# Image of the New 100-400?



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 24, 2013)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/10/image-of-the-new-100-400/"></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/2013/10/image-of-the-new-100-400/">Tweet</a></div>
<p><strong>*UPDATE 2*

</strong>Another suggestion from a man who <a href="http://www.lensrentals.com" target="_blank">knows everything about lenses</a>.  He thinks it’s a “28-300 with filter barrel removed”.</p>
<p><strong>*UPDATE*

</strong>It seems most people think it’s the Sony 70-200, though the body does look like a Canon.</p>
<p><strong>I’m not sure

</strong>Below is an image posted on the Google Plus account of Peter Norvig. In the low resolution image, a lens that I don’t recognize is being used. I have compared it to the 28-300L, 100-400L and 70-200L and it doesn’t match up with any of them.</p>
<p><strong>Says Peter

</strong><em>“For Canon fans, you might find this exciting. A photographer was using this lens. I assert that the black stripes of the focus and zoom rings are the wrong width and placement to be either the 70-200 or the 100-400; therefore I speculate this is a prototype of the long-rumored 100-400 II.”</em><strong>

</strong></p>
<p>What do you guys and gals think?</p>
<div id="attachment_14573" class="wp-caption alignnone" style="width: 585px"><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/canon-002.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-14573" alt="Click for Larger" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/canon-002-575x431.jpg" width="575" height="431" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Click for Larger</p></div>
<p>Source: <a href="https://plus.google.com/108640673873589796416/posts/fK7VDM6yxKM">Peter Norvig G+</a> thanks to John</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff00ff;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## polarhannes (Oct 24, 2013)

I'm excited!
Is it just me or is it looking like a push-pull design?


----------



## Irishpanther (Oct 24, 2013)

Saw that as I was checking the big white to that guy's left. Couldn't ID it either, but I haven't handled the 70-200s as much so thought maybe it was one of those.

Should be possible to get some better captures once the video from the game is posted online.


----------



## neyoliv (Oct 24, 2013)

It looks like the Sony 70-200mm: http://www.juzaphoto.com/recensione.php?l=it&t=sony_70-200_f2-8


----------



## amoore00357 (Oct 24, 2013)

I was really excited when I saw that on TV last night. But with that picture of the Sony the lens looks very close but I think that's a canon body though.


----------



## Viggo (Oct 24, 2013)

It's very hard to tell, the white logo on the cam seems to be too big for a canon body, but it looks like the Sony logo to me.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 24, 2013)

If it is a Canon lens, the only white zooms with the "window" between the zoom and focus rings are the 70-200's... so if it is a prototype it makes the 70-200F2.8IS the most likely candidate... unless the 100-400 replacement is a modified version of the 70-200 layout.

I hope so, as the 70-200's have to be about the best longer zoom lens design out there, and a copy of that design could mean a significant jump in IQ... perhaps it's a 150-400????

However, as much as I would like it to be otherwise, I think it's a Sony


----------



## fussy III (Oct 24, 2013)

Looks like the Alpha 99 to me. Have been working with it. Excellent camera. Would find it difficult to do sports photography with peaking though  

Cheers


----------



## vlim (Oct 24, 2013)

Inner zoom on this lens, don't you think ?


----------



## rs (Oct 24, 2013)

neyoliv said:


> It looks like the Sony 70-200mm: http://www.juzaphoto.com/recensione.php?l=it&t=sony_70-200_f2-8


+1


----------



## infared (Oct 24, 2013)

Well..it definitely does not look like the Sony lens posted above...other than it is black and white...but it could be a lens that Sony is testing?
Really can't tag the camera body at all...so it is very hard to guess. Interesting how the black band (zoom ring?), in the middle is so tight and indented from the white lens barrel. It is, to say the least, unusual looking???!!!!!
Is this a clip from a bad, old 70's movie and perhaps we should be looking backwards ...no forward for a rumor....LOL..just kidding.


----------



## Janbo Makimbo (Oct 24, 2013)

Perhaps its a coffee mug!!


----------



## KyleSTL (Oct 24, 2013)

This may help:

http://www.mlb.com/photos/gigapan/?gpId=6db032d85980b65987c98e4820c12e1c&c_id=bos&year=2013&year=2013

On the first base line, just above the middle sign that says "WelcomeBackVeterns.org" in a red jacket.


----------



## dryanparker (Oct 24, 2013)

Interesting how the lens seems to taper at the front element.


----------



## TrabimanUK (Oct 24, 2013)

It just looks too thin for a 100-400, almost like a 67mm to 72mm diameter, a bit like the Canon 70-200 f4. Odd thing to say, but it doesn't look "butch" enough for a 100-400.


----------



## TeenTog (Oct 24, 2013)

Definitely a Sony 70-200 with some sort of filter


----------



## Stuart (Oct 24, 2013)

Would it not be a DO lens and so smaller?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 24, 2013)

Stuart said:


> Would it not be a DO lens and so smaller?



Egads, I hope not!


----------



## TrabimanUK (Oct 24, 2013)

+1 "Egads" - awesome word that should be used more often!


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 24, 2013)

TrabimanUK said:


> +1 "Egads" - awesome word that should be used more often!


indubitably!


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 24, 2013)

Stuart said:


> Would it not be a DO lens and so smaller?



A DO lens would be shorter... the width would remain the same.


----------



## docsmith (Oct 24, 2013)

No red ring....this is nothing.....

Plus...seems too small for the 100-400L....


----------



## KyleSTL (Oct 24, 2013)

docsmith said:


> No red ring....this is nothing.....
> 
> Plus...seems too small for the 100-400L....


+1

a99 + 70-200mm seems almost definitely the combo (although a3000 or a58 could be possibilities since they are the only other two Sony cameras with white 'a' logos on the front - although that's probably unlikely):







Especially considering the small orange-red glow to the right of the lens mount in the OP (either the alignment dot or the orange lens mount in the case of the a99).


----------



## mackguyver (Oct 24, 2013)

Must be a slow day in rumorville...


----------



## Kwanon (Oct 24, 2013)

Haha, it is that Sony combo =)

You can see that it read s sony and you can see the alpha sign and the silver thing where the neck strap goes and it is obviously that lens =)


----------



## ScottyP (Oct 24, 2013)

I don't know about the lens but that is definitely a Bigfoot holding the camera.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 24, 2013)

ScottyP said:


> I don't know about the lens but that is definitely a Bigfoot holding the camera.



Probably taking pictures of the Loch Ness Monster in a swimming pool. I'm beginning to think we'll see that scenario occur before we see an updated 100-400L...


----------



## RGomezPhotos (Oct 24, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> Must be a slow day in rumorville...



I know. Right? It's a Sony.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 24, 2013)

rs said:


> neyoliv said:
> 
> 
> > It looks like the Sony 70-200mm: http://www.juzaphoto.com/recensione.php?l=it&t=sony_70-200_f2-8
> ...



+1

it doesn't look like a Canon styled lens at all


----------



## lonelyspeck (Oct 25, 2013)

It's an adapted Minolta 80-200 f/2.8 as seen here: http://kenrockwell.com/minolta/maxxum/80-200mm-f28.htm


----------



## KyleSTL (Oct 25, 2013)

lonelyspeck said:


> It's an adapted Minolta 80-200 f/2.8 as seen here: http://kenrockwell.com/minolta/maxxum/80-200mm-f28.htm


The flange distance for Konica-Minolta is only 0.5mm longer than EF. No chance of mount adapter for that without losing infinity focus. You could change out the mount itself to EF, but it would still be a manual focus lens with no aperture control (wide-open only). I can't see anyone with a press pass to photograph the World Series doing that.



Canon Rumors said:


> *UPDATE 2*
> 
> Another suggestion from a man who knows everything about lenses. He thinks it’s a “28-300 with filter barrel removed”.


So Roger think it's a modified 28-300mm. Any pictures online of such a beast? Any reason given for why one would modify it as such?

Game 2 picture from the gigapan - same guy (hard to tell since his face is obscured, but he's in the same area as Game 1)? If so, he's a Canon shooter, as that is the 200-400mm f/4L.


----------



## emag (Oct 25, 2013)

It's the new RokSamBow 325mm pinhole lens with optical stabilization and integraged 2XTC.


----------



## bradfordswood (Oct 26, 2013)

All,

I know the photographer. It's a Sony camera and lens.


----------



## bigwillystyle (Oct 29, 2013)

It has to be a Sony. you can kind of tell the orange full frame lens mount 
its very similiar to the 70-200 2.8 APO SSM G with no hood and no tripod collar. 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/fjgg/8035314039#
and 
http://sonyalphalab.com/product-review/sony-70-200mm-f2-8-apo-gd-ssm-lens-hands-on-review/
and
http://www.vistaview360.com/cameras/sony70-200_f28.htm

also looks like there is an 1.4x teleconverter. you can see another white barrel behind the orange dot.


----------

