# 100-400 Replacement



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 20, 2010)

```
<strong>Whatâ€™s going to replace it?</strong>

This is rumor and opinion in regards to the 100-400 replacement.Ã‚ I had a chat with a friend today and he gave his 2 cents about the new 70-300 and the 100-400.</p>
<p>What if the new EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS is in fact the new 100-400? Since weâ€™re dealing with crop factors now. The new lens costs $100 more than the 100-400 does at B&H.</p>
<p>Weâ€™ve heard about a replacement of the 100-400, but what if it isnâ€™t a direct focal length/f-stop replacement?</p>
<p>The first thing that comes to peoples minds is a 200-400 f/4L IS. While a fabulous lens from Nikon, itâ€™s expensive. How many $6000 lenses are they going to sell?</p>
<p>I can see a 100-500 of some aperture in the $3000-$3500 range. It would require a focal length longer than 400mm to make it a worthwhile â€œupgradeâ€ over the new 70-300.</p>
<p>It was an interesting conversation and I think there could be something to the concept.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong>
```


----------



## mrnwp (Nov 20, 2010)

Canon better do something fast. The release dates of prime or zoom lens in the 300 to 400mm are getting pretty old. I know of the new 300/400 2.8's but I don't feel like putting 11k for just one lens. I could buy a d3s and the 200-400m for the same price. 

Matthew R.


----------



## Johan L (Nov 20, 2010)

This all sounds quite interesting but let's hope it is not a fact. To me the 100-400 is a very handy lens in the African bush and I have the privilege to use it there quite often. For animals it copes very well and there are occasions where a bit more reach up to 500 would be excellent, my wish is that the actual replacement would be a 200-500 with internal zoom that does not extend while zooming, similar to the 70-200, and better weather sealing, dust remains a risk and requires great care when using the present 100-400. At 400 the lens is actually not long enough for birds in most cases, even with a high density sensor and some cropping.

Natulally I expect a lens as described to be more expensive and heavier, but I would gladly upgrade to it.

One of our family members has a non Canon zoom going up to 500 and it just makes the difference. Though the IQ of the 100-400 for the same focal length is noticably better.


----------



## Sean Nel (Nov 20, 2010)

Canon Rumors said:


> <strong>Whatâ€™s going to replace it?</strong>
> 
> ...The first thing that comes to peoples minds is a 200-400 f/4L IS. While a fabulous lens from Nikon, itâ€™s expensive. How many $6000 lenses are they going to sell?...



I think tons! 

Obviously, different markets (countries and regions) will respond differently to this lens segment, but in the advanced amateur, and pro range, this is the lens that is costing Canon major market share.

We are currently on backorder for the Nikon 200-400, we can't stock enough of them, and Nikon can't supply enough of them to us. We see about two clients a week switching to Nikon from Canon because one of two factors: 200-400mm and the D3s (best lowlight in class)

The lens is perfect for wildlife because of the zoom range and weight, also perfect for distance moving sports (Rugby/Football/Soccer) and more adventurous sports like rally's and MTB racing. Still giving very good results with the 1.4x converter. Canon has nothing in this range... the old 100-400 just doesn't cut it for image quality or AF speed or Stabilisation. Best you can do is to slap on a 300mm f/2.8L and hope you get the average distance right.


----------



## spam (Nov 20, 2010)

Canon Rumors said:


> What if the new EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS is in fact the new 100-400?



What a stupid thing to say. A 70-300 can't replace a 100-400, the difference between 300 and 400 is pretty significant regardless if it's a crop or full frame camera. Canon can of course discontinue the 100-400 without replacing it, but that wont make the 70-300 a 100-400 replacement, just that Canon leaves a hole in the lineup which Sigma can exploit.

A 200-400 F4.0 wouldn't be a repalcement either, it's half the zoom range, double to triple the weight and at least three times as expensive, nmaybe as much as four to five.

Extending the zoomrange somewhat could make sense though, at least form Canon's point of view. Stretching it to 450 or even more would make it more competitive with Sigma's xx(x)-500mm zooms without increasing size and weight too much.

Extending the zoom range somewhat


----------



## tzalmagor (Nov 20, 2010)

Canon Rumors said:


> <strong>Whatâ€™s going to replace it?</strong>
> What if the new EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS is in fact the new 100-400? *Since weâ€™re dealing with crop factors now*.



So your friend thinks that Canon's implicitly tells it's FF customers to not waste money on the 100-400/f4-5.6, but rather buy a 7D with a 55-250/f4-5.6 (the later two actually cheaper than the first lens) ? I would think that's not the way to keep FF camera owners happy.

Also, note that Digital Camera magazine has reviewed several tele lenses, and the Nikon 70-300mm f/4-5.6G AF-S VR II IF-ED got better scores than the Canon EF-S 55-250 & Canon EF 70-300 none-L, so if people are to buy an APS-C body for zoom purposes, they might buy a Nikon body.



spam said:


> Extending the zoomrange somewhat could make sense though, at least form Canon's point of view. Stretching it to 450 or even more would make it more competitive with Sigma's xx(x)-500mm zooms without increasing size and weight too much.



As 5.6 * 77 = ~430mm, stretching the focal length means replacing the 77mm front thread filters with those inserted at the back of the lens, which means extra money and extra items to carry.


----------



## Catastrophile (Nov 20, 2010)

You ought to stop this kind of conversations about downgraded specs & products with your friends! One time you say there will not be a 1DsIV, another time there won't be a 100-400 II, the 24-70 won't get IS ...etc. Next time you'll tell us no 5DIII. You are giving the crippling division at the Canon marketing department ideas that they might have not thought of on their own.


----------



## lol (Nov 20, 2010)

I can quickly think of one example where Canon have replaced a lens with "shorter" specs: The 35-350L was replaced with the 28-300L. Ok, the latter has more zoom ratio, but shorter is still shorter.

Having said that, I don't think it makes sense to kill the 400 zoom. It doesn't matter if you're crop or FF, 400 is still more than 300! Sony has a nice 70-400, and Nikon... well, they still have a 80-400. So I think it possible Canon might extend the range on the wide end keeping the long end at 400. My guess is we'll sadly lose push-pull zoom too but that is the trend.

Personally I wouldn't mind if they did a longer end zoom, say 1xx-500mm f/x.x-5.6 even if it means bigger front filter. I wouldn't count the Sigma -500 zooms in the same class as they have a rather sad f/6.3 at that point.


----------



## IllegalFun (Nov 20, 2010)

I can't believe that the 70-300 would be the replacement.
like a few others have said... a 100-400 IS Mk2 or a 200-500 IS would be more likely, and useful

Canon have obviously put a lot of effort into the 70-200 series, so something to 'tag' on at the long end is most sensible. the 70-200 F/2.8 Mk2 is a great lens (I am saving the pennies!) but after that it is really just primes, which makes no sense!

I hope they just update the 100-400 or make something similar
either that or make a 400 5.6 L IS mk2


----------



## max (Nov 20, 2010)

I would have liked a 100-300 f/4 IS... seemed like the way to go, it still takes teleconverters... I had a Sigma version and liked it a lot, lacked IS, if not I would have kept it.

The 70-300 just seems pointless in the lineup, i think it needed to go to the 400mm range or have wider aperture... but most people will just buy a 70-200 2.8 for less money or a 70-300 of the IS USM ones non L.


----------



## Stone (Nov 20, 2010)

max said:


> I would have liked a 100-300 f/4 IS... seemed like the way to go, it still takes teleconverters... I had a Sigma version and liked it a lot, lacked IS, if not I would have kept it.
> 
> The 70-300 just seems pointless in the lineup, i think it needed to go to the 400mm range or have wider aperture... but most people will just buy a 70-200 2.8 for less money or a 70-300 of the IS USM ones non L.



I agree that a 100-300 f2.8 or f4 would have been much better, I'm now waiting to look at the new Sigma 120-300 2.8 IS for my long range fix. 

I don't think anyone was asking for the new 70-300L, especially one this slow, it can't take a TC so I really don't see the point. A 100-400 or 100-500 f4 would be interesting, but I doubt Canon would build it.....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 20, 2010)

IllegalFun said:


> I can't believe that the 70-300 would be the replacement.



I can. No, technically it's not a 'replacement' but it very well might be one from a marketing standpoint. I've proposed this idea before, in the thread on the new 70-300 L.

We all know that 300mm is not 400mm, and if you need 400mm, you need it. But for me, a new 400mm f/5.6L IS would be just the ticket. I could see replacing my current 100-400mm with a 70-300mm L for portability and a 400/5.6 prime for when I need the extra reach.


----------



## unfocused (Nov 20, 2010)

Of course everyone is entitled to their own opinion and, as CR Guy admitted, this post was based on a speculative conversation, not on any rumor, CR1 or otherwise, but, I just don't see Canon abandoning the 100-400 f4.5-5.6 zoom.

I agree with those who don't see the 70-300mm as a replacement for the 100-400mm. The extra 100mm is just too important for wildlife and other uses. (Especially since, on a 7D it's an effective 160mm difference, not 100mm).

These are two very different lenses and are not mutually exclusive. While an updated 400mm f5.6 prime could possibly substitute, it would be a poor substitute. The ability to zoom is just too important for wildlife and other uses. In addition, the combined cost of the two lenses would approach or exceed $3,000. Personally, I see the 100-400 zoom and the 300 f4 as a better combination for the money â€“ gaining speed and sharpness in exchange for a shorter focal length when needed, and then having the extra reach in the zoom when conditions permit. 

The 100-400 mm fills a different niche than a 300mm zoom, because of its weight and size. Right now, the third-party lens makers aren't really competing in terms of quality, but if Canon leaves this niche unfilled, they will step up.

I've certainly questioned the whole strategy behind the 70-300mm. I now think Canon produced the lens planning for a very long life cycle, not expecting to recover their investment for several years, but feeling the need to have a high end, super sharp, heavy-duty, but relatively compact zoom in their lineup over the next decade that can handle new improvements in sensors. If you read their announcement you'll see Canon made much of the ability to use the lens in the midst of rain forest. Nobody is going to want to lug a 100-400 through a rain forest.


----------



## scalesusa (Nov 20, 2010)

I would not have a problum lugging my 100-400mm L thru a rain forest, when telescoped to 100mm, its pretty short and easy to carry, however, I don't think there is enough light to use it. I'd be wondering the same about the 70-300 L, just not fast enough in a dark area if you have a quickly moving subject and need shutter speed.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Nov 21, 2010)

The new 70-300mm remains an attractive option, but not only do you (with a two-lens option) lose any focal length between 300mm and 400mm, and add to your carrying load (if you bring along even the lightest 400mm lens), but I think most significantly the performance (just judging from how fast the MTF curve falls off in the corners) doesn't look optimal for full-frame cameras. Of course, Canon doesn't have a full-frame camera for sports or birds in flight, so maybe it's meant to be good enough on a 1.3x crop body. Or perhaps the eventual replacement for the 5D will be announced along with a new lens (assuming the autofocus performance is as good as would warrant a new sports / birding lens, though I wonder if they won't keep the 1.3x factor alive for that segment).

And I imagine some people on crop bodies are enjoying the extra reach of the 100-400 - it's nice that the new 70-300mm is light and compact, but I don't see it replacing that option, at least not yet.


----------



## Sean Nel (Nov 21, 2010)

according to our local Canon reps (South Africa) the 100-400 is a consistently good seller, but doesn't make much sense in Europe, which is a much bigger market. The 70-200 is king there, but the old 70-300 was just not good enough for anything much. the 100-400 was a very heavy "travel" lens. you save 300g on the 70-300L and another 100g or so on a 60D vs 7D.


half a kilo is pretty decent saving on weight if you are traveling


----------



## Bob Howland (Nov 21, 2010)

Canon Rumors said:


> <p>The first thing that comes to peoples minds is a 200-400 f/4L IS. While a fabulous lens from Nikon, itâ€™s expensive. How many $6000 lenses are they going to sell?</p>



I can't speak for the rest of the world, but I would spend $10,000 for a 200-500 f/2.8-4 with optical quality close to my current 300 f/2.8 L IS. Why?? Because I often use the 300 with its TCs, effectively giving me a 300 f/2.8, 420 f/4 and 600 f/5.6. However, it's a pain to keep adding and removing the TCs, plus being dangerous in a dusty environment like a motocross track. Judging from the pro photographers at Watkins Glen, the preferred effective focal length is about 650mm (crop factor plus lens focal length) but they all have a 70-200 with a 1.4x TC as well. Why not one lens to cover most of the same range?


----------



## kubelik (Nov 21, 2010)

I don't know much about lens design, but going from intuition and looking at existing lenses, a 200-500 f/2.8-4 would be absolutely massive. I'm not sure the extra weight and difficulty maneuvering it would actually make it more convenient in real usage than a 400 f/2.8 with TCs


----------



## spam (Nov 21, 2010)

Bob Howland said:


> I can't speak for the rest of the world, but I would spend $10,000 for a 200-500 f/2.8-4 with optical quality close to my current 300 f/2.8 L IS.



You can already get a 200-500 F2.8 from Sigma, it's more than 15 kg/ 34 lbs and cost $30,000 at B&H, but that includes carrying case and a dedicated TC. They could of course cut the weight and size by making it only F4.0 at 500mm, but coming from Canon in stead of Sigma it wouldn't get much cheaper.


----------



## Bob Howland (Nov 21, 2010)

kubelik said:


> I don't know much about lens design, but going from intuition and looking at existing lenses, a 200-500 f/2.8-4 would be absolutely massive. I'm not sure the extra weight and difficulty maneuvering it would actually make it more convenient in real usage than a 400 f/2.8 with TCs



One of the pro's at Watkins Glen uses a 400 f/2.8 and has used a 40D, 50D and 7D. However, he uses only the center focusing spot. The problem with TCs is that it is impossible to change focal lengths rapidly, for example, if you are tracking a relatively close race car at 200mm and there is a collision between two other cars, 300 yards further away, that is best captured at 500mm.

And what happens when you're shooting from the end zone at a (American) football game and a running back breaks loose for a long gainer. At the start of the run, 500mm might be appropriate while at the its end, you might need to be at 200mm? Sports Illustrated photographers typically solve this problem by using a 400 f/2.8 with a TC on one body and having their assistant either holding or shooting with a 300 f/2.8 on another body.



spam said:


> Bob Howland said:
> 
> 
> > I can't speak for the rest of the world, but I would spend $10,000 for a 200-500 f/2.8-4 with optical quality close to my current 300 f/2.8 L IS.
> ...



The front element of the 200-500 f/2.8 Sigma has to be at least 178mm in diameter. A 200-500 f/2.8-4 could have a front element as small as 125mm, the same as the 500 f/4 and at least 17mm smaller than both the 400 f/2.8 and 600 f/4. I would expect a 200-500 f/2.8-4 to be perhaps 2 pounds heavier than the 500 f/4, less than 1/3 the weight of the Sigma.


----------



## yoderrm (Nov 21, 2010)

unfocused said:


> If you read their announcement you'll see Canon made much of the ability to use the (70-300 L) lens in the midst of rain forest.



This just proves that Canon is completely out of touch. They make great quality equipment, but have no concept of what photographers need. Unless you plan on taking pictures of tree bark, no one in their right mind would use an f/5.6 lens in a rain forest. You would need ISO 6400 to even approach shutter speeds that would stop action.

Don't get me wrong, 70-300 is a very useful focal range for a lot of people. But people that want small, light lenses, normally don't need L build quality and weather sealing, and certainly aren't in the market for a $1500 lens. 

When you put this lens between the original 70-300IS and the 100-400L, I really don't understand why anyone would want it. The 70-300IS is 420g lighter, a half inch smaller in diameter, and 1/3 of the price. The 100-400L gives you the L quality, plus an extra 100mm on the long end, for almost the same price. 

If the 70-300L really "replaces" the 100-400L, then I sincerely hope they add a longer zoom to their lineup, like a 200-500 F5.6 (even if it means drop in filters). 

I also think they desperately need an answer to the 200-400 f4, but I consider that a completely different market, and it would not be any kind of "replacement" for the 100-400. If they came out with something as good as the Nikon, I would pay $6K for it in a heartbeat.


----------



## scalesusa (Nov 22, 2010)

> The front element of the 200-500 f/2.8 Sigma has to be at least 178mm in diameter. A 200-500 f/2.8-4 could have a front element as small as 125mm, the same as the 500 f/4 and at least 17mm smaller than both the 400 f/2.8 and 600 f/4. I would expect a 200-500 f/2.8-4 to be perhaps 2 pounds heavier than the 500 f/4, less than 1/3 the weight of the Sigma.



Look at the positive side, those monster lenses might create jobs for young people, just like the 1800's. Photographers hired local boys to carry those 12 X 14 view cameras, tripods, and heavy glass plates up a mountain side to photograph the panoramic view. They often camped out for 2 or three days, which required even more help hauling up the camping gear. Often well over 150 lbs of photography equipment, plus camping gear, food, and bedding. A real expedition. Funny thing, many of the boys declined to offer of a permanent job packing well over 100 pounds of gear around, and word spread fast.


----------



## kubelik (Nov 22, 2010)

dilbert said:


> Sean Nel said:
> 
> 
> > according to our local Canon reps (South Africa) the 100-400 is a consistently good seller, but doesn't make much sense in Europe, which is a much bigger market. The 70-200 is king there, but the old 70-300 was just not good enough for anything much. the 100-400 was a very heavy "travel" lens. you save 300g on the 70-300L and another 100g or so on a 60D vs 7D.
> ...



this just goes to show how subjective these things are and why canon is putting such a diverse array of lenses out on the market.

100-400 only a traveling lens if traveling by car? from the specs I've seen, it's only 1380g. I carry my sigma 100-300 at 1480g around for all-day hikes with no problem; it's downright feathery compared to the 150-500 I previously hauled.

people need to understand that everyone's personal comfort zone varies by a huuuge amount when judging whether a product is proper for the market.


----------



## epsiloneri (Nov 22, 2010)

dilbert said:


> The only time that I've been in a rain forest, I can't recall having had need of a lens faster than 5.6.



Rain forests are often surprisingly dark, even at noon. Light conditions can also be difficult due to tree crown openings that let through spots of harsh sunlight, resulting in very contrasty conditions. Flash can actually be a good option, unless you're hunting easily disturbed animals.


----------



## yoderrm (Nov 22, 2010)

dilbert said:


> The only time that I've been in a rain forest, I can't recall having had need of a lens faster than 5.6. What are your experiences in rain forests like?



I must admit, I've never been in an actual rain forest. But I photograph a lot in a regular hardwoods forest, and the light is very dim if the leaves are still on. I would imagine that it is even darker under a rain forest canopy, but I could be wrong. 

I'm sure there are many photographic subjects in a rain forest, but the first thing that comes to my mind (for someone using a telephoto zoom) is wildlife. When I photograph wildlife in a hardwoods forest, I am usually at ISO1600 and f/2.8, and that usually gets me shutter speeds of around 1/80 to 1/125. An f/5.6 lens would either mean you need to crank the ISO to 6400 to get the same shutter speeds, or reduce the shutter speed to 1/20 or 1/30. Although possible, it is very difficult to photograph most wildlife at those shutter speeds.


----------



## willhl (Nov 23, 2010)

One big issue I see is that canon needs a 'affordable' 400mm lens its lineup *with IS*. There are two primes, one without and one that most people can't afford. I've been considering purchasing a 400mm lens and would be happy with a prime rather than a zoom (could fill the range with something else) but it would need to be stablised.

That said I really hope they do replace this lens, I got to try it out recently and loved having he 400 length and the IS (my first time using either) but didn't like the zoom mechanism. I found I couldn't hold the camera/lens properly if I wanted to be able to control the zoom, it was too unstable to have my hand on the zoom 'ring' when zoomed in. I know they say practice helps, and I agree, but it's also a fundamental design problem.

So I'm looking forward to a replacement of some kind.


----------



## scalesusa (Nov 23, 2010)

Count on any new prime or updated 100-400mm L to cost a lot more. If you think $1500 is not affordable, hang on to your wallet when you see a new one come out. If a 70-300mm L goes for $1500, plan on $2500 for a new 100-400mm L 

A 400mm f/5.6 prime with IS will only be a very few hundreds less. The existing 400mm f/5.6 L lens is a very simple optical formula and fairly inexpensive to make. Add IS, and a whole bunch of additional elements will be needed. This is likely why we don't see a new one, the price might be higher than I could imagine.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Nov 26, 2010)

Bob Howland said:


> And what happens when you're shooting from the end zone at a (American) football game and a running back breaks loose for a long gainer. At the start of the run, 500mm might be appropriate while at the its end, you might need to be at 200mm? Sports Illustrated photographers typically solve this problem by using a 400 f/2.8 with a TC on one body and having their assistant either holding or shooting with a 300 f/2.8 on another body.


And sometimes you need to switch all the way back to 50mm, as a famous Walter Iooss photo proved. At least at one time (back in the 1960s) he often had a few SLRs hung around his neck. That'd kill me, personally...


----------



## willhl (Nov 29, 2010)

scalesusa said:


> Count on any new prime or updated 100-400mm L to cost a lot more. If you think $1500 is not affordable, hang on to your wallet when you see a new one come out. If a 70-300mm L goes for $1500, plan on $2500 for a new 100-400mm L



No no, was more saying that the 100-400 is affordable (painful but affordable), however if they remove it from the line-up then the only 400mm with IS would be the F2.8 which is not (affordable most people that is).


----------



## scalesusa (Nov 29, 2010)

willhl said:


> scalesusa said:
> 
> 
> > Count on any new prime or updated 100-400mm L to cost a lot more. If you think $1500 is not affordable, hang on to your wallet when you see a new one come out. If a 70-300mm L goes for $1500, plan on $2500 for a new 100-400mm L
> ...



It is extremely unlikely that a popular and fast selling lens like the 100-400mm L would be removed from the lineup, however, a upgrade is possible but probably not soon.


----------



## IllegalFun (Dec 1, 2010)

I think the way canon is going, I may switch to landscapes only, and ignore anything over 200mm!

the only decent lenses for wildlife that canon make for enthusiasts with very good IQ are the 300 f4 and 400 f5.6
The 100-400 has IQ problems at 400mm (not surprising considering it is a zoom from pre 2000)

I really hope they update the lens, keeping it 400mm or longer, and improve IQ and quality control, as there are so few DSLR's with Micro-Focus Adjustment...
for me I would rather buy a 400 5.6L and wait to buy a 70-200 2.8L IS Mk2 for the zoom. there are some reports of the 70-200 Mk2 + 2x extender working better than the 100-400L


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 1, 2010)

IllegalFun said:


> there are some reports of the 70-200 Mk2 + 2x extender working better than the 100-400L



"Some reports?" Personally, I don't believe it. I have to say, I don't have any problems with my 100-400mm at 400mm (sure, it's a zoom and it's not going to be as sharp as a prime). But my 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II with a 1.4x II extender isn't as sharp as my 100-400mm at matched focal lengths, and I can't see the situation being better with a 2x extender, even the MkIII version.


----------



## KyleSTL (Dec 1, 2010)

To add to the rainforest discussion:

My experience was very humid (probably around 80-90%) and everyday it rained briefly. Weather sealing is definitely important. And the shutter speeds were hardly hand-holdable with my XT and 18-55mm non-IS at 800 and 1600 ISO. Most of the time I stayed in the wide range of the lens an aperture of 3.5 or 4. In a rainforest only about 2-5% of the available sunlight reaches the floor.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Dec 14, 2010)

For what it's worth, I jumped for the 120-400mm Sigma. I hope to pass along some impressions when I get it.

The thinking was like this: It doesn't lose any light over the Canon offerings, and while the 400mm setting is considered less sharp than the Canon 100-400, it seems to be just as sharp at settings from 100-300mm. No push-pull mechanism, and a more up-to-date IS than Canon's 100-400 round it out.

Other serious considerations were the Sigma 150-500 OS - seems to be good functionally but doesn't sound sharp enough for my liking. The extra 100mm (or extra 200mm, by my way of thinking) would have been good, however.

Sigma also makes an incredible-sounding 100-300mm f/4 that only lacks IS, and obviously some focal length as well. I would have loved to get a 100-400mm version, but at that range you're talking about the front light-gathering element being 100mm instead of 75mm so it obviously gets even heavier. An IS version would have been pretty tempting, especially if it came in under the price of the 70-300mm.


----------



## illuminator5555 (Dec 14, 2010)

Ah...really?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 14, 2010)

Edwin Herdman said:


> The thinking was like this: It doesn't lose any light over the Canon offerings, and while the 400mm setting is considered less sharp than the Canon 100-400, it seems to be just as sharp at settings from 100-300mm. No push-pull mechanism, and a more up-to-date IS than Canon's 100-400 round it out.



Interesting choice. The only issue I'd have (other than the reported Sigma AF issues that occur on some lenses) is that I tend to use my 100-400mm most frequently at 400mm, so sacrificing sharpness at that end would not work for me. But, an updated IS would be nice...


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Dec 15, 2010)

I'm not intending to try to do any rigorous study (ha, with what equipment) of the lens but I will at least try to offer up my opinions about it (which, owing to my having to order this stuff long-distance, will be with the caveat that it's just me comparing what I see to random other peoples' samples on the Internet of this and other lenses).

I'll first have to get a handle on framing with the lens - if it turns out I'm not using the IS, or the 400mm setting (which I doubt), I have the option of going to the 100-300mm. All other things being equal, which they aren't, longer is always better, so I won't trade any lenses before I get an idea how well I can shoot wildlife in the middle of the year or at least get some experience with longer range subjects. If I find that I'm exclusively shooting 400mm or longer I can just about trade this lens for the (aging but still sharper) Canon OEM option, the 400mm f/5.6L IS, and not lose any speed.

I could even more readily trade for the Sigma 150-500mm but I'm a bit skeptical of that one - it's $100 more (than the 120-400), instead of somewhere around $300 more for the Canon 400mm prime, but this guy opines that it's not as sharp at 400mm - close, but the Sigma is also at f/6.3 instead of f/5.6, so stopping down isn't really an option anymore. f/5.6 already feels like a compromise, and f/6-ish is where I'd rather not have to stop down to for sharpness but probably will.

I were selling pictures (maybe one of these days) I'd opt for primes and maybe one 100-300mm zoom like the Sigma f/4. Or maybe pack a Nikon body for the 200-400mm...


----------



## kubelik (Dec 15, 2010)

edwin, I'm a big fan of sigma lenses, having owned and shot over half a dozen of them, but I have to say that the 150-500's are my least favorite out of all of them. by a lot. the quality of the bokeh, the image quality in general, and the time it takes for the IS to kick in are all sub-par. I wish they'd put IS into the 100-300 f/4 and fix the lens hood on it because that would be a great performer. haven't used the 120-400.

personally, I'm saving up for Canon's telephoto primes at this point, unless Canon drops a new 100-400 in the meantime.


----------

