# Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 12, 2014)

```
<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/2014/07/canon-ef-100-400-f4-5-5-6l-is-ii-cr1/"></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/2014/07/canon-ef-100-400-f4-5-5-6l-is-ii-cr1/">Tweet</a></div>
<p>We’ve had more mentions of the telephoto lens to be announced with the EOS 7D Mark II on September 5, 2014. We’re told it is indeed the replacement to the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS. This is something we’ve heard a lot about over the years, but it has to come true some day, right? (memories of the 24-70 f/2.8 replacement)</p>
<p><strong>EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II Specs</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Rotating zoom ring</li>
<li>New IS system</li>
<li>Lighter weight than predecessor</li>
<li>82mm filter thread</li>
<li>New coating</li>
<li>$2399 USD</li>
</ul>
<p>This comes from what appears to be a new source, we should know more soon.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## Dylan777 (Jul 12, 2014)

Hope IQ will be super- good. 100-400 zoom range is nice to have.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 12, 2014)

Canon Rumors said:


> Rotating zoom ring



Bummer.


----------



## fragilesi (Jul 12, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > Rotating zoom ring
> ...



You'd prefer one that wouldn't rotate?


----------



## Canon1 (Jul 12, 2014)

fragilesi said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Canon Rumors said:
> ...



Despite the controversy, I rather like my push pull 100-400. Never had a dust problem... I would welcome faster AF. That's the only downside I have experienced with mine. I would be (pleasantly) surprised if the price is $2400.


----------



## Sime2414 (Jul 12, 2014)

Sounds Great! I like the rotating zoom ring! A lightweight walk around ZOO lens!


----------



## candyman (Jul 12, 2014)

A 82mm filter compared to the 70-300L 67mm filter.... ???


----------



## Northstar (Jul 12, 2014)

if AF is quick and it's reasonably sharp through the whole focal range, then i'd pay $2200 in a heartbeat...


----------



## brad-man (Jul 12, 2014)

Canon1 said:


> fragilesi said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



I'm pretty happy with the AF speed and sharpness of mine, though there's always room for improvement. As it's not a particularly fast lens, I will enjoy the updated IS. I have no problem with the push/pull design, so the jury is out on whether a rotational zoom will be better or worse.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 12, 2014)

Canon1 said:


> fragilesi said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



I agree - push pull is a very robust design and it is a retrograde step to give us a telephoto like the 70-300L although admittedly that is a good lens optically but is not as tough as the current 100-400 where the front optical assembly slides along a rigid tube.


----------



## Northstar (Jul 12, 2014)

Canon could sell a million of these if they don't hold back and just give us sports/wildlife people a great lens at a decent price.

1998 -2014, after 16 years you would think that this newer version would be much improved on what was already a decent lens.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Jul 12, 2014)

Canon Rumors said:


> <li>$2399 USD</li>



That sounds promising. I'd have expected north of $ 3K.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jul 12, 2014)

I too don't mind the push-pull, but the handling of the 100-400L is actually pretty horrible. The lock ring is right where I want to put my grip, and if you have it loose so you can zoom, it rotates the AF barrel leading to OOF shots. I really hate that. My 70-200 with 2x is way more user friendly.

If the focus ring was at the other end of the push/pull barrel so it didn't get turned accidentally, and if the IS was worth anything, it would be a far more pleasant lens to use. Well, that and an optical improvement wide open when the IS elements are shifted substantially off center.

I'm guessing the larger front element is about far superior IS causing larger angular shifts and needing a little extra wide at the wide end to accommodate that.


----------



## 9VIII (Jul 12, 2014)

Northstar said:


> Canon could sell a million of these if they don't hold back and just give us sports/wildlife people a great lens at a decent price.
> 
> 1998 -2014, after 16 years you would think that this newer version would be much improved on what was already a decent lens.



I have to wonder if they're trying to protect the Big Whites. The 400f5.6 prime has arguably superior IQ to some of the old big whites, and upgrading something like that might look a little unbalanced.
Maybe they wanted to wait until they had all the version II supertelephoto lenses out before releasing a budget option that performs on a similar level.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 12, 2014)

Plainsman said:


> Canon1 said:
> 
> 
> > fragilesi said:
> ...



I'm with you guys. The small size of a push-pull makes a great compact unit. It will have to outperform the Tamron 150-600. If it does, I'll buy.


----------



## wsmith96 (Jul 12, 2014)

I hope there is some truth to this rumor. I've had a long telezoom on my list for a while.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 12, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> If the focus ring was at the other end of the push/pull barrel so it didn't get turned accidentally, and if the IS was worth anything, it would be a far more pleasant lens to use.



Have you used the 70-300L? The design places the focus ring next to the body, the zoom ring further out. That's reversed from other L lenses, and means your hand (well, mine at any rate) reflexively grabs the focus ring when intending to zoom. A real PITA, and if the new 100-400 has a similar design, it would be unfortunate.


----------



## josephandrews222 (Jul 13, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > If the focus ring was at the other end of the push/pull barrel so it didn't get turned accidentally, and if the IS was worth anything, it would be a far more pleasant lens to use.
> ...



I own the older Tamron super zoom (200-500mm). Its focus ring is placed where it is next to the camera's body...and I kind of like it that way! When used on a monopod or tripod, it seems a lot better that way...but certainly different from my Canon lenses.


----------



## Click (Jul 13, 2014)

AlanF said:


> It will have to outperform the Tamron 150-600. If it does, I'll buy.



+1


----------



## Lee Jay (Jul 13, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > If the focus ring was at the other end of the push/pull barrel so it didn't get turned accidentally, and if the IS was worth anything, it would be a far more pleasant lens to use.
> ...



I haven't, but since that lens is very short (physically), it's probably not as bad as it would be on a longer lens. I agree that on a 100-400, such a design decision would likely be pretty nasty.


----------



## Northstar (Jul 13, 2014)

9VIII said:


> Northstar said:
> 
> 
> > Canon could sell a million of these if they don't hold back and just give us sports/wildlife people a great lens at a decent price.
> ...



i'm hoping they realize that the bottom line is that some people, whether it be pro or rich amateur, are going to go for the very best and spend their money for the "high end stuff" no matter what...even if it's only fractionally better than a new and improved 100-400. (and/or they'll pay for the f4 or 2.8) this is what I'm hoping for here....a awesome lens for a few grand, not $10,000


----------



## sagittariansrock (Jul 13, 2014)

9VIII said:


> Northstar said:
> 
> 
> > Canon could sell a million of these if they don't hold back and just give us sports/wildlife people a great lens at a decent price.
> ...



I doubt it. As far as I understand, one who buys a 400/2.8, needs it at f/2.8. Having an equally (or even better- though I strongly doubt that) performing lens at f/5.6 wouldn't work for them- or else they wouldn't shell out those $$$s.
Also, I heard that the v1 great whites are as good as the V2, except for TC usage with the Mk IIIs.


----------



## Etienne (Jul 13, 2014)

I wish it would be 200-500, and lighter


----------



## docsmith (Jul 13, 2014)

It's weird. I've wanted this lens badly for years but this, if true, is coming at a time when things have changed to the point I may not get it. The 70-200 II with 2x tc has replaced my currant 100-400L in my travel kit. That leaves local birding, and I have to wonder if the Tamron 150-600 may be better suited. To my needs plus I am saving up for a big white. We'll see. I've wanted this lens for so long I'll definitely look at it. But it is no longer a no brainer. 

Oh, and I like the push-pull.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 13, 2014)

The lens needs to have a close mfd for small birds, and be short enough to carry easily in a bag. Lighter would be fine as well.


I'd likely hold off on ordering one until the price drop though, I find mine to be a lens that does not get a huge amount of use, and its pretty good for the price.


----------



## that1guyy (Jul 13, 2014)

Interested to see how the AF and image quality stacks up against the Tamron 150-600mm.


----------



## TexPhoto (Jul 13, 2014)

Canon should make it push pull and rotate to zoom. And lighter, and cheaper, and stronger, and more macho looking, and maybe scented to smell like roses on a summer morning right after the rain.

Oh and if it takes good pictures, sure that be cool too I guess.


----------



## greger (Jul 13, 2014)

All Canon has to do is make this new 100-400 take sharper pics with improved coatings, better IS, faster focussing and zoom. They will sell a ton of these as the old 100-400 sells well as is. My 100-400 suits me just fine and is on my 7D when I leave the house and I know BIF pics are on the menu. ;D


----------



## Krob78 (Jul 13, 2014)

Additionally, I think it would be great if the new 100-400L played nice with the 2x III and the 1.4x III Teleconverters... :

I wouldn't be in a hurry to make the jump though. I'm a fan of the push pull, especially as birds come flying toward me, it works well and wasn't hard to get used too. 

Also, my copy is super sharp, I use it more than my 70-200 f2.8L II, ever since getting it back from Canon. They put a whole new IS system in it, recalibrated it and it's been amazing ever since. Now the 70-200 II spends more time in the bag! I'd be worried I wouldn't get that same result from the new one. But who knows, I'm always a sucker for new glass! :


----------



## MTCWBY (Jul 13, 2014)

I like mine but already warned my wife that I'll be replacing it with this one unless it's horribly expensive. It pretty much lives on my camera for kids sports. I don't mind the push-pull either. The only problem if it isn't will be adjusting back to shooting the rotating zoom for action.


----------



## Maximilian (Jul 13, 2014)

Canon Rumors said:


> We’ve had more mentions of the telephoto lens to be announced with the EOS 7D Mark II on September 5, 2014. We’re told it is indeed the replacement to the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS. This is something we’ve heard a lot about over the years, but it has to come true some day, right? (memories of the 24-70 f/2.8 replacement)


So finally the myth of the pink unicorn seems to come true... almost beyond belief 



> *EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II Specs*
> 
> Rotating zoom ring


Okay. I liked the compact size of the old one. If that stays similar, I have no preference between push-pull vs. rotating.


> New IS system


As expected.


> Lighter weight than predecessor
> 82mm filter thread


If this together is true, then this means less metal and more engineered plastic. 
If built quality is comparable to the 100L IS Macro or the 24-70L II this would be okay.
82 mm filter would be a little bit annoying but if it helps for better optical quality, so be it.


> New coating
> $2399 USD


This MSRP would be quite surprising... positively.

So if this one will come together with much better AF and a noticeable better optical quality in a housing that is equal to the old one, I would start saving up money and wait for some good discounts in 2015... *sigh* 
GAS is so wonderfully awful


----------



## Sabaki (Jul 13, 2014)

Non extending barrel, shorter MFD, ring focus and for the very least, as sharp as my 400 f/5.6, I'll grab a copy!


----------



## lycan (Jul 13, 2014)

Etienne said:


> I wish it would be 200-500, and lighter



x2

I wish Canon would release 500/600mm for the common mortals


----------



## pj1974 (Jul 13, 2014)

josephandrews222 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



I own a number of Canon L lenses - which started out with the Canon 28-135mm 'back in the day' which has the focus ring close to the body, and the zoom ring further away. (I've since sold the Canon 28-135mm) 

Currently the 15-85mm and 70-300mm L are among my 2 favourite lenses (mainly used on my 7D) - and I actually prefer the configuration of focus ring close to body and zoom ring further away. The Canon 70-300mm L won for me over a number of other options (a few years ago) - because of it's IQ and size/weight. I did consider the 100-400mm... but that extra 100mm of zoom wasn't 'worth it' for me (I understand it might be for others).

I have used the 100-400mm a number of times, i.e. using friend's lenses, borrowing, etc. I became more accustomed to the 'push pull' after some time than I thought I would, but still generally by 'instinct' prefer a zoom ring, and a zoom ring nearer the end of my lenses. Having said that, I know it would be a different story if I had only got used to lenses with the zoom closer to the body (eg if I had owned the Canon 24-105mm L instead of the Canon 28-135mm). But hey, the Canon 24-105mm L wasn't around at the time I got into photography!

I have owned 3 x Sigma UWA lenses (and initially found it mildly inconvenient on each that 1) the zoom rotates the other way AND 2) the focus is at the end and zoom ring is nearer the body. Thankfully I pretty much have a 'mental switch' in my mind now, so when I put my Sigma 8-16mm on my camera, I somewhat reflectively know it's on and my hand/mind know what to do (eg in the dark).

Horses for courses... but most importantly, enjoy your gear and take great photos. I trust that Canon will have done their research (& design) well; and if they *do* come out with a 100-400mm L II (or similar) that they will come out with an awesome lens. However I doubt I'll be buying one... as the 70-300mm L meets my needs very well.

Best wishes all...

Paul


----------



## Busted Knuckles (Jul 13, 2014)

I suspect the IQ would take a jump. I have the Tamron 150-600 and up to 400 it is really a vice nice image and it does get noticeably above 400 compared to under 400, but not unusably soft, just not shave your 3 day stubble sharp.

It would be tough to explain, gaining a bit of speed, losing 200mm, and spending $1,400 more. So the IQ would have to just stellar.

Compact is not a word that will ever be used for the T-150-600, packed up for travel its not bad, zoomed out to 600 and bazooka comes to mind.


----------



## mb66energy (Jul 13, 2014)

Might be a nice replacement for my 70-200 4.0 and the 5.6 400 and should make a nice walk-around lens. (100mm equiv is a standard focal length for me  Good contrast and strong flare resistance are very welcome. And add a built in lens hood (like 5.6 400 has) ... but that is just dreaming ...

Hopefully it is a 2 ring zoom which extends during zooming to keep it small for transportation at the 100mm setting. Usually I like fixed length lenses but in that focal length region it would be a 350mm thing and not fit into the bags I own.

Just dreaming about a 24-105 Mk II with great quality so you could live with
10-22 ... 24-105 ... 100-400 (+2x TC) and two 7D mk II for ultimate flexibility. Add a macro lens and everything is fine!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 13, 2014)

pj1974 said:


> I own a number of Canon L lenses - which started out with the Canon 28-135mm 'back in the day' which has the focus ring close to the body, and the zoom ring further away. (I've since sold the Canon 28-135mm)
> 
> Currently the 15-85mm and 70-300mm L are among my 2 favourite lenses (mainly used on my 7D) - and I actually prefer the configuration of focus ring close to body and zoom ring further away.



Many of the consumer lenses (the 28-135 isn't an L lens, as you know) have that configuration. In most of those cases, the focus ring is relatively small, whereas L lenses have broader focus rings. 

For me, it's not just about 'habit'. One of the best ways to support a handheld camera is with palm under the body and fingers supporting the lens. That places the fingers near the closest ring, so you can adjust it without moving your palm from supporting the cameras. In my pre-AF film days, it was great for that close ring to be focus, but with AF, I (and likely most people) zoom more frequently. 

For the 70-300L, I got the Tripod Ring C – that allows me to support the rig from underneath and places my fingers at the zoom ring.


----------



## candyman (Jul 13, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> .............For the 70-300L, I got the Tripod Ring C – that allows me to support the rig from underneath and places my fingers at the zoom ring.



+1 - got it as well.
It is just very practical


----------



## tayassu (Jul 13, 2014)

I don't understand why they don't make it a 70-400 or 80-400 to have a less big gap between this lens and their 24-70's. You see at Nikon and Sony that there is no quality loss with these extra 20/30mm, so why? To keep the original?  For me, the 70-100 range is important, on FF as well as on crop.  They make you buy an 85mm or an 70-200mm. :-X


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 13, 2014)

tayassu said:


> I don't understand why they don't make it a 70-400 or 80-400 ... They make you buy an 85mm or an 70-200mm. :-X



Sounds to me like you understand perfectly...


----------



## Etienne (Jul 13, 2014)

tayassu said:


> I don't understand why they don't make it a 70-400 or 80-400 to have a less big gap between this lens and their 24-70's. You see at Nikon and Sony that there is no quality loss with these extra 20/30mm, so why? To keep the original?  For me, the 70-100 range is important, on FF as well as on crop.  They make you buy an 85mm or an 70-200mm. :-X



Does anybody really need every mm covered without gaps? Sure it can be nice, but I find the 16-35 and 70-200 combo extremely versatile. 35-70 not covered ... So what? There is no way that you can always have the right lens on the right camera at the right time. You either have to use a superzoom, and accept lower IQ, or use two or more cameras simultaneously. If you really need instant versatility and high IQ, then use the 24-70 2.8 on one body, and one of the L tele-zooms on another. Of course cost and weight could be problematic.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Jul 13, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> For me, it's not just about 'habit'. One of the best ways to support a handheld camera is with palm under the body and fingers supporting the lens. That places the fingers near the closest ring, so you can adjust it without moving your palm from supporting the cameras. In my pre-AF film days, it was great for that close ring to be focus, but with AF, I (and likely most people) zoom more frequently.



+1. I wonder why they put the focus ring closer to the camera in the non-L lenses (not the super inexpensive ones, though). Just to make it more uncomfortable? Are people more likely to use manual focus override on a non-L lens?


----------



## Lee Jay (Jul 13, 2014)

For those that want a 200-500 or xxx-600 or whatever instead, what if the bodies have f/8 AF points and you can use a 1.4x TC with the new 100-400? The Tamron really needs to be stopped down to f/8 at the 600mm end anyway, so this lens would be about the same as that one, just in a smaller size with more flexibility.

100-400/4.5-5.6
140-560/6.3-8

That sounds like a good deal to me.


----------



## tayassu (Jul 13, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> tayassu said:
> 
> 
> > I don't understand why they don't make it a 70-400 or 80-400 ... They make you buy an 85mm or an 70-200mm. :-X
> ...



In that case, I'm an idealist believing in a world full of good and caring people... room for laughter


----------



## tayassu (Jul 13, 2014)

Etienne said:


> tayassu said:
> 
> 
> > I don't understand why they don't make it a 70-400 or 80-400 to have a less big gap between this lens and their 24-70's. You see at Nikon and Sony that there is no quality loss with these extra 20/30mm, so why? To keep the original?  For me, the 70-100 range is important, on FF as well as on crop.  They make you buy an 85mm or an 70-200mm. :-X
> ...



Of course you can live without it, but it is, as you said, nice to have.


----------



## IslanderMV (Jul 13, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> For those that want a 200-500 or xxx-600 or whatever instead, what if the bodies have f/8 AF points and you can use a 1.4x TC with the new 100-400? The Tamron really needs to be stopped down to f/8 at the 600mm end anyway, so this lens would be about the same as that one, just in a smaller size with more flexibility.
> 
> 100-400/4.5-5.6
> 140-560/6.3-8
> ...



At twice the price ?


----------



## mycanonphotos (Jul 13, 2014)

I too prefer the push/pull...If IQ and IS is THAT much better then I'll drop the coin on it


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jul 13, 2014)

Wow....the unicorn rides again....it's gotta be released at SOME point...I just worry I'll be too old by then!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 13, 2014)

mycanonphotos said:


> I too prefer the push/pull...If IQ and IS is THAT much better then I'll drop the coin on it



It'll be a tough call for me. When going birding, the 100-400 was my go-to before I got the 600 II. Now, for birding it's the supertele, and for 'opportunistic' tele shooting, the much more compact 70-300L is my lens of choice. I haven't used the 100-400 in months. If I didn't have the 600, I'd preorder this lens...but as it is, I'm not sure I'd use it enough to justify it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 13, 2014)

Also, just to point out...there are *steep* discounts on the 7D as Canon seems to be dumping inventory prior to the imminent release of the 7D II. That does not appear to be the case with the 100-400L. There are several possible reasons for that, and one is that the mystical white unicorn will elude us for longer...


----------



## Lee Jay (Jul 13, 2014)

IslanderMV said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > For those that want a 200-500 or xxx-600 or whatever instead, what if the bodies have f/8 AF points and you can use a 1.4x TC with the new 100-400? The Tamron really needs to be stopped down to f/8 at the 600mm end anyway, so this lens would be about the same as that one, just in a smaller size with more flexibility.
> ...



Yes, if it's better optically, has better IS, has better handling, has better AF, and is smaller and lighter.


----------



## lescrane (Jul 13, 2014)

As an aging, broken down baby-boomer, lol, I'm heartened that Canon is paying attention to weight and no longer operating under the premise that heavier connotes better. They made the 70D lighter than the 7D with most of the features, and the weight on this series peaked w/the 40D. Now, an "improved" and lighter 100-400 L might be worth the 2K

I have the Tammy/Tamzooka and am happy with it. Can I ever go back to a mere 400mm? Well, I'm using it for birds and if I just intend to do "big birds" as in waders, waterfowl, sure, a sharp, lighter 100-400 would be in my kit that day. But that 600 is great for the little songbirds, even the plovers and other shorebirds.

I guess my calculus for a buy decision would be a)is the new Canon much sharper than Tammy at 400?
b) is it much lighter (that should be a yes)
c) will it have a multiple mode IS..eg, Panning mode, tripod mode, which the Tamron sorely lacks

So if I get 3 yes's, there goes another 2K from my "retirement" fund


addendum: there's been a lot of speculation and surprise at price. I suspect the existence of decent cheap 3rd party competitors eg, Tamzooka might at least keep Canon from going off the rails as far as price


----------



## candyman (Jul 13, 2014)

lescrane said:


> .....
> addendum: there's been a lot of speculation and surprise at price. I suspect the existence of decent cheap 3rd party competitors eg, Tamzooka might at least keep Canon from going off the rails as far as price



You think so..would you not? I think Canon is counting on those loyal red ring fanboys/girls...


----------



## Etienne (Jul 13, 2014)

lycan said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > I wish it would be 200-500, and lighter
> ...



My bag can get pretty heavy. I think I'd even prefer a 200-400 and keep it as light as possible, 800g maybe?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 13, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Also, just to point out...there are *steep* discounts on the 7D as Canon seems to be dumping inventory prior to the imminent release of the 7D II. That does not appear to be the case with the 100-400L. There are several possible reasons for that, and one is that the mystical white unicorn will elude us for longer...



That's a very good point - rather than rumours we should be looking for stock levels indicators when older lenses are getting difficult to get hold of.

Accepting what you say then the current 100-400L rumour might be just another myth to tease the faithful - at least for the time being.


----------



## Hannes (Jul 13, 2014)

100-300 f4 1.4x would be ideal, probably more than $2.5k though but one can always dream


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jul 13, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > If the focus ring was at the other end of the push/pull barrel so it didn't get turned accidentally, and if the IS was worth anything, it would be a far more pleasant lens to use.
> ...



+1 The focus ring should be further out. This is really useful for MF (AF override) adjustments such as when shooting through foliage for instance.


----------



## JPAZ (Jul 14, 2014)

I used and liked my 100-400 but it frustrated me. Maybe I don't have one of the "good" copies but there have been many times when the image is fabulous. But, there seem to be many more times when the image is not that good. My frustration peaked during my trip to Denali last year. I just could not get the IQ I was searching for and now would like to repeat that trip someday since I got the 300ii. Here's one of the "better" images I got using the 100-400 at 400 with the 1.4x. In fairness, these critters were way far away but I think I can do better.

So, do I go for the 100-400ii or not? We will see how it fares if and when it arrives and at what price.


----------



## IslanderMV (Jul 14, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> IslanderMV said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



If I count correctly, that is six ifs.
I do hope it is released and is a big step up optically. For my uses, when my 100-400mm dies I will probably go with the big Tammy. I can use the extra reach, I often need to just identify distant birds. 

I don't make much money from avian photography. So I guess investing 2x in a lens with only a small IQ improvement would be an example of the law of diminishing returns.

One other point I would make in Canons favor is that my 100-400 has been through hell and back and yet still works great. Hopefully the same would be true for the new iteration. We will not know about the durability of the Tammy in the field for a while.


----------



## TheJock (Jul 14, 2014)

This announcement is so timley for me, as per my signature I’m looking at the 100-400L as my next purchase, I think I have a buyer for my 150-500 Sigma and I will be watching the prices over the next 2/3 months, looks like I’ll be fully kitted out by Christmas with 10-20mm & 24-105L & 100-400L of range…..now bring on that Dubai 24 Hour race in january!!!!!


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jul 14, 2014)

JPAZ said:


> I used and liked my 100-400 but it frustrated me. Maybe I don't have one of the "good" copies but there have been many times when the image is fabulous. But, there seem to be many more times when the image is not that good. My frustration peaked during my trip to Denali last year. I just could not get the IQ I was searching for and now would like to repeat that trip someday since I got the 300ii. Here's one of the "better" images I got using the 100-400 at 400 with the 1.4x. In fairness, these critters were way far away but I think I can do better.
> 
> So, do I go for the 100-400ii or not? We will see how it fares if and when it arrives and at what price.



Are you sure that the lens is to blame? Maybe the light was bleak, and contrast may have been reduced by too much humidity (or dense clouds of moquito's!  ) in the air. Shooting long range is very susceptible to atmospheric conditions.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jul 14, 2014)

We all know why the new lens will have a rotating zoom ring / extending barrel (aka 70-300L) instead of the current push pull: Video....
You can't fit a pull focus unit on a 15mm rail system where a lens can extend so much with the focus ring on the extending barrel. Where as, you can with the other design style. 
There's another advantage too, the curent design pushes the centre of balance way forwards and the tripod collar is right at the back of this lens towards the rear mount. Hopefully the newer design will address this.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jul 14, 2014)

GMCPhotographics said:


> There's another advantage too, the curent design pushes the centre of balance way forwards and the tripod collar is right at the back of this lens towards the rear mount. Hopefully the newer design will address this.



This is what makes the current design such a great motorsports lens IMHO. I agree it's not great for tripod use, but the lens is fantastic to handhold and track objects. The lengthening effect helps to stabilize.


----------



## AvTvM (Jul 14, 2014)

I do not like push-pull zooms. Just a remnant from the old analogue days. Never bought the current 100-400, but held off and will hold off, until Canon comes up with a completely new version of this lens. Newly calculated optics, current-day IS (4 stops, 3 modes) and visibly improved IQ - especially @400mm (as good as current 400/5.6) plus better bokeh (much improved background blur). 
Would not mind use of plastics instead of metal, as long as it's really hi-grade (e.g. 100 L Macro). 

But now, with the 70-300L and the Tamron 150-600 out, I would really prefer a *100-500mm* or *200-500mm*/*4.0* - 5.6. Should be quite easy to reach with a 82mm filter thread! 

So I am not sure, whether I am willing to pay USD/ € 2400 for a 100-400 II ... unless it has really ***stellar*** IQ @ 400mm.


----------



## JonAustin (Jul 14, 2014)

All the specs reported in this rumor are good news to me, and I will likely buy one within 6 months of release, presuming all the specs are accurate and the reviews are good, as well. (Think repeat of the new 16-35/4IS.)

Since I own a 70-200 II, I had thought I would prefer a 200-400/4(.5)-5.6, in order to avoid paying for unnecessary FL overlap. But lately I'm of the mindset that this plus the 24-105 would make a great two-lens hiking kit.


----------



## NancyP (Jul 14, 2014)

I am sticking with my non-stabilized 400mm f/5.6L until I can afford an f/4 supertelephoto.. I would not advise beginning birders to start with a non-stablized lens. unless they have lots of patience.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 14, 2014)

NancyP said:


> I am sticking with my non-stabilized 400mm f/5.6L until I can afford an f/4 supertelephoto.. I would not advise beginning birders to start with a non-stablized lens. unless they have lots of patience.


I keep hoping to see an updated version of that lens..


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jul 14, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> NancyP said:
> 
> 
> > I am sticking with my non-stabilized 400mm f/5.6L until I can afford an f/4 supertelephoto.. I would not advise beginning birders to start with a non-stablized lens. unless they have lots of patience.
> ...



Yes, IS would make all the difference.


----------



## noncho (Jul 14, 2014)

I have Sigma 100-300 F4 which is good with 1.4 extender, for new 100-400 it depends on:
IQ, Price, Weight.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 14, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > NancyP said:
> ...


not only that, but the improvements in IQ from the series 1 to series 2 big whites are truly astounding. As someone who has been into photography for more than 40 years, I find the quality of the recent lenses astounding. A lot of people fixate on sensors, but the glass is whats makes it all possible.....


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jul 14, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



To be honest I was checking out prices for the 400 f/5.6 yesterday because I find that now that I shoot full frame only, my 100-400 is fixed at 400mm almost all of the time - so I might as well use a prime. Still the lack of IS is THE show-stopper as war as the 400mm f/5.6 is concerned.


----------



## Omar H (Jul 15, 2014)

I'd wait until this becomes at least CR2. We've all seen this so many times...


----------



## KitsVancouver (Jul 15, 2014)

9VIII said:


> Northstar said:
> 
> 
> > Canon could sell a million of these if they don't hold back and just give us sports/wildlife people a great lens at a decent price.
> ...



Just out of curiousity, how do would you define, "on a similar level"?


----------



## wickidwombat (Jul 15, 2014)

wow that price is amazing if its true cant wait to see how it tests out and how it takes a 1.4 TC
it will have panning mode IS and be smaller than the tamron

while i do like the tamron the lack of panning mode IS is an annoyance and at $2400 if it works well with the 1.4 TC
I'd upgrade in a heartbeat


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 15, 2014)

KitsVancouver said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > Northstar said:
> ...


There is no reason why the 400F5.6, in an updated version, can't have the same IQ as the 400F2.8. It's that full stop faster that you pay so much for.

For example, the 24-70 F4 and the F2.8 are similar in IQ, but twice as much for a half stop.....
The 70-200 F4IS and F2.8IS are similar in IQ, but twice as much for a half stop....

by that logic, I would expect a 400F5.6 similar in IQ to the 2.8.... but around 1/4 the price. Realistically though, expect 1/3 the price...


----------



## JonAustin (Jul 15, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> There is no reason why the 400F5.6, in an updated version, can't have the same IQ as the 400F2.8. It's that full stop faster that you pay so much for.
> 
> For example, the 24-70 F4 and the F2.8 are similar in IQ, but twice as much for a half stop.....
> The 70-200 F4IS and F2.8IS are similar in IQ, but twice as much for a half stop....



Not to sound too pedantic, but the difference between f/5.6 and f/2.8 is two stops, not one. (Which only further reinforces your point.)


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 15, 2014)

JonAustin said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > There is no reason why the 400F5.6, in an updated version, can't have the same IQ as the 400F2.8. It's that full stop faster that you pay so much for.
> ...



There is a full stop between f4 and f2.8 too.


----------



## Etienne (Jul 15, 2014)

JonAustin said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > There is no reason why the 400F5.6, in an updated version, can't have the same IQ as the 400F2.8. It's that full stop faster that you pay so much for.
> ...



That's not pedantic. It needed to be said, or the author might have continued to make this mistake.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jul 15, 2014)

Etienne said:


> JonAustin said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



There's also a reason an f/5.6 lens can't be as sharp as a really good f/2.8 lens - diffraction.


----------



## AvTvM (Jul 15, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> There is no reason why the 400F5.6, in an updated version, can't have the same IQ as the 400F2.8. It's that full stop faster that you pay so much for.
> 
> For example, the 24-70 F4 and the F2.8 are similar in IQ, but twice as much for a half stop.....
> The 70-200 F4IS and F2.8IS are similar in IQ, but twice as much for a half stop....
> ...



F/2.8 to f/4 is a full stop. 

And yes, there is no technical reason why canon could not ewuip the 400/5.6 with IQ as is with a current day 4 stop IS with 3 modes (full, panning, tripod sensing) and sell it at USD 1999,-

Its only freaking "marketing differentiation".


----------



## sagittariansrock (Jul 15, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > There is no reason why the 400F5.6, in an updated version, can't have the same IQ as the 400F2.8. It's that full stop faster that you pay so much for.
> ...



I started thinking the same way, but then came to realize- if there was a 400/5.6 lens that was as sharp as the Great Whites, had IS, and could take a 1.4X without noticeable deterioration in IQ, there would be a pretty good market for it around $ 3-3.5K. 
Think about all the wildlife photographers, outdoor sports photographers, and birders shooting big birds, who cannot afford to go into the over-6K range. Today, these people are probably using the 300/2.8 v1 with TCs or the Sigma 120-300/2.8 with TCs. They will all love a 400/5.6 IS with superlative IQ.
The competition, of course, will be with the 100-400 v2, if it ever materializes, but I am pretty sure it would be Herculean to produce Great White-quality IQ in a $ 2.5-3K zoom, especially at the long end. 

There is no risk to the 400/2.8 IS. Those who want it and are ready to pay for it, NEED the f/2.8. Two stops slower won't cut it for them, even if the lens is given to them for free.


----------



## JonAustin (Jul 15, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> JonAustin said:
> 
> 
> > Not to sound too pedantic, but the difference between f/5.6 and f/2.8 is two stops, not one. (Which only further reinforces your point.)
> ...



I know, but I presumed that noting the two stops between f/5.6 and f/2.8 would make the one-stop difference between f/4 and f/2.8 obvious, and I didn't see any need to pile on.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 15, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> F/2.8 to f/4 is a full stop.



Obviously, I should not post when half asleep.... OOPS!!!


----------



## Etienne (Jul 15, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


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



Diffraction does not affect FF until around f/11. Diffraction doesn't even affect APS-C until f/8 . An f/5.6 lens can be every bit as sharp, or sharper than a f/2.8 lens. Large aperture does not necessarily mean sharper images, even stopped down. Just look at the Canon 50 f/1.2L, which is not as sharp as the 50 f/1.4 at comparable apertures.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jul 15, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> And yes, there is no technical reason why canon could not ewuip the 400/5.6 with IQ as is with a current day 4 stop IS with 3 modes (full, panning, tripod sensing) and sell it at USD 1999,-
> 
> Its only freaking "marketing differentiation".



I might jump at this if it's fully usable wide open. Note that it must completely blow away my 100-400 @ 400mm.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Jul 15, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > And yes, there is no technical reason why canon could not ewuip the 400/5.6 with IQ as is with a current day 4 stop IS with 3 modes (full, panning, tripod sensing) and sell it at USD 1999,-
> ...



Wow, I was a bit surprised for a minute to see that quote attributed to me.
I don't think a 400/5.6 IS will cost $ 1999, unfortunately


----------



## AvTvM (Jul 15, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > sagittariansrock said:
> ...



me neither. ii am just convinced, it woul be technically possible.


----------



## Etienne (Jul 15, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > sagittariansrock said:
> ...



It wouldn't be worth much more than $1999 ... maybe that's why Canon hasn't produced one. Even the 100-400 won't be much past $2500, and it will have to rock at 400mm to be worth it.


----------



## fish_shooter (Jul 15, 2014)

One reason for the big whites' high resolution property is that lens resolution is a function of diameter; a larger diameter lens (for a given focal length larger aperture lenses have larger diameters) will resolve more than a smaller diameter lens assuming similar correction for lens aberrations. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_resolution and scroll down to lens resolution. There are other aspects of resolution as well that are discussed in the article. Lens aperture is just one part.


----------



## AvTvM (Jul 15, 2014)

fish_shooter said:


> One reason for the big whites' high resolution property is that lens resolution is a function of diameter; a larger diameter lens (for a given focal length larger aperture lenses have larger diameters) will resolve more than a smaller diameter lens assuming similar correction for lens aberrations. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_resolution and scroll down to lens resolution. There are other aspects of resolution as well that are discussed in the article. Lens aperture is just one part.



I don't believe it and I don't care. I would definitely consider a 400mm/5.6 lens with 4-stop IS and IQ at least as good as the current 400mm/5.6 ... if price was less than USD/€ 2000 and would not waste a single thought, whether or not a 400/2.8 II IS would offer still marginally better IQ @ f/5.6 ... or not.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jul 15, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > sagittariansrock said:
> ...



Sorry that was a messy quote truncation I did there. It should have been:



AvTvM said:


> And yes, there is no technical reason why canon could not ewuip the 400/5.6 with IQ as is with a current day 4 stop IS with 3 modes (full, panning, tripod sensing) and sell it at USD 1999,-
> 
> Its only freaking "marketing differentiation".



My apologies :-[


----------



## Etienne (Jul 15, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> fish_shooter said:
> 
> 
> > One reason for the big whites' high resolution property is that lens resolution is a function of diameter; a larger diameter lens (for a given focal length larger aperture lenses have larger diameters) will resolve more than a smaller diameter lens assuming similar correction for lens aberrations. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_resolution and scroll down to lens resolution. There are other aspects of resolution as well that are discussed in the article. Lens aperture is just one part.
> ...



You are right not to believe this and not to care. The original post is a bit misleading. From the wiki page:

"The ability of a lens to resolve detail is usually determined by the quality of the lens but is *ultimately* limited by diffraction. " 

and

"Only the very highest quality lenses have diffraction limited resolution, however, and normally the quality of the lens limits its ability to resolve detail." This is the case for the lenses that mere mortals can afford. Since accurate design and production of a large aperture lens is much more difficult, the main difference you will see is light gathering ability and shallow DOF, not necessarily resolution. This reveals itself in the fact that most lenses get sharper as they are stopped down a bit : it is the aperture size used to take the image that limits the resolution that the lens can provide, not the maximum available aperture of the lens. A perfectly designed and built lens should perform worse as the aperture is reduced, but in real life, this does not happen. Reviewers of the 400 2.8L IS II say that the IQ does not improve as it is stopped down, but it doesn't get worse either. Maybe the sensor can't pick up the differences.

My bet is that Canon could design and build a 400 5.6L IS that could produce images every bit as good as the 400 2.8L IS (stopped to 5.6), of course much lighter and cheaper. Light and cheap means you're more likely to have it with you.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 15, 2014)

Etienne said:


> My bet is that Canon could design and build a 400 5.6L IS that could produce images every bit as good as the 400 2.8L IS (stopped to 5.6), of course much lighter and cheaper. Light and cheap means you're more likely to have it with you.



Easily:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=327&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3


----------



## Lee Jay (Jul 15, 2014)

Etienne said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Etienne said:
> ...



Diffraction affects everything, all the time.

A large aperture doesn't automatically give you more resolution, it gives you a higher _potential _resolution, and you can never get around that. I added emphasis to my statement above to help you find the important point you missed the first time.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 16, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > My bet is that Canon could design and build a 400 5.6L IS that could produce images every bit as good as the 400 2.8L IS (stopped to 5.6), of course much lighter and cheaper. Light and cheap means you're more likely to have it with you.
> ...


HEY!
This is an emotional argument.... common sense and logic (and particularly data) have no place


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 16, 2014)

Sorry Don, I'll slink off back to my hole


----------



## Northstar (Jul 16, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Sorry Don, I'll slink off back to my hole



lol...good post though, i didn't know they were so similar at 5.6! good to know.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Jul 16, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> My apologies :-[



Please don't! I get lost among these quotes all the time 



Etienne said:


> It wouldn't be worth much more than $1999 ... maybe that's why Canon hasn't produced one. Even the 100-400 won't be much past $2500, and it will have to rock at 400mm to be worth it.



On the contrary, I bet Canon can easily sell it for ~3k if the lens holds it own against the 400/2.8 II and can take a TC well. Whether it is technically possible to make such a lens is well beyond my level of expertise.


----------



## fish_shooter (Jul 16, 2014)

Understanding resolution is not a simple topic. The Rayleigh Criterion in the reference I gave above is the "textbook" example. I got this in a class I took in microscopy decades ago. In this next reference (link at end of this statement) the authors argue that this is not good enough for digital. It is very long but if one scrolls down and looks at the tables (the resolution numbers in the columns go up (apertures decrease in size as one goes down) in each table but the values vary according to criterion - going across in the table (for a given aperture)) it is obvious that the maximum theoretical resolution (i.e., diffraction limited) at f/2.8 is greater than f/5.6
link: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/resolution.shtml


----------



## tron (Jul 16, 2014)

Yet another 100-400 L II rumor. And it is a CR1! Quite reassuring ;D


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 16, 2014)

fish_shooter said:


> Understanding resolution is not a simple topic. The Rayleigh Criterion in the reference I gave above is the "textbook" example. I got this in a class I took in microscopy decades ago. In this next reference (link at end of this statement) the authors argue that this is not good enough for digital. It is very long but if one scrolls down and looks at the tables (the resolution numbers in the columns go up (apertures decrease in size as one goes down) in each table but the values vary according to criterion - going across in the table (for a given aperture)) it is obvious that the maximum theoretical resolution (i.e., diffraction limited) at f/2.8 is greater than f/5.6
> link: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/resolution.shtml



Theoretically that is obvious, from a practical standpoint aberrations and mp limits cut in way before that when wide open for us camera users and the lenses we actually have available. Your assumption earlier was _"assuming similar correction for lens aberrations"_, it is more than four times more difficult, many would say sixteen times, to manufacture a 400 f2.8 than a 400 f5.6 with the same optical aberrations.

Theory ends when "limited" purchasing options are all we have.


----------



## fish_shooter (Jul 16, 2014)

Theoretical is just that and some of the more expensive lenses do get close. I think that a f/5.6 lens could be made with as good an image quality that a f/2.8 lens (both 400mm) has at f/5.6 for less money (than the f/2.8 lens) because of the smaller pieces of glass used. They would have the same MTF values at f/5.6. There would, however, be more vignetting for the f/5.6 lens because of the smaller pieces of glass. 
However, to make the lens cheaper the f/5.6 lens may not be as good as f/2.8 stopped down to f/5.6. 

To improve a f/5.6 lens (to the level of the f/2.8 lens stopped down to f/5.6) could involve more expensive glass types for example. These expensive types are used in the f/2.8 lens. I suspect an improved (resolution-wise) 400/5.6 lens would involve selecting more expensive glass that would drive up the price. I think this is what we are seeing with many of Canon's lenses as they get updated. They could probably build several different 400/5.6 lenses with different price points according to the types of glass used but this is impractical. The old lens will provide a lower price point option so long as it says in production.



privatebydesign said:


> fish_shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Understanding resolution is not a simple topic. The Rayleigh Criterion in the reference I gave above is the "textbook" example. I got this in a class I took in microscopy decades ago. In this next reference (link at end of this statement) the authors argue that this is not good enough for digital. It is very long but if one scrolls down and looks at the tables (the resolution numbers in the columns go up (apertures decrease in size as one goes down) in each table but the values vary according to criterion - going across in the table (for a given aperture)) it is obvious that the maximum theoretical resolution (i.e., diffraction limited) at f/2.8 is greater than f/5.6
> ...


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 16, 2014)

fish_shooter said:


> Theoretical is just that and some of the more expensive lenses do get close. I think that a f/5.6 lens could be made with as good an image quality that a f/2.8 lens (both 400mm) has at f/5.6 for less money (than the f/2.8 lens) because of the smaller pieces of glass used. They would have the same MTF values at f/5.6. There would, however, be more vignetting for the f/5.6 lens because of the smaller pieces of glass.
> However, to make the lens cheaper the f/5.6 lens may not be as good as f/2.8 stopped down to f/5.6.
> 
> To improve a f/5.6 lens (to the level of the f/2.8 lens stopped down to f/5.6) could involve more expensive glass types for example. These expensive types are used in the f/2.8 lens. I suspect an improved (resolution-wise) 400/5.6 lens would involve selecting more expensive glass that would drive up the price. I think this is what we are seeing with many of Canon's lenses as they get updated. They could probably build several different 400/5.6 lenses with different price points according to the types of glass used but this is impractical. The old lens will provide a lower price point option so long as it says in production.
> ...



Clearly you didn't look at my earlier link.



privatebydesign said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > My bet is that Canon could design and build a 400 5.6L IS that could produce images every bit as good as the 400 2.8L IS (stopped to 5.6), of course much lighter and cheaper. Light and cheap means you're more likely to have it with you.
> ...


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 16, 2014)

fish_shooter said:


> Theoretical is just that and some of the more expensive lenses do get close. I think that a f/5.6 lens could be made with as good an image quality that a f/2.8 lens (both 400mm) has at f/5.6 for less money (than the f/2.8 lens) because of the smaller pieces of glass used. They would have the same MTF values at f/5.6. There would, however, be more vignetting for the f/5.6 lens because of the smaller pieces of glass.
> However, to make the lens cheaper the f/5.6 lens may not be as good as f/2.8 stopped down to f/5.6.
> 
> To improve a f/5.6 lens (to the level of the f/2.8 lens stopped down to f/5.6) could involve more expensive glass types for example. These expensive types are used in the f/2.8 lens. I suspect an improved (resolution-wise) 400/5.6 lens would involve selecting more expensive glass that would drive up the price. I think this is what we are seeing with many of Canon's lenses as they get updated. They could probably build several different 400/5.6 lenses with different price points according to the types of glass used but this is impractical. The old lens will provide a lower price point option so long as it says in production.
> ...


The 400F5.6 is SHARPER in the corners than the 400F2.8... 

There is theory, and then there is practice... Yes, in theory, a F2.8 lens could be made sharper than a F5.6 lens, but given the limited precision of manufacturing (it is not perfect and you can not polish off fractions of atoms) and the aberrations in glass, *in the real world the problem becomes how to make that F2.8 lens as sharp as an f5.6 lens*.

When we are comparing the two, you have to be comparing similar materials and similar designs. The 400F5.6 is a 20+ year old design and used UD elements. The 400F2.8II lens is just a few years old and uses fluorite elements... it was designed with better software and it is manufactured to higher tolerances. If you used that same level of technology/materials on a new 400F5.6 it will be noticeably sharper than the F2.8 version.

Also, with the same design, because of the larger elements, there is much more thickness of glass for the light to pass through in the F2.8 lens. This has the effect of both reducing light and increasing the odds of hitting an aberration. In theory, the glass is perfect. In the real world, it has flaws.


----------



## Etienne (Jul 16, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> fish_shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Theoretical is just that and some of the more expensive lenses do get close. I think that a f/5.6 lens could be made with as good an image quality that a f/2.8 lens (both 400mm) has at f/5.6 for less money (than the f/2.8 lens) because of the smaller pieces of glass used. They would have the same MTF values at f/5.6. There would, however, be more vignetting for the f/5.6 lens because of the smaller pieces of glass.
> ...



Very good points!

There are such a great many considerations. At the end of the day, I would love an updated, light weight 400 5.6L IS at $1999 or less! It's a lens I could afford, and carry with me.


----------



## fish_shooter (Jul 16, 2014)

Actually I did read your previous post. I am clearly not disagreeing with you.



privatebydesign said:


> fish_shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Theoretical is just that and some of the more expensive lenses do get close. I think that a f/5.6 lens could be made with as good an image quality that a f/2.8 lens (both 400mm) has at f/5.6 for less money (than the f/2.8 lens) because of the smaller pieces of glass used. They would have the same MTF values at f/5.6. There would, however, be more vignetting for the f/5.6 lens because of the smaller pieces of glass.
> ...


----------



## fish_shooter (Jul 16, 2014)

If one compared the Mark II version of the 400/2.8 IS to the 400/5.6 the corners are too close to tell apart at 5.6.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=741&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jul 16, 2014)

fish_shooter said:


> If one compared the Mark II version of the 400/2.8 IS to the 400/5.6 the corners are too close to tell apart at 5.6.
> 
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=741&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3



At the moment my thinking is that if Canon comes out with a 400mm f/5.8 IS, I would happily trade in my 100-400 for it; I use 400 mm almost exclusively for motorsports, usually at f/8 and upwards to get enough DOF. 

I need a lens which works well in back lit situations because at the track where I take my pictures, the light is often from behind and bouncing off the cars and motorcycles. My 100-400 gives a lot of glare at 400 mm in these conditions, causing the image quality to deteriorate.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 16, 2014)

To put it into perspective, there is not much difference between the 400/5.6 L at f/5.6 and the Tamron 150-600mm at 400mm f/5.6.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=929&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jul 16, 2014)

AlanF said:


> To put it into perspective, there is not much difference between the 400/5.6 L at f/5.6 and the Tamron 150-600mm at 400mm f/5.6.
> 
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=929&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0




There's a lot more more to lenses than can be expressed by MTF charts. Among optical qualities like flare resistance, contrast, color, distortion, and what have you, there's more subjective qualities like handling ergonomics, weight etc. 

So having owned the Sigma 150-500, and having sold it in favor for the 100-400 for a number of reasons (most notably ergonomics ie weight and the focus ring being near the body on this long lens), I'm reluctant to invest in another f/* to f/6.3 zoom that at least physically, reminds me so much of the Sigma 150-500.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 16, 2014)

The TDP tests above are done on full frame sensors. It is a different story on crop, which shows up the deficiencies on the less-than-tack-sharp lenses. On the 60D, for example, there is clear daylight between the 400 mm f/5.6 L at f/5.6 and the 400 mm f/2.8 L II at f/5.6.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=741&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

and also the 300 mm f/2.8 II at 420mm with a 1.4xTC at f/5.6 has similar superiority:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=739&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=3

It's not just the TDP site that shows this and it is confined to the 60D, but also DxOmark in its tests on a variety of bodies, and as found by me in my use of the 100-400, 150-600 and 300/2.8 on the 5DIII, 7D and 70D.

Whether you prefer the Tamron to the 100-400 or vice versa is your decision, but I sold my 100-400 for the 150-600mm and am very happy with it on FF. I wouldn't recommend either on a crop body for the highest quality images, but they are both more than adequate for more general use.

(The DxO tests are done on the 100-400, not the 400 prime, but they are consistent with TDP)


----------



## Lee Jay (Jul 16, 2014)

AlanF said:


> The TDP tests above are done on full frame sensors. It is a different story on crop, which shows up the deficiencies on the less-than-tack-sharp lenses. On the 60D, for example, there is clear daylight between the 400 mm f/5.6 L at f/5.6 and the 400 mm f/2.8 L II at f/5.6.
> 
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=741&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3



Especially with a 2xTC:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=2&LensComp=741&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=5


----------

