# *UPDATE* The Big White Lenses [CR2.5]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 17, 2010)

```
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">*UPDATE*</span>

<span style="font-weight: normal;">Do not 100% quote me on which of the 2 big white lenses will be announced. It could be the 300 & 400 or 500& 600. I’m still working that out. The 300 f/2.8L IS seems to be the #1 candidate.</span></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="font-weight: normal;">I’m still working on when.</span></strong></p>
<p><strong>Updated Supertelephotos

<span style="font-weight: normal;">I own a lens rental company and buy these big things. I own all the Canon supertelephotos. I was going to buy one more of 2 of the lenses and was told some things.</span></strong></p>
<p><strong>World Cup

<span style="font-weight: normal;">I reported in the past </span><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/04/odds-ends-15/" target="_self"><span style="font-weight: normal;">here</span></a><span style="font-weight: normal;"> & </span><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/03/coming-announcement-cr2/" target="_self"><span style="font-weight: normal;">here</span></a><span style="font-weight: normal;"> that new Supertelephotos were at the World Cup. We’ve also reported <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2009/12/big-white-lenses-cr1/" target="_self">lens hood design changes for the big lenses</a>.</span></strong></p>
<p><strong>Big White Lenses Being Replaced

<span style="font-weight: normal;">300 f/2.8L IS

400 f/2.8L IS

</span></strong>500 f/4L IS

600 f/4L IS</p>
<p>Now what may happen is only 2 of them being replaced at one time. The most likely candidates are the 300 f/2.8L IS & 600 f/4L IS.</p>
<p><strong>What will be upgraded?

<span style="font-weight: normal;">The obvious upgrades will be the IS systems and coatings on the elements.</span></strong></p>
<p>The BIG feature will be significant weight reduction. How much? I can’t say, but that’s what I’m told.</p>
<p><strong>How much will they be?

<span style="font-weight: normal;">If you want an ultra sharp out of this world supertelephoto from Canon, just buy any of the current ones. I own them all and they’re great. The new ones will come it AT LEAST 25% more expensive.</span></strong></p>
<p><strong>When?

<span style="font-weight: normal;">This is why it’s </span>[CR2.5]<span style="font-weight: normal;">, I don’t have aÃ‚Â definitiveÃ‚Â time-frame. I’m told “soon”.</span> </strong></p>
<p><strong>Lens Hood Design

<span style="font-weight: normal;">I for one think the current lens hood design is annoying at the best of times. The one thing I do like is that the fastening mechanism is reliable, I have yet to see one break. If they do redesign the hood locking mechanism, lets hope it holds up over time.</span></strong></p>
<p><span style="font-weight: normal;"><strong>What about the 200 f/2L IS & 800 f/5.6L IS?

<span style="font-weight: normal;">I’m not sure if either of these are included in the supertelephoto replacement. Outside of perhaps a new hood, I can’t see them included.</span> </strong></span></p>
<p><strong>400 f/4 DO IS?

<span style="font-weight: normal;">I’ve heard nothing about a replacement for this lens.</span> </strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## Canon 14-24 (Aug 17, 2010)

*Re: The Big White Lenses [CR2.5]*

What about a 300 f/4 IS II, 400 5.6 IS, or even a 500 5.6 IS?


----------



## Richard (Aug 17, 2010)

I was just looking at the 600mm f/4 and wondering when it was going to be upgraded. Not that I'm going to get it soon though. Would like to know if/when the 300 f/4 will be upgraded, as it was released 13 years ago. IIRC, its one of the oldest L series lenses that Canon makes.


----------



## CAT in HAWAII (Aug 17, 2010)

<span style=\"font-weight: normal;\">The obvious upgrades will be the IS systems and coatings on the elements.</span></strong></p>
<p>The BIG feature will be significant weight reduction. How much? I canâ€™t say, but thatâ€™s what Iâ€™m told.</p>
<p><strong>How much will they be?


<span style=\"font-weight: normal;\">If you want an ultra sharp out of this world supertelephoto from Canon, just buy any of the current ones. I own them all and theyâ€™re great. The new ones will come it AT LEAST 25% more expensive.</span></strong></p>
<p><strong>When?


<span style=\"font-weight: normal;\">This is why itâ€™s </span>[CR2.5]<span style=\"font-weight: normal;\">, I donâ€™t have aÃ‚ definitiveÃ‚ time-frame. Iâ€™m told â€œsoonâ€.</span> </strong></p>
<p><strong>Lens Hood Design


<span style=\"font-weight: normal;\">I for one think the current lens hood design is annoying at the best of times. The one thing I do like is that the fastening mechanism is reliable, I have yet to see one break. If they do redesign the hood locking mechanism, lets hope it holds up over time.</span></strong></p>
<p><span style=\"font-weight: normal;\"><strong>What about the 200 f/2L IS & 800 f/5.6L IS?


<span style=\"font-weight: normal;\">Iâ€™ve heard nothing about a replacement for this lens.</span> </strong></p>
<p><strong><span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">c</span>r</strong></p>
[/html]
[/quote]

Oh well, maybe the weight reduction will trickle down 
In a few years to something I could readily afford,,,,

Nice to dream though! :


----------



## stark-arts (Aug 17, 2010)

it would make a lot of sense to update these as Nikon has made MAJOR inroads into this once dominant Canon world in recent years. If they can really make them lighter while making them as sharp or sharper than they are now would make the 25 percent just about worth it in the crazy world of 5000 dollar and up lenses...


----------



## mbonin83 (Aug 18, 2010)

I just bought a brand new 300 f2.8 IS in May. I can't believe they are updating the damn thing already - just my luck....

they say the current one produces some of the best images of any Canon lens - how can it get any better?


----------



## Justin (Aug 18, 2010)

Oh snap!!! This gets me excited. 

Although I don't actually believe the super teles need much upgrading. A 300 that we could stick a 2x on and still maintain excellent sharpness would kill on a 7D for a portable in the field wildlife kit. 

Also, it's not the lenses that are getting Nikon more sideline action, it's the D3s. It's a shame Canon hasn't answered.


----------



## J-Man (Aug 18, 2010)

I too was wondering "no 400(500,600)/5.6IS?"
The biggest noticeable changes will be in IS(#stops) and AF speed, & weight,also weather sealing.
IQ has very little room to improve, they are some of the best performing lenses.


----------



## Justin (Aug 18, 2010)

Also, how wold these lenses be made lighter? Carbon fiber? Smaller feet? Unless they DO these lenses I don't see how they make them much lighter.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 18, 2010)

> I too was wondering "no 400(500,600)/5.6IS?"



Same here. These big white lenses are all very cool, but to be candid I'm more interested in lenses I might actually be able to afford. The 400 f5.6 is now almost old enough to vote. Adding IS seems long overdue. 

Of course, I'd also like to see Canon update the 100-400 push-pull zoom, but have pretty much reconciled myself to accepting that will never happen. Now I'm waiting for Tokina's long-delayed stabilized 80-400. If it's as well made as their 11-16 f2.8 wide angle, I'll be satisfied.


----------



## Grummbeerbauer (Aug 18, 2010)

Not that I am currently on the market for one of the big whites, but adding another 25% on the already quite confident prices of the current models seems a bit overenthusiastic on Canon's side. While price might not be too much an issue for professional sports shooters when it comes to deciding between Canon or Nikon, it could still tip the balance (even more) in Nikon's favor. 
However, given Canon's recent pricing trends, I still believe it. Question is: do they charge the extra 25% also in their home market prices in Yen and are now just using the introduction of new models to do additional long-needed currency adjustments (after all the Yen has been skyrocketing in the last two years against both $ and â‚¬). Or will Yen prices also increase by 25%?


----------



## Stuart (Aug 18, 2010)

So why would this not be another 2 DO lenses? If the existing lenses are great but expensive then a decent set of DO lenses could be ideal - the other option for lighter could be not such a wide aperture - e.g. F4 not F2.8?


----------



## Isurus (Aug 18, 2010)

*Re: The Big White Lenses [CR2.5]*

I'm hoping "reduced weight" doesn't mean they are going to continue the trend of using plastic construction for their L lenses and these in particular (I'm looking at you 100mm f/2.8 L IS Macro and 24mm f/1.4 L II). I'm really not a huge fan a plastic construction.


----------



## Bob Howland (Aug 18, 2010)

As the owner of a 300 f/2.8 and a couple TCs, the best way to "improve" that lens is to make a 200-500 f/2.8-4 zoom that is optically just as good.


----------



## SMP_Homer (Aug 18, 2010)

Does the 100-400L qualify as a big white lens that could be updated?
I wouldn't mind seeing an update to it - but I would prefer an alternative lens, like a 200-400 f4 or 120-300 2.8 to run alongside it instead of replacing it.... replace it, I'm not upgrading (mine is just fine for what I do) but release something faster, and I'm all ears...


----------



## stark-arts (Aug 18, 2010)

This is one that canon is missing the ball on - a 200 - 400 f4 or 200-500 4/5.6 (with 400 @f4 at least) would sell big with the sports crowd. It's one of the 2 lenses that Nikon has that really canon has no counter for....


----------



## muteteh (Aug 19, 2010)

stark-arts said:


> This is one that canon is missing the ball on - a 200 - 400 f4 or 200-500 4/5.6 (with 400 @f4 at least) would sell big with the sports crowd. It's one of the 2 lenses that Nikon has that really canon has no counter for....



Two points regarding the long end & max f stop on those combinations:

A. Only 400mm f/5.6 would allow using front side 77mm filters, the others would require read end or gelatin filters. Some people might care, e.g. I have only the front mounted filters.

B. At those focal lengths, the extra stop or extra 100mm in focal length would probably make a big difference in price. If the price of a new EF 100-x00mm IS USM is ~25% over the price of the existing EF 100-400mm, I would probably buy it. More than that, and I just might have to give it up.


[If it ends with 500mm f/5.6 and costs like I can afford it, you bet your pants I'll buy it.]


----------



## kubelik (Aug 19, 2010)

muteteh, what about a 200-400 f/4-5.6? would that push it past the 77mm thread size?

I guess a 100-300 f/4 with a 1.4x converter could serve as well on the long end, but the loss in AF speed would be a shame


----------



## muteteh (Aug 20, 2010)

kubelik said:


> muteteh, what about a 200-400 f/4-5.6? would that push it past the 77mm thread size?
> 
> I guess a 100-300 f/4 with a 1.4x converter could serve as well on the long end, but the loss in AF speed would be a shame



As far as my limited knowledge in lens optics goes, 400mm / 5.6 = 71.4mm, so it should be possible to make this lens with 77mm thread size. If I should guess, such a lens would be too expensive for me to buy.

As for an EF 100-300mm f/4, my point is it would directly compete with other Canon lenses. If price was not an issue, why would one prefer an EF 70-200mm f/4 over the EF 100-300mm f/4 ? Same on the longer side - why prefer an EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6, if you can buy an EF 100-300mm f/4 + EF II 1.4x ?


----------



## ronderick (Aug 23, 2010)

muteteh said:


> As for an EF 100-300mm f/4, my point is it would directly compete with other Canon lenses. If price was not an issue, why would one prefer an EF 70-200mm f/4 over the EF 100-300mm f/4 ? Same on the longer side - why prefer an EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6, if you can buy an EF 100-300mm f/4 + EF II 1.4x ?


My 2 cents:

If the 100-300mm f/4 ends up with the size similar to the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS, I would probably still go with the smaller one for the sake of my aching back - especially for those torturing hikes. 8)

Likewise, the 100-400 + 1.4x converter would be my pick if I know AF speed is not an issue and I would need the extra 100mm distance. Of course, if the 100-300 f4 comes weather-sealed, that will definitely affect my decision lol. 

I think the bottom line on this would be the photographer's priority. 

For those traveling with a backpack in the wilds, the 70-200 f/4 is probably the best size-weight combo within the L rank. Next would probably be the 70-200 f/2.8, 100-400 f/4.5-5.6. or 400 f/5.6 (but these are all getting a bid heavy and take up too much room for comfort). 

Now, if you're shooting birds (where AF speed will be an issue), 400 f/5.6 would be a better option than the 100-400 zoom, w/o getting into the realm of big white lenses.

Of course, for those people that already have the 100-400 or 70-200 f/4, there's less motivation for switching to the new 100-300; after all, the old ones work fine.

I don't think consumers need to worry about Canon releasing lenses competing with each other. The more lenses they release, the more choices we can choose from - a set of glasses that meet our budget and shooting needs. ;D


----------



## /dev/null (Aug 23, 2010)

muteteh said:


> As far as my limited knowledge in lens optics goes, 400mm / 5.6 = 71.4mm, so it should be possible to make this lens with 77mm thread size. If I should guess, such a lens would be too expensive for me to buy.
> 
> As for an EF 100-300mm f/4, my point is it would directly compete with other Canon lenses. If price was not an issue, why would one prefer an EF 70-200mm f/4 over the EF 100-300mm f/4 ? Same on the longer side - why prefer an EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6, if you can buy an EF 100-300mm f/4 + EF II 1.4x ?



The size, weight and price should be similar to the 70-200 f/2.8 IS. The same goes for the filter size. By adding a 2x TC, you already get this range of focal lengths and apertures, so an optimized design should be more compact and lighter and, hopefully with better IQ that the 2x TC combination.

The only lens in direct competition is the old 100-400 f/5.6. A 200-400 f/5.6 would be a replacement for that lens. The price would be much higher than the 70-200 f/4, so no direct competition there.

Why buy a 100-300 f/4 plus 1.4x TC instead of a 200-400 f/5.6: Hopefully better IQ. Following that argument: Why would anybody buy a 100-300 f/4 instead of a 70-200 f/2.8? Why would anybody buy a 600 f/4 prime instead of a 400 f/2.8 plus 1.4x TC?...


----------



## Freeze_XJ (Aug 23, 2010)

Well, unless it easily beats the old 70-200 f/4, on price as well as quality, i don't think it'll be a big seller. There's the 55-250 from below, and the 70-200 bunch from above making this a highly unlikely lens. Especially because people tend to pay for that red ring. 
Besides, i do think the medium zoom part is covered well by now. 55-250, 70-200, 70-300, what more can you want? Ofcourse, a long telezoom  The 100-400 is waiting to be replaced (or not), and the other consumer-end teles aren't the newest either. The problem is probably Nikon not having anything in response either. Their 300 f/4 is as old as Canons (and performs quite similar), their 80-400 is getting more than enough flak, and only Sigma is saving their *ss with some of their telezooms. Nevermind the fresh 300 f/2.8, 200-400 f/4 or other things priced well beyond mere mortals, John Sixpack who wants to shoot his safari proper, and amateur bird photogs determine this segment. And they're left in the cold, now  

@dev/null : why use a 600f/4 over a TC-ed 400 f/2.8? Image quality. Teleconverters reduce quality, and yes it still matters... It will matter even more a few years from now.


----------



## /dev/null (Aug 23, 2010)

Freeze_XJ said:


> @dev/null : why use a 600f/4 over a TC-ed 400 f/2.8? Image quality. Teleconverters reduce quality, and yes it still matters... It will matter even more a few years from now.



Thanks for making my point.


----------



## muteteh (Aug 24, 2010)

The new 100-300 f/4 could replace the 70-300 f/4-5.6, which IIRC some people on this site said wanted upgraded. That way, APS-C bodies would have the EF-S 55-250mm added the kit, and FF bodies (such as 5DmkII with the 24-105mm f/4 kit) have the new 100-300 f/4 added.

I think this would still make the lens compete with the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6, unless a - IMHO likely - upgrade makes it competitive. Say Canon could release a replacement which would compete with Sigma's 150-500mm F/5-6.3 APO DG OS HSM, say EF ?-500mm f/4-5.6L IS USM.

[Well, it's pure speculation, but I would buy that EF ?-500mm f/4-5.6L IS USM, if it's priced under U.S.$2,500 where I live, but I still prefer that EF 7.5m circular fisheye, whether it's f/0.7 H-IS USM with 8 rounded blades aperture diaphragm, or just f/4 micro-USM with 6 straight blades aperture diaphragm.]


----------

