-400mm with you, or if you're shooting in the rain and need a weather sealed combo. But not similar.



sovietdoc said:


> What any 70-200 II owner needs is a 200-400 f/4 and not this rubbish.



So...you're going to give everyone the $8,000 (estimated) to make up the difference in cost? Apparently, you're very generous, and you're independently wealthy, or being a doc in the former Soviet union pays a lot more than I've been led to believe.



sovietdoc said:


> If you dont have a tele lens at all, 100-400mm gets you covered nicely in once package, but if you have a 70-200, it's kinda useless.



I think you said that, already. A 200mm lens is no different than a 400mm lens? Or a TC is a magic tube that doesn't degrade the optics at all? Consider...if the current 100-400mm beats the 70-200 II + 2x TC at the long ends, how would a 100-400mm designed to the current Canon trend (24-70 II, 70-200 II), with the newest coatings, etc., compare? Answer: it would blow the 70-200 II + 2x out of the water.

But you must be right. A new 100-400mm lens is useless. Canon is stupid for spending R&D funds on one, and they'll never bring one to market because no one will ever buy one.


----------



## FunPhotons (Jun 26, 2012)

sovietdoc said:


> I don't get the hype about this lens. There is already a 70-300L out, which does have 100mm less, but you can get that with a 1.4x TC for cheaper than this 100-400 is supposed to be.
> 
> For every f/2.8 70-200 II owner, this 100-400 lens is just pretty useless.
> 
> ...



Uh, no. My 70-200 2.8 II is way too short for wildlife, and the 2.8 is unnecessary the majority of the time outside. The 1.2 TC doesn't add much, and the 2X has other issues as mentioned (there is no free lunch). I keep the 2.8 for indoor events and people photography mostly which is where it shines. 

A 100-400 would be the lens I grab as a complement to my nature hikes and photography. A 1.2 will give me 480 - almost 500 which is very usable for birds (especially on a crop body). Plus I can zoom out for some usable landscape photos. 

Each has a best application I find the 70-200 doesn't work well as a wildlife lens but a 100-400 would be a perfect complement to my 16-35.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 26, 2012)

> I don't get the hype about this lens. There is already a 70-300L out, which does have 100mm less, but you can get that with a 1.4x TC for cheaper than this 100-400 is supposed to be.



The 70-300, while a great lens, does not take Canon teleconverters.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 26, 2012)

sovietdoc said:


> I don't get the hype about this lens. There is already a 70-300L out, which does have 100mm less, but you can get that with a 1.4x TC for cheaper than this 100-400 is supposed to be.
> 
> For every f/2.8 70-200 II owner, this 100-400 lens is just pretty useless.
> 
> ...



I own both the 70-200L and the 100-400L. Of course I'm not worried what you think because I know what I'm doing and you clearly do NOT.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 26, 2012)

FunPhotons said:


> sovietdoc said:
> 
> 
> > I don't get the hype about this lens. There is already a 70-300L out, which does have 100mm less, but you can get that with a 1.4x TC for cheaper than this 100-400 is supposed to be.
> ...



I was hiking around Mohican State Park with my 100-400L lens all day, then had to swing back into Mansfield for a basketball game, where I used the 70-200L lens. So yes, I agree with your usages too, there is simultaneous value.


----------



## TeenTog (Jun 26, 2012)

still though, it would be nice to see a replacement.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 26, 2012)

TeenTog said:


> still though, it would be nice to see a replacement.



Not push/pull? I could go for that feature.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 26, 2012)

they will need to keep cost to a decent clip uner $2000 if it goes over 2k then it's going to be competing with the sigma 120-300 f2.8 OS which looks like a real winner


----------



## drjlo (Jun 26, 2012)

FunPhotons said:


> The 1.2 TC doesn't add much, and the 2X has other issues as mentioned (there is no free lunch).



I used to think Canon 2x TC III was overpriced, but I just got one, and this thing is a beauty. It's even more impressive stopped down a bit On my 70-200 f/2.8 II, at 400 mm. Looking at the recent Canon telephoto prices, the 2x TC III is looking more like a bargain..

http://www.deepgreenphotography.com/2011/01/the-new-canon-teleconverters-image-quality-comparison/


----------



## rpt (Jun 26, 2012)

Lee Jay said:


> rpt said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...


That is a great rate. I have not shot any at 1/30th. May be I should try that. I am sure the IS II is better though. When I bought it, I did not have the option to get a 70-200 + 2x TC.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 26, 2012)

I'd be very suprised and pleased if a new one was as low as $2500. A higher price would get me wondering if it was worth it, since mine is already very good.
Some of the things I like about the existing one are the length when zoomed to 100mm, and the high magnification / close focus that lets you use it for small birds and objects that are relatively close. Its heavy, but managable. More weight would not be welcome.
If we see a rear focus design as in the 70-300mm L, it would not accept a TC, and the old one does and works with my 1D MK IV, which is another plus.


----------



## candyman (Jun 26, 2012)

I might replace my 70-300 L if the 100-400 comes with the new IS, weathersealed, not push-pull, not heavier than 1,5kg, with aperture 4-5.6 and will not cost more than 1500 euro. I do like the extra reach and the flexibility of zoom. I think I can carry 1,5 kg on field trips that last a whole day. 
But I believe I will not get this lens for a maximum 1500 euro because of the previous Canon pricing of products in 2012


----------



## aldvan (Jun 26, 2012)

The 100-400 is, in a way, my standard lens, always on a 1Ds MkIII. It is something very different from what a 200-400 could be. Backed up by a 16-35 on a 5D MkII, it covers the 99% of situations, with great results in terms of IQ and image composition. I used my 24-105 may be three times in two years. Obviously is quite heavy, but going around with the above kit let me free of a backpack and I'm always ready to shoot.
Push-pull is ok for me, IS is not stellar, but good enough since 100-400 natural environment is usually well enlightened. Weather sealing should be welcome, but with very little attention you can survive without it. Last month I went for an hiking in a very rainy day. I found water right behind the 1Ds eyepiece cup, but keeping the resting lens inside my water proof jacket, was enough to protect the lens.
The only issue, for the kind of use I make of it, is weight. A 1D type body+ the present 100-400 is the maximum weight that I can afford at my neck for six-seven hours. By the way, I think that something can be done for that, also in case of improving optical quality by more glass. My 100 macro L plastic body is more solid than a metallic one and very light. I don't think that modern materials can't stand the heavier glass assembly of a tele zoom. A modern high quality plastic big white could be very fancy...


----------



## Gcon (Jun 26, 2012)

I bet most CR forum members are more used to pulling on 100mm than twisting.


----------



## drummstikk (Jun 26, 2012)

Daniel Flather said:


> Why not make it a 200-400 f4/5.6L? I doubt most of its users will use it below 200mm. It's seen as an alternative to the 400/5.6L as it's reportedly(1) sharper at 400mm versus the prime lens.



Give that man a "Hell yes!"

I once did an EXIF data analysis of my use of this lens and found that less than 10% of the images I shot with it were NOT shot between about 250 and 400mm. When you zoom this one out all the way, you have a lens that is close to 4 times the size of a 100mm 2.0, much heavier, and over two stops slower. Feels kind of dumb. Sure you have the same thing at the 70mm end of the 70-200 zoom, but that's a much more "workhorse" zoom range than 100-400. 

It's a good lens to rent when the zoom range is right for the job, but I'd never own one. Far superior optics on the 400mm 5.6 more than make up for the lack of IS, in my view.


----------



## twdi (Jun 26, 2012)

This lens comes to late for me. Next august I'll go to Britisch columbia and I need something longer then my 24-105. I think I'll go for the 300F4IS on my 5DmkII because I also have a 1.4TCii.

I don't have large hands and the push pull doesn't seems nice for me although the range is. But I expect I would use it 99% at 400 so why not the prime


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 26, 2012)

twdi said:


> But I expect I would use it 99% at 400 so why not the prime



Have you shot with one enough to know if your expectation is valid? It's likely close, at least. For me, about 15% of shos with the lens are at 150mm and shorter. So, why don't I have the prime? *IS* and *physical length*. At 400mm on APS-C (I almost always use my 100-400 with my 7D, since if you're focal length-limited, APS-C is a better choice), you need approximately 1/640 s for a decent handheld keeper rate. Over 50% of my shots with the lens are slower than 1/640 s (mostly 1/250-1/500 s), so I'm getting a lot of benefit from the IS. Also, the 100-400mm gets you to 400mm with a lens that's nearly 3" shorter (when retracted) than the 400mm f/5.6L prime - that means the zoom fits in my Lowepro Toploader 75 AW whereas the 400/5.6 prime would not, similarly for many other bags.


----------



## noncho (Jun 26, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> twdi said:
> 
> 
> > But I expect I would use it 99% at 400 so why not the prime
> ...



Right on target, same things for me here - zoom is more usable and shorter wich is important too. And 100-400L is not so expensive second hand now, I'll problably go for it for Christmas(if I have the money).


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 26, 2012)

alan_k said:


> I have the 70-300L + Kenko 1.4x TC (one of the only ones that will fit). I've done a couple of tests and didn't see much point to the TC. Slows down af, and you can crop @300mm and get something that looked as good as if it were shot with the tc. At least in my experience.



My experience is that using the tc is better than cropping, but the af is way less precise with single-point, working ok with multi-point but forget about motion tracking. 



alan_k said:


> That said, not everyone wants to drag the 70-200 2.8 around due to the weight. If I were hiking around for a few hours, I'd much rather have the 70-300L or 100-400L.



+1 ... that's why I got the 70-300L, too. But since I don't think the "walk-around" 70-300L will be discontinued, the new "real tele" 100-400L will have to have some distinctions - meaning very good iq even at 400mmm, and this is very likely to result in a lot of more weight & size plus a much higher price. It will fill the gap toward the even heavier and crazy-priced 200-400L.


----------



## FunPhotons (Jun 26, 2012)

aldvan said:


> The 100-400 is, in a way, my standard lens, always on a 1Ds MkIII. It is something very different from what a 200-400 could be. Backed up by a 16-35 on a 5D MkII, it covers the 99% of situations



Interesting, since most photogs consider 24-70 the most used range. 

Anyhow a buddy got the 70-300 and I've spent time with it. Nice lens, light and L. I haven't gotten one because it seems kind of pointless with the 70-200/2.8 in my bag. How often do you want reach beyond 200mm? Either sports or wildlife. How much does an extra 100mm give you in that case (for $$$)? Not much ...

The 100-400 will round out my collection, I'll have the 8-16 zoom fisheye, 16-35 II, 24-105, 70-200/2.8 II and 100-400 II. If the latter plays well with TCs then even better. If canon comes out with a EF mount mirror less crop then I'll really be set.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jun 26, 2012)

tomscott said:


> I have had nothing but good experiences with this lens. In the day before IS people didnt complain. If you are relying on technology like IS too much you need to go back to how you shoot and improve.



What a ridiculous thing to say.

I was shooting indoors from a long distance with an 18MP 1.6-crop camera. I could shoot at ISO 12,800 and 1/500th or I could shoot at ISO 800 1/60th. No tripods are allowed in the building. Do you think you can hand-hold a 400mm lens on an 18MP 1.6-crop camera and reliably get pixel-sharp results at 1/60th? Or do you think the IQ at ISO 12,800 is a better way to go than the IQ at ISO 800?


----------



## tron (Jun 26, 2012)

Lee Jay said:


> tomscott said:
> 
> 
> > I have had nothing but good experiences with this lens. In the day before IS people didnt complain. If you are relying on technology like IS too much you need to go back to how you shoot and improve.
> ...



You said nothing of the type of subject (static, moving).

"indoors from a long distance " You mean sports? In that case IS is not very helpful. For a static subject you could make use of existing IS. 2 stops IS not 0 stops.

If you can shoot a static object ISO 12800 1/500 , you could try ISO 3200 1/125

Granted 4 stops is even better (and mostly useful in telephotos) but the 100-400 has a 2 stops IS already!


----------



## Lee Jay (Jun 26, 2012)

tron said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > tomscott said:
> ...



Museum - static.



> "indoors from a long distance " You mean sports? In that case IS is not very helpful. For a static subject you could make use of existing IS. 2 stops IS not 0 stops.



In practice, I barely get 1 to 1.5 stops out of the 100-400L. It's better than nothing, but barely. I can easily get 3-4 stops out of my 70-200, and have managed as much as 7 stops on occasion.



> If you can shoot a static object ISO 12800 1/500 , you could try ISO 3200 1/125



I'd rather use my 70-200 and get ISO 800 and 1/30th in the same environment.


----------



## Stone (Jun 26, 2012)

While I see the usefulness of this lens and the merit in giving it an update, I doubt I'd be a potential customer. Assuming the FF 5DIII I'm about to purchase, I'd still be using my 70-200 & 1.4 TC for everything up to 280mm going between f2.8 and a still relatively large f4 aperture. I would only end up using this lens from 280-400 and I'm sure it's already at f5.6 by then, if I'm shooting birds and other wildlife, I think the cheaper 400 5.6 would be a more suitable and affordable option. This lens doesn't seem like much of a value for my needs if the price is over $2K.

On the other hand, something like a 300-500 f4-f5.6 is something I would save my pennies for. It would of course be ridiculously expensive, but I think it would be a far more useful range. Especially for birding and safari type scenarios where more reach is always better. As of right now, I'm still saving my pennies for the 400 2.8 II which was crafted by god himself. ;D


----------



## tron (Jun 26, 2012)

Lee Jay said:


> I'd rather use my 70-200 and get ISO 800 and 1/30th in the same environment.



+1 on the use of 70-200. Which one?

I have both (f/4 IS and f/2.8 IS II) but I have the feeling that the f/4 version has a SUPER IS.

The 2.8 is larger, heavier and more difficult to hold (speeking for myself, other people think it's easier to keep steady a heavy lens).


----------



## Lee Jay (Jun 26, 2012)

tron said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > I'd rather use my 70-200 and get ISO 800 and 1/30th in the same environment.
> ...



My old 70-200/2.8L IS or my new 70-200/2.8L IS II. The new one probably is a stop better in the IS department but the old one was already 2 or more stops better than the 100-400L.


----------



## bvukich (Jun 26, 2012)

FunPhotons said:


> The 100-400 will round out my collection, I'll have the 8-16 zoom fisheye, 16-35 II, 24-105, 70-200/2.8 II and 100-400 II. If the latter plays well with TCs then even better. If canon comes out with a EF mount mirror less crop then I'll really be set.



That's funny, that's the exact lens kit strategy (minus primes) I'm working towards. Heavily overlapping focal lengths, and alternate f2.8 & f4(obvious exception of the 100-400). I'm also adding a few key budget primes 28/1.8, 50/1.4, 85/1.8 & 135/2L; as well as the 100/2.8L macro.


----------



## K-amps (Jun 26, 2012)

Lee Jay said:


> rpt said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



Same boat as you. I get better keepers with 70-200mk.ii + 2x iii. The only area the 100-400 (my copy) beats the latter is contrast. I have mine AFMA'ed at +10 on the Tele and +3 on the wide end.

I got better keepers with my 70-300L, feel bad that I sold it.


----------



## Radiating (Jun 26, 2012)

Lee Jay said:


> rpt said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



That coresponds perfectly to the difference in the known abbilities of the IS system.


----------



## 4thchicken (Jun 27, 2012)

HarryWintergreen said:


> Provided IQ is close to excellent, for an amateur phtographer with wild-life ambitions what would be the alternative to spending more than 2k for a (highly speculative) mark II version of the Canon 100-400? Sigma 120-300 f/2,8 is too short in reach and @ f/5,6 not superior to the current Canon 100-400. The other serious alternatives are way too expensive. Unfortunately



As someone who has been looking to get into this area and that has been eyeing off the sigma120-300/2.8 OS vs 100-400, I'm curious as to your comparison?

Outside of weight the sigma has looked better to me given the potential extra reach (420mm with 1.4X or 600mm with 2X TC)

Are you saying that sigma @ 300mm + 1.4 TC (effective 420mm, F4) is optically worse than the 100-400 @ 400mm? Even when the sigma is stopped to F5.6 equivalent?

Or is the comparison based on the sigma with a 2X TC? In which case 600mm = substantial reach advantage over 400mm...


----------



## psolberg (Jun 27, 2012)

> The lens isn’t for an immediate announcement, as we’re told they may be waiting for Nikon to announce the much needed replacement to their 80-400



lol that is ridiculous.

1) push/pull zooms are just in much need of replacement. probably more so. so it makes no sense to "wait" as if waiting fixes anything.

2) if canon waited for nikon to do anything, they would never release half their stuff.


----------



## TeenTog (Jun 28, 2012)

Yeah, I agree. I can't stand push/pull zooms, they are fairly difficult to use. One of the reasons I haven't bought the 100-400 is because of it's push/pull. And what if it takes nikon a year to replace their 80-400?


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 28, 2012)

TeenTog said:


> Yeah, I agree. I can't stand push/pull zooms, they are fairly difficult to use.



I think it's difficult if you *have* to use it. With my 70-300L, I frequently find its easier just to grab the lens hood and pull or push, but that really depends on the situation. Of course you can only do this with extending zooms, not the 70-200's, and I'd only try do it with a quality build lens.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 28, 2012)

TeenTog said:


> Yeah, I agree. I can't stand push/pull zooms, they are fairly difficult to use. One of the reasons *I haven't bought the 100-400 is because of it's push/pull.*



So...what push/pull zoom lens have you used for a sufficient amount of time to determine that they're difficult to use?


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 28, 2012)

I actually don't mind it. I love the 100-400L zoom lens. I can keep my hand and arm in the same orientation and zoom in and out, vs. rotation of my hand and arm orientation while turning to zoom. This way I can keep a close eye on my object out at 300-400mm when I'm fine adjusting. So yeah, if you haven't used it, what's the problem?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 28, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> I actually don't mind it. I love the 100-400L zoom lens. I can keep my hand and arm in the same orientation and zoom in and out, vs. rotation of my hand and arm orientation while turning to zoom. This way I can keep a close eye on my object out at 300-400mm when I'm fine adjusting. So yeah, if you haven't used it, what's the problem?



Agreed - any 100-400 zoom is going to be a moderately heavy lens, ideally you want a hand cupped under the barrel for stability. The push/pull design on my 100-400L and 28-300L allows me to zoom while keeping my supporting hand in the optimal position the whole time. 

But people do love to read and echo complaints with no direct experience - the 1D X threads are ample evidence of that.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 28, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> TeenTog said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, I agree. I can't stand push/pull zooms, they are fairly difficult to use. One of the reasons *I haven't bought the 100-400 is because of it's push/pull.*
> ...



It doesnt take long to get used to push pulls, they are wierd at first but once you are used to them they are extremely fast for changing focal length.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 28, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> It doesnt take long to get used to push pulls, they are wierd at first but once you are used to them they are extremely fast for changing focal length.



No, no, no...they're terrible and almost impossible to use. I mean, I've never actually used one myself, but _everyone_ on the Internet says so, it *must* be true. Plus, they suck dust like a vacuum cleaner, I read that somewhere, too, so I know it's true as well (despite the fact that neither of my lenses have dust in them, and one of them is 'officially' weather sealed).


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 28, 2012)

i had used my 28-300 in dust storms with a filter of course. never had a spec of dust inside.

probably one of my major complaints with the lens was the front section was a large part of the weight so at full zoom even on a 1D body it felt very front heavy this also makes it feel heavier than it really is.

My wife hated the lens because it was simply a combination that was too heavy for her to use (shes not very big) a 70-200 on a 5D is about her absolute limit for hand holding.

I think the 100-400 is a little lighter but essentially the same size and dimensions


----------



## Bob Howland (Jun 29, 2012)

Push-pull zoom lenses were invented for manual focus systems. In that application, they made perfect sense, since they allowed the photographer to both zoom and focus without repositioning his/her hand on the lens. I owned three in Canon FD, including the Vivitar 35-85 f/2.8. I also used extensively the Canon 80-200 f/4 FD L zoom lens which, as it happens, was a 2-ring zoom.

Guess what! With AF systems, most of us let the camera do the focusing most of the time. I currently own the 100-400 and a 2-ring 70-200 Sigma EX, plus three shorter zooms, all 2-ring. The 70-200 has been a workhorse for 12 years. The 100-400 had to be sent to Canon for repair after it stiffened up and ultimately froze at 400mm. I've never had problems with dust though. Count me among the people who badly wants the next-gen 100-400 to be 2-ring, with the zoom ring behind focus ring.


----------



## Renato (Jun 30, 2012)

I own the 100-400 for two years, mostly used for bird photography with 7D. I have had both dust and moisture problems and finally died a couple of months ago. Now it is back from canon repair after some $300 refurbishing. It is a very versatile lens and you can even do some great macro shots by adding a Hoya +4 macro lens in the front. But... my prime 300mm f/4 IS L has better image quality and is sharper, so now it has become my preferred birding lens specially after adding a Keno 2X TC.

Here is a link to some tests:
http://10000birds.com/bird-photography-equipment-canon-ef-300-f4-l-is-macro.htm

I will probably not upgrade to the new 100-400. I would be more interested in an improved version of the EF 300 f/4.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 1, 2012)

Renato said:


> I own the 100-400 for two years, mostly used for bird photography with 7D. I have had both dust and moisture problems and finally died a couple of months ago. Now it is back from canon repair after some $300 refurbishing. It is a very versatile lens and you can even do some great macro shots by adding a Hoya +4 macro lens in the front. But... my prime 300mm f/4 IS L has better image quality and is sharper, so now it has become my preferred birding lens specially after adding a Keno 2X TC.
> 
> Here is a link to some tests:
> http://10000birds.com/bird-photography-equipment-canon-ef-300-f4-l-is-macro.htm
> ...



I was shooting hawks (not literally, I was photographing them) today with my 1D Mark IV and 100-400L lens. It was fantastic. What other lens would I have used? I was able to zoom from 100 to 400mm whenever I needed to and on a 1.3x factor, even more. Try zooming out on birds in the sky and as they "swoop" down, you need to bring the focal length in, which can be difficult of course, but not if you practice. Overall I think the lens is pretty good. I'm not sure if it would be easier to rotate vs. push/pull in my situation today or not. Maybe.


----------



## Renato (Jul 2, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> I'm not sure if it would be easier to rotate vs. push/pull in my situation today or not. Maybe.



I have experienced the push-pull ease of zooming in many situations where the birds are very close. I especially like the push-pull because I can assist focusing manually if needed. If the lens cannot focus accurately I prefer to do a manual assist and then let the camera AF do the rest, in this manner I avoid the focus hutting that could prevent you from taking the critical photo. A perfect use for this lens would be taking photos in a zoo; in this case the fixed 300mm lens would not have enough flexibility. The 100-400 is the clear winner when flexibility is necessary but the prime lens such as the 300 f/4 produces better image quality. 

If I need flexibility I use te 100-400, if I need extra reach and image quality I use the 300mm f/4 with a 2X Kenko teleconverter.


----------



## leecheeyee (Jul 6, 2012)

I am waiting for this new verson with my patience. 2000USD is my budget.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 6, 2012)

leecheeyee said:


> I am waiting for this new verson with my patience. 2000USD is my budget.



Fortunately, it likely won't come out soon - which may be good, in that it'll give you time to save for it, as I think it will likely be in the ~$2500 range...


----------



## bkorcel (Jul 6, 2012)

I worked with both the 100-400 as well as the 70-200 2.8L II with 1.4 and 2xIII TC. I did not have a 1D version body so found the 100-400 AF to hunt a lot due to f5.6 at 400mm and excessive coma wide open. Still, with the 70-200 and 2xIII TC, the AF hunting was less and faster likely due to the increased contrast at f2.8(5.6) having better optics and more contrast for the AF to work with. The TC does soften ever so slightly the image from the 70-200 but it's far better than the 100-400 wide open.

I returned the 100-400 and later picked up a used 300mm f2.8L prime which is my main wildlife lens right now w/1.4 and 2x III TC's. I still use the 70-200 but less so now with the TC's.

So for the money, the 100-400 is pretty good and you can sharpen it up but stopping it down a click or two but wont help the AF system as it has to work with the lens wide open. If your budget supports it trade up to a 70-200 2.8L II with the 2XIII. Your next stop is a big investment into the world of fast primes.


----------



## FarQinell (Jul 6, 2012)

bkorcel said:


> I worked with both the 100-400 as well as the 70-200 2.8L II with 1.4 and 2xIII TC. I did not have a 1D version body so found the 100-400 AF to hunt a lot due to f5.6 at 400mm and excessive coma wide open. Still, with the 70-200 and 2xIII TC, the AF hunting was less and faster likely due to the increased contrast at f2.8(5.6) having better optics and more contrast for the AF to work with. The TC does soften ever so slightly the image from the 70-200 but it's far better than the 100-400 wide open.



I've just had a look at the digital picture ISO 12233 100% crops and have to disagree with you.

On axis the 100-400L wide open @400 is sharper than the 70-200/2.8 II @200 wide open with either the 2XTC II or the III version!

Never a good idea to put a 2xTC on any zoom and expect brilliant results!

By the way an new version of the 100-400L is due sometime - should be a great lens.


----------



## bkorcel (Jul 6, 2012)

I cant speak for digital picture but I can tell you the 70-200 with the 2x was sharper than the 100-400 wide open and that was with two different copies I tried before returning it. The AF speed and ability to lock on birds in flight was not up to it as well.



FarQinell said:


> bkorcel said:
> 
> 
> > I worked with both the 100-400 as well as the 70-200 2.8L II with 1.4 and 2xIII TC. I did not have a 1D version body so found the 100-400 AF to hunt a lot due to f5.6 at 400mm and excessive coma wide open. Still, with the 70-200 and 2xIII TC, the AF hunting was less and faster likely due to the increased contrast at f2.8(5.6) having better optics and more contrast for the AF to work with. The TC does soften ever so slightly the image from the 70-200 but it's far better than the 100-400 wide open.
> ...


----------



## heptagon (Jul 6, 2012)

It seems as though there are different qualities for the 100-400, some clearly better and some clearly worse than the 70-200 L IS II + 2x extender. Haven't yet found a review that really nails it down. Speaking for myself with the 70-200 you need to stop down to at least F8 to get decent results with the 2x. That said, there should be some essential improvements coming for the new 100-400.


----------



## bkorcel (Jul 6, 2012)

Yes there are different qualities and even some bodies are affected differently. They both sharpen up good at f8. However the AF hunting was a no go for me. I had maybe 25% success rate on BIF with the 100-400 and my rate went up to about 85% with the 70-200 combo.

I've got a shot I took wide open with the 100-400. Let me see if I can find it and post it here to explain why the AF has to work so hard.



heptagon said:


> It seems as though there are different qualities for the 100-400, some clearly better and some clearly worse than the 70-200 L IS II + 2x extender. Haven't yet found a review that really nails it down. Speaking for myself with the 70-200 you need to stop down to at least F8 to get decent results with the 2x. That said, there should be some essential improvements coming for the new 100-400.


----------



## Kernuak (Jul 6, 2012)

The biggest hurdle for me with the 100-400 was the slow maximum aperture, so I ended up getting the 300 f/3.8 and I use it with the 1.4x extender, faster AF, more light and equivalent IQ. If I'm shooting at dusk, I also have the option of taking the extender off and if I need more reach, then I can use the 2x at a push. While I found the AF on the 100-400 to be quite slow, I did manage ok with birds in flight, including one of the fastest birds (and not that big either), the Eurasian hobby. Sometimes, the 300 can be a bit too fast on the 7D, as it can sometimes be a bit twitchy, depending on the background and focus mode.


----------



## bkorcel (Jul 6, 2012)

So here is an example of the coma issue I experienced on two new copies of the 100-400 before returning them. This is an osprey taken wide open. I've cropped it a little here but you can definitely see the coma on the highlights. I tried manually focusing, using live view focus and regular TTL AF and the results were all similar.

AF systems on these cameras utilize contrast to determine focus. Clear lines between light and dark allow the AF system to work more efficiently. As you can see the light and dark transition lines are soft which causes the AF to hunt for the best focus...that and that it's also F5.6. The coma clears up with a click or two down and images come out fantastic. But the AF system works with the lens wide open therefore the coma has an impact.

This issue is not apparent in my images using the 70-200 2.8L II with the 2xIII and the AF system works more efficiently acquiring BIF shots more consistently. Maybe I just got two bad copies but in comparison to what I already owned it was not worth the money for me to keep.

As always, you have to buy what you can afford and always buy from a reputable dealer with a good return policy. Most people don't understand why they have so many failures with Birds In Flight and this is why.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 7, 2012)

bkorcel said:


> I cant speak for digital picture but I can tell you the 70-200 with the 2x was sharper than the 100-400 wide open and that was with two different copies I tried before returning it. The AF speed and ability to lock on birds in flight was not up to it as well.



I can tell you from personal experience that while my 70-200 II + 2x II does quite well, my 100-400 is slightly better at 400/5.6. The AF on the 100-400 can hunt more with a complex subject (bird in a thicket), but with a simpler subject (BIF) the 100-400 focuses faster.


----------



## bkorcel (Jul 7, 2012)

As always, your results may vary so evaluate from a reputable dealer. I now use a 300 2.8L so it's all a moot point to me. Just my experience with two copies of the lens.



neuroanatomist said:


> bkorcel said:
> 
> 
> > I cant speak for digital picture but I can tell you the 70-200 with the 2x was sharper than the 100-400 wide open and that was with two different copies I tried before returning it. The AF speed and ability to lock on birds in flight was not up to it as well.
> ...


----------

