# Another EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II Mention



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 5, 2014)

```
<p>The reliable <a href="http://digicame-info.com/2014/11/ef100-400mm-f45-56l-ii-usm.html" target="_blank">Digicame-Info has given a mention</a> to the coming announcement of the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II. This backs up our recent posts (<a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/10/more-ef-100-400-f4-5-5-6l-is-ii-talk-cr2/" target="_blank">here</a> & <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/10/ef-100-400-f4-5-5-6l-is-replacement-coming-in-november-cr2/" target="_blank">here</a>) stating the lens would be coming in November.</p>
<p>Below is a rundown of what we’ve been told about the lens.</p>
<ul>
<li>Smaller than the current EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS</li>
<li>Will retain the same aperture range of 4.5-5.6</li>
<li>Zoom ring design instead of push/pull</li>
<li>Similar design to the EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS (zoom ring at front of lens)</li>
<li>Lens hood is designed to make using polarizers easier</li>
<li>Lens hood will be ET-83D (from DCI)</li>
<li>New thumb screw design on the foot of the lens</li>
<li>Obvious optical, AF and IS improvements</li>
</ul>
<p>We’ve had no mention of filter size, or more importantly the price of the lens. I suspect it’s going to cost a fair bit more than the EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS just to separate the two lenses in the lineup.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## hbolte (Nov 5, 2014)

Okay, enough. I wish everyone will just stop posting anything at all about the (maybe) new 100-400 until Canon announces it. Do these websites do this just to to get hits? Too many years of false rumors, give us a break!


----------



## Click (Nov 5, 2014)

I am looking forward to seeing it.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 5, 2014)

hbolte said:


> Okay, enough. I wish everyone will just stop posting anything at all about the (maybe) new 100-400 until Canon announces it. Do these websites do this just to to get hits? Too many years of false rumors, give us a break!



canon*rumors*.com


----------



## bseitz234 (Nov 5, 2014)

Canon Rumors said:


> hbolte said:
> 
> 
> > Okay, enough. I wish everyone will just stop posting anything at all about the (maybe) new 100-400 until Canon announces it. Do these websites do this just to to get hits? Too many years of false rumors, give us a break!
> ...



lol.

_*if*_ the hood inner diameter is 83, wouldn't that rule out an 82mm filter? Seems it'd have to be a 77, unless they've got the hood mounting ring down to 500µm thinness...


----------



## JonAustin (Nov 5, 2014)

Given the track record of Canon's recent zooms, there's no reason to suspect that this new lens' performance will be anything short of excellent.

Sign me up! I would like one for Christmas, please.


----------



## tron (Nov 5, 2014)

Please allow me to quote Douglas Adams:

"Curiously enough, the only thing that went through the mind of the bowl of petunias as it fell was ..."

If you will complete the sentence you will have my comment for this rumor ;D ;D ;D ;D


----------



## Besisika (Nov 5, 2014)

JonAustin said:


> Given the track record of Canon's recent zooms, there's no reason to suspect that this new lens' performance will be anything short of excellent.
> 
> Sign me up! I would like one for Christmas, please.


And me for new year, rumor or not. Zoom ring is good. My 300mm f4 will finally have a big brother.


----------



## candc (Nov 5, 2014)

Smaller size, obvious improvements, sounds great. Its going to be a big seller if it's true. You can count me in.


----------



## Sabaki (Nov 5, 2014)

I'd love a non extending barrel please!


----------



## mjbehnke (Nov 5, 2014)

The way it sounds, I'm guessing they will have a slot in the hood to be able to use your fingers to rotate a ND or Polarizer. That would be nice. I thought about using a dremel and make slots in in my 70-200 hood to allow me to rotate a ND filter, but I thought it might ruin the use of the hood and maybe let light in the slots and cause a reflection.

Hmmm..


----------



## mjbehnke (Nov 5, 2014)

>>Curiously enough, the only thing that went through the mind of the bowl of petunias as it fell was


OH no, Not Again! 

LOL


----------



## Lee Jay (Nov 5, 2014)

Sabaki said:


> I'd love a non extending barrel please!



Not going to happen, and you really don't want it. That would mean the lens would always be the same length as it is when it's at 400mm. It would be much easier to store and carry if it shrank down to its length at 100mm.


----------



## Lee Jay (Nov 5, 2014)

I have several hopes for such a lens:

[list type=decimal]
[*]Optics near perfection (diffraction limited, little CA)
[*]Designed with 1.4x TC III in mind
[*]Terrific IS with no optical changes as lens elements move
[*]Under $2,000 street within a year.
[*]77mm filter threads
[*]Fully removable tripod collar (preferably the same one as the 70-200/2.8 IS II)
[/list]


----------



## 2n10 (Nov 5, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> I have several hopes for such a lens:
> 
> [list type=decimal]
> [*]Optics near perfection (diffraction limited, little CA)
> ...



I like this and think most are possible. Not sure about the 77mm thread. And no way on the collar, no money to be had by having a collar that goes on another popular lens model. ;D


----------



## 2n10 (Nov 5, 2014)

I will be very interested in this lens once my bank account reloads. Wait maybe I should say even more interested. I am already very interested. ;D


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 5, 2014)

2n10 said:


> I like this and think most are possible. Not sure about the 77mm thread. And no way on the collar, no money to be had by having a collar that goes on another popular lens model. ;D



I don't mind a different collar .. .but Canon should finally make the collar-foot with Arca grooves cut in at the factrroy. So we don't have to get RRS replacement foots ... which is a hassle and significant expense if you don't live in the US:


----------



## mrsfotografie (Nov 5, 2014)

70-300L killer? I'll happily trade that in if the 100-400L II will fit in my travel bag! 

Wishfull thinking...


----------



## dadgummit (Nov 5, 2014)

I am wondering if this is going to be too little too late. 

The 70-300L is a great lens and 400 is just a slight crop away from 300. If the 100-400 is much more than the 70-300 I think many will pass, it is just not different enough. 

Combine this with the 3 different 150-600's from Tamron and Sigma and anyone who wants more reach over the canon versions will go this route. 

I think if this lens is expensive there will be very few sold except for the normal early adopters.


----------



## JonAustin (Nov 5, 2014)

dadgummit said:


> I am wondering if this is going to be too little too late.
> 
> The 70-300L is a great lens and 400 is just a slight crop away from 300. If the 100-400 is much more than the 70-300 I think many will pass, it is just not different enough.
> 
> ...



Not everyone in the market for a new 100-400 already has a 70-300. And by all reports, the current version still sells briskly.


----------



## Lee Jay (Nov 5, 2014)

dadgummit said:


> I am wondering if this is going to be too little too late.
> 
> The 70-300L is a great lens and 400 is just a slight crop away from 300.



A slight crop of just short of half your pixels.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 5, 2014)

I see a 100-400L up on our local Craigslist now, so its possible that some are jumping the gun. I really like my 100-400, its a good one. It will take a lot of improvements to get me to replace it. I'm hoping that the improvements are worth it, but I'm a skeptic, I'd expect better IS, smaller size, non telescoping, but only incremental IQ improvement. The rear focus design may mess with TC's like it does on the 70-300L


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 5, 2014)

Canon Rumors said:


> Smaller than the current EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS
> ...
> 
> Obvious optical, AF and IS improvements


This would be nice. 
First thing i didn't expect.
Second one was hoped for.
Now please add TC compatibility and a reasonable price and I'm fine

Bad thing about it:
Getting the money and the arguments for my GAS together... :

So bring the unicorn on...


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 5, 2014)

Canon Rumors said:


> hbolte said:
> 
> 
> > Okay, enough. I wish everyone will just stop posting anything at all about the (maybe) new 100-400 until Canon announces it. Do these websites do this just to to get hits? Too many years of false rumors, give us a break!
> ...


*lol*
hbolte, you entirely missed the point of this page and the fun of discussing *rumors* and not *facts*.


----------



## mikelino (Nov 5, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> I have several hopes for such a lens:
> 
> [list type=decimal]
> [*]Optics near perfection (diffraction limited, little CA)
> ...


Like 70-300L ...


----------



## Jane (Nov 5, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> I have several hopes for such a lens:
> 
> [list type=decimal]
> [*]Optics near perfection (diffraction limited, little CA)
> ...



Agree but I hope the tripod collar isn't a separate $170 expense like the one for 70-300L!


----------



## Lee Jay (Nov 5, 2014)

The 70-300L is stupid in multiple ways - the separate tripod collar and incompatibility with TCs are two of them, and if they are repeated here, I would say that would reduce the attractiveness of the new 100-400L quite substantially. I know that, for me, the lack of TC compatibility is a total and complete non-starter, and one reason I never seriously considered the 70-300L, nor will I ever consider it.


----------



## rrcphoto (Nov 5, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> I have several hopes for such a lens:
> 
> [list type=decimal]
> [*]Optics near perfection (diffraction limited, little CA)
> ...



that would be awesome - but unlikely as optical near perfect and a fairly cheap cost really dont' go hand in hand.

i will not be surprised to see this roll in at 2999 and settle around 2700 for the first 2 or so years.


----------



## Lee Jay (Nov 5, 2014)

rrcphoto said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > I have several hopes for such a lens:
> ...



My 70-200/2.8L IS II is nearly perfect optically, and I bought it for $1,974. A longer and slower lens should be easier to get right than a fast constant f-stop lens.


----------



## JonAustin (Nov 5, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> My 70-200/2.8L IS II is nearly perfect optically, and I bought it for $1,974. A longer and slower lens should be easier to get right than a fast constant f-stop lens.



This ▲

Can't speak to how far down street prices will eventually settle, but I'd be "shocked" if the MSRP for the 100-400 II exceeds that of the 70-200 II.

I also tend to believe (OK, _want_ to believe) that a 100-400 II will follow the lead of its predecessor, with respect to TC compatibility and tripod collar included in the box.


----------



## fotoray (Nov 5, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> 2n10 said:
> 
> 
> > I like this and think most are possible. Not sure about the 77mm thread. And no way on the collar, no money to be had by having a collar that goes on another popular lens model. ;D
> ...



+1


----------



## fotoray (Nov 5, 2014)

mjbehnke said:


> The way it sounds, I'm guessing they will have a slot in the hood to be able to use your fingers to rotate a ND or Polarizer. That would be nice. I thought about using a dremel and make slots in in my 70-200 hood to allow me to rotate a ND filter, but I thought it might ruin the use of the hood and maybe let light in the slots and cause a reflection.
> 
> Hmmm..



It drives me nuts trying to use a polarizer and hood at the same time. :-\ Why not have a threaded hood to match the (77mm?) filter size? Just rotate the hood and the polarizer rotates with it? The solution might work with long telephoto lenses (like 100-400) that have a relatively narrow FOV and a fully circular hood. Obviously not a good solution for wide angle lenses because of vignetting due to wider FOV and irregular hood shape.


----------



## fragilesi (Nov 5, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> The 70-300L is stupid in multiple ways - the separate tripod collar and incompatibility with TCs are two of them, and if they are repeated here, I would say that would reduce the attractiveness of the new 100-400L quite substantially. I know that, for me, the lack of TC compatibility is a total and complete non-starter, and one reason I never seriously considered the 70-300L, nor will I ever consider it.



It's odd how some people seem to think that anything that doesn't suit exactly what they want is "stupid".

I have the 70-300L, it's my most used lens. I've never needed or wanted to use a tripod collar, the two other people I know with them are the same in that regard. For us it's great that the collar is not included, it would just be a piece of junk around the house and the lens would have been more expensive. So for us, it's good news.

TC compatibility would be good but I suspect again it would increase the cost or they would have done it.

So, in summary, my favourite lens is in no way stupid, it's my favourite lens because it suits exactly what I want at a price I could accept. It doesn't suit others and that's fine but I bet Canon market research know more about the user demographics than all of us combined.


----------



## DJL329 (Nov 5, 2014)

"... stating the lens would be coming in November."

Yeah, but did they mention which *year*?!?


----------



## hbolte (Nov 5, 2014)

Maximilian said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > hbolte said:
> ...



The only thing I'm missing is a new 100-400 in my bag. I'm just tired of the false stories. If I had a dollar for every story about the New 100-400 I could buy several...


----------



## Lee Jay (Nov 5, 2014)

fragilesi said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > The 70-300L is stupid in multiple ways - the separate tripod collar and incompatibility with TCs are two of them, and if they are repeated here, I would say that would reduce the attractiveness of the new 100-400L quite substantially. I know that, for me, the lack of TC compatibility is a total and complete non-starter, and one reason I never seriously considered the 70-300L, nor will I ever consider it.
> ...



Fine...stupid from Canon's point of view. I would guess that those two decisions, along with a few others, cost them at least a third of sales. Maybe as much as half.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 5, 2014)

hbolte said:


> Okay, enough. I wish everyone will just stop posting anything at all about the (maybe) new 100-400 until Canon announces it. Do these websites do this just to to get hits? Too many years of false rumors, give us a break!


 
Since Chuck Westfall, Canon Technical Director, announced at Photokina 2014 that it was coming, the situation is a bit different. Multiple sources are leaking (Or fabricating) information. 

"The 100-400mm zoom is a good example. Canon introduced it in 1998 with its first-generation image stablization technology, which counteracts some camera shake, and still sells it for $1,700. But a new model is in the works, said Canon technical advisor Chuck Westfall in an interview here at the Photokina show Monday. "It's definitely on the boards for replacement," he said, though declining to say when."

Yes, its still a rumor, and I won't sell my old one yet, but when Canon says its coming, then the Rumors are going to come more rapidly as well.

http://www.cnet.com/news/canon-reveals-details-for-future-telephoto-lens-line/


----------



## fragilesi (Nov 5, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Fine...stupid from Canon's point of view. I would guess that those two decisions, along with a few others, cost them at least a third of sales. Maybe as much as half.



I guess neither of us will ever be able to prove it either way of course but I'd bet the cost of one that you're wrong. I know it goes against the grain in terms of how L-series lenses are thought of but I think that Canon called it spot on with these decisions. It's an L-series leisure lens in many ways. Portable, wonderfully balanced due to its short length and compared to many very _luggable_. I suspect (obviously I can't know) that Canon saw how popular similarly specified lenses in terms of aperture and zoom range were. They then thought, we could give these people a premium option.

With my 70-300L I can wander round, unrestricted, get a decent focal length, very good image quality, great IS on the very odd occasion I need it and I am unrestricted in my movement. Lots of people use it as a travel lens, a lens to take on hikes and for me I like to stay mobile. It's just perfect for what I want and the image quality for a lens of its zoom range, price and aperture is very, very good. 

It's perhaps just a slightly different type of photographer they are after?


----------



## dadgummit (Nov 5, 2014)

fragilesi said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > The 70-300L is stupid in multiple ways - the separate tripod collar and incompatibility with TCs are two of them, and if they are repeated here, I would say that would reduce the attractiveness of the new 100-400L quite substantially. I know that, for me, the lack of TC compatibility is a total and complete non-starter, and one reason I never seriously considered the 70-300L, nor will I ever consider it.
> ...



Agreed^

Also the Tokina 1.4 TC works great on this lens.


----------



## Lee Jay (Nov 5, 2014)

fragilesi said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Fine...stupid from Canon's point of view. I would guess that those two decisions, along with a few others, cost them at least a third of sales. Maybe as much as half.
> ...



Maybe you're right. I know that I saw those things, and never gave the lens another look. I know one person that bought the lens, found these out after opening the box, packed it back up and sent it back.


----------



## KitsVancouver (Nov 6, 2014)

hbolte said:


> Okay, enough. I wish everyone will just stop posting anything at all about the (maybe) new 100-400 until Canon announces it. Do these websites do this just to to get hits? Too many years of false rumors, give us a break!



I'm confused. If you don't like rumors, why are you visiting a website DEDICATED to rumors?


----------



## expatinasia (Nov 6, 2014)

Canon Rumors said:


> hbolte said:
> 
> 
> > Okay, enough. I wish everyone will just stop posting anything at all about the (maybe) new 100-400 until Canon announces it. Do these websites do this just to to get hits? Too many years of false rumors, give us a break!
> ...



Priceless! 

Best post I have read for ages. Thanks for cheering me up this morning, hbolte.


----------



## jdramirez (Nov 6, 2014)

tron said:


> Please allow me to quote Douglas Adams:
> 
> "Curiously enough, the only thing that went through the mind of the bowl of petunias as it fell was ..."
> 
> If you will complete the sentence you will have my comment for this rumor ;D ;D ;D ;D



I'm sure someone else responded... but I believe it was...

Oh... not again. 

or some variation.


----------



## jdramirez (Nov 6, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> 70-300L killer? I'll happily trade that in if the 100-400L II will fit in my travel bag!
> 
> Wishfull thinking...



I understood the 70-300 was optically better than the original 100-400... and didn't have as much of a dust issue... so I could see why one would sacrifice the 100mm reach... but if the mkii 100-400 is optically better than the 70-300L, I'm not sure what benefits the 70-300 has... maybe price... and technically a larger zoom ratio.


----------



## jdramirez (Nov 6, 2014)

I really enjoy holding the camera and lens from the tripod collar. It feels balanced and a solid handle. It might not be necessary, but I use it all the time with my 5d mkiii and 70-200mm f/2.8L is mkii.


----------



## jdramirez (Nov 6, 2014)

2n10 said:


> I will be very interested in this lens once my bank account reloads. Wait maybe I should say even more interested. I am already very interested. ;D



I'm feeling pretty good about my gear... so I have a goal of building my camera fund to $10,000 before I make any major purchases.


----------



## dufflover (Nov 6, 2014)

Smaller/shorter than the current one. Noooiiice.
Though the current version for all purposes was short enough already (the 70-200 that many bags cater for is a touch longer).



JonAustin said:


> Given the track record of Canon's recent zooms, there's no reason to suspect that this new lens' performance will be anything short of excellent.



Definitely agree there. I would be very surprised if it wasn't short of brilliant like the improvement saw in the 70-200 II, even if it isn't exactly as sharp in raw numbers. Unfortunately also in their track record are sky high prices for the new L's that it might be too high I don't bother changing out my current 100-400


----------



## fragilesi (Nov 6, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> fragilesi said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



Well so I have two friends that like it and you have one that doesn't so I win right? ;D

More seriously I doubt either of us could ever really know either way, I just know it suits me just fine but I can well imagine why you would feel the way you do about it! It's been a good friend to me and I'm glad I bought it.


----------



## fragilesi (Nov 6, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > 70-300L killer? I'll happily trade that in if the 100-400L II will fit in my travel bag!
> ...



I think price is going to be a given sadly for my wallet. And I hate to mention this to some of the real gearheads but price is very important to how well a lens sells and shouldn't be written off. As for anything else it depends what you want to use it for. That 70-300 range is going to suit some sports shooters for example much better than 100-400 because it improves the amount of "near-side" (for want of a better term) action you can capture.


----------

