# First Image of the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II Lens



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 6, 2014)

```
<p><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-17795" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/canon_ef100-400mmII_001.jpg" alt="canon_ef100-400mmII_001" width="500" height="265" /></p>
<p>Judging by the image, <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/11/another-ef-100-400-f4-5-5-6l-is-ii-mention/" target="_blank">everything we were told recently about the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS has been correct</a>. I’m sure we’ll see more photos of the lens shortly, as I expect it to be announced very shortly.</p>
<p>Source: [<a href="http://digicame-info.com/2014/11/ef100-400mm-f45-56l-is-ii-usm.html" target="_blank">DCI</a>]</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## Marauder (Nov 6, 2014)

Looks slick! Quite compact, which definitely means it will extend, but that's all right with me.


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 6, 2014)

Assuming this real and no hoax it looks really interesting.

I love to see that friction ring again so you have full control on this and lens creep.
Interesting also to see the 4 buttons on the barrel. 
I can see 
- AF/MF
- IS on/off
- IS mode (3! modes)
- fourth for focus limiter? (can't read)
So it'll be similar to the V1 with other positions.

edit: can anybody make a guess about the filter size?


----------



## Harv (Nov 6, 2014)

I want one..... RIGHT NOW !!!!!


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 6, 2014)

Looks good to me. Except the foot has still no Arca-comparible grooves.

I will point this out until we finally get it ... just like with the lenscaps Mk. II with inner grips.


----------



## mb66energy (Nov 6, 2014)

Might replace my EF 4.0 70-200 non-IS and the EF 5.6 400 lenses ?!

Might be part of a good combo:
EOS M + EF-S 10-22 via adapter (in lens compartment)
40D or 600D + EF 2.8 40 (in lens compartment too)
*7Dii + EF 100-400 L IS USM mark ii*
EF-S 2.8 60
2 x TC
all in the slim and smallish Lowe Pro Runner 200 which I really like for smaller gear packs.

EDIT: forgotten the "*L*" in the lens name ...


----------



## CANONisOK (Nov 6, 2014)

Now this is exciting. Hope it's real! And soon.


----------



## lvanzijl (Nov 6, 2014)

Is there some upcoming event for this lens introduction or will it be a completely out of the blue thing? 


(if its all true ofcourse )


----------



## sanj (Nov 6, 2014)

Looks nice


----------



## PureClassA (Nov 6, 2014)

Well now..... Hello Mr Unicorn. Guess you do exist after all?! Gotta think filter size is 77mm... Hope. Looks good! Can't wait to see optical performance comparisons ....... And a friggin price tag.....


----------



## scyrene (Nov 6, 2014)

mb66energy said:


> Might replace my EF 4.0 70-200 non-IS and the EF 5.6 400 lenses ?!
> 
> Might be part of a good combo:
> EOS M + EF-S 10-22 via adapter (in lens compartment)
> ...



IMHO, unless you mostly use a tripod, just upgrading to a modern IS lens will massively widen your shooting opportunities. I was sceptical until I did.


----------



## RLPhoto (Nov 6, 2014)

It's about time. Now is when I'd flip the version 1 to get the most $$$$ for it to prep for the version 2.


----------



## Hawker_Driver (Nov 6, 2014)

Wow looks awesome! I can't wait to get a copy. I'll have to wait though, gotta buy a 7D Mk II first. Now I just have to figure out which museum I'm going to donate my old 100-400mm too.


----------



## Coldhands (Nov 6, 2014)

Maximilian said:


> Assuming this real and no hoax it looks really interesting.
> 
> I love to see that friction ring again so you have full control on this and lens creep.
> Interesting also to see the 4 buttons on the barrel.
> ...



Most likely 77mm, as it has a hood inner diameter of 83mm (stated in the post the other day) which is the same as the current one which also has a 77mm filter size.


----------



## Faaier (Nov 6, 2014)

Looks yummy. 

70-300L pricing will be under pressure ... wait... probably not... the pricing of the 100-400 can easily change the appetite for this new lens.

Didn't we do a poll at which price we would buy this one? Above or under the 70-200MkII ? Easily above, my guess.


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 6, 2014)

Coldhands said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > *edit: can anybody make a guess about the filter size?*
> ...


Thanks for your reply. I don't give too much on such statements (83 mm) and as some patent formula in the past showed 82 mm filter size so I was not sure. 
Comparing the lens mount to the front element I would also go for the 77 mm but I'm not sure about it.


----------



## docsmith (Nov 6, 2014)

Looks interesting...but show me the MTF charts and price.


----------



## PureClassA (Nov 6, 2014)

By the way CR .... from where did this image come??


----------



## mb66energy (Nov 6, 2014)

scyrene said:


> mb66energy said:
> 
> 
> > Might replace my EF 4.0 70-200 non-IS and the EF 5.6 400 lenses ?!
> ...



In forests I will need a tripod just with an IS equipped lens - 0.5 sec. exposure time @ f/11 and ISO 200 is a typical exp. parameter combination.

But there are other situations where I would like to have a 400mm lens WITH IS. So the new lens might a candidate - your experience confirms my liking of the new lens ...

Best - Michael


----------



## scyrene (Nov 6, 2014)

mb66energy said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > mb66energy said:
> ...



Fascinating. What are you shooting? The super telephoto lenses detect tripods and only use IS to correct mirrorslap - but I find the combination still useful for some subjects, especially the moon and planets. Why do you stay at ISO 200?


----------



## zim (Nov 6, 2014)

I think performance is a gimme, the price is what will dictate when I'd upgrade from the 70-300L (unless I can convince myself that both lenses can live together  )


----------



## scyrene (Nov 6, 2014)

zim said:


> I think performance is a gimme, the price is what will dictate when I'd upgrade from the 70-300L (unless I can convince myself that both lenses can live together  )



My thoughts exactly. I don't think anyone expects white Canon lenses to be bad optically. But the price is the thing.


----------



## Lee Jay (Nov 6, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> Looks good to me. Except the foot has still no Arca-comparible grooves.
> 
> I will point this out until we finally get it ... just like with the lenscaps Mk. II with inner grips.



I hate the inner pinch lens caps, and I have no need of any Arca-compatible anything.


----------



## Lee Jay (Nov 6, 2014)

Am I missing something, or does just the foot of the tripod ring come off? Looks like the ring itself is permanent to me.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Nov 6, 2014)

Judging by the released image, the unicorn exists and is beautiful. It also seems very solid and compact. It was a long wait.


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 6, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Am I missing something, or does just the foot of the tripod ring come off? Looks like the ring itself is permanent to me.


I suppose you have both possibilities. That was my suggestion when I saw that screw on the tripod ring foot.
But if that’s really useful is another thought, thinking of all that quick releases available.


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 6, 2014)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> ... the unicorn exists and is beautiful. ...


Seeing the pic you posted, I somehow got a feeling of a retinal detachment. 
The one of the lens seems much more beautiful to me 

edit: by the way for the records: your pic: no horn but wings = pegasus


----------



## Random Orbits (Nov 6, 2014)

zim said:


> I think performance is a gimme, the price is what will dictate when I'd upgrade from the 70-300L (unless I can convince myself that both lenses can live together  )



They get along just fine, right next to to the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II!


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Nov 6, 2014)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> Judging by the released image, the unicorn exists and is beautiful.



Psst, that's not a unicorn. That's an image of a pegasus. 

;D


----------



## danski0224 (Nov 6, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> Psst, that's not a unicorn. That's an image of a pegasus.
> 
> ;D



Details, shmetails...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 6, 2014)

Sweet! Looks like the length might be similar to the 70-200/4. 



zim said:


> I think performance is a gimme, the price is what will dictate when I'd upgrade from the 70-300L (unless I can convince myself that both lenses can live together  )



I bought the 70-300L mainly for it's compact size for travel (chose it over the 70-200/4 IS for the shorter length, more a concern to me than weight). I could see having both the 70-300L and 100-400L II in a kit. Perhaps not mine (I already sold my 100-400, wasn't really using it after getting the 600 II). 

If this new 100-400 takes TCs and only a minimal IQ hit from the 1.4x (similar to the 70-200 II), I'd consider getting it as a more portable birding lens (size precludes the 150-600 3rd party zooms for me, that big I'll just take the 600 II).


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Nov 6, 2014)

Maximilian said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > ... the unicorn exists and is beautiful. ...
> ...


Oh, I'm sorry. The Pegasus was the Canon *35mm F1.4L Mark ii*.

The *100-400mm F4.5-5.6 IS Mark ii* can be seen here.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Nov 6, 2014)

Lenscracker said:


> Why did the first picture of this lens have to be out of focus?



Maybe it was taken with the 7D2? LoL


----------



## Dylan777 (Nov 6, 2014)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> Judging by the released image, the unicorn exists and is beautiful. It also seems very solid and compact. It was a long wait.



I can tell this photo was taken with 100-400 mrk II ;D


----------



## Gcon (Nov 6, 2014)

I think the correct phrase is "Shut up and take my money!!" (adding as many exclamations as you like)


----------



## Besisika (Nov 6, 2014)

Harv said:


> I want one..... RIGHT NOW !!!!!


Good stuff, put me on the list.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 6, 2014)

Maximilian said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Am I missing something, or does just the foot of the tripod ring come off? Looks like the ring itself is permanent to me.
> ...



I believe Lee Jay is correct. Looking at the knob on the ring itself (which allows rotation of the lens inside the collar for portrait/landscape switch), it's in the wrong position to allow removal of the entire ring. Rather, the inset knob allows just the foot to be removed. That inset knob looks very similar to the one on the EF mount adapter for the EOS M, except in that case the top of the removable foot is curved to match the adapter barrel, whereas the 100-400 II looks like removing the foot will leave a flat (ergonomically poor) bare surface.


----------



## wtlloyd (Nov 6, 2014)

Is that center ring a focus preset or zoom lock I wonder...

Edit: Oh, it's a zoom tension/lock...does that exist on anything other than the old 100-400? Why on a twist zoom?


----------



## jebrady03 (Nov 6, 2014)

I'm actually looking forward to the used market of other telephoto zoom lenses. I'd like to snag a 70-200 f/4 IS used and I could see that lens being one of many that end up being offered for sale more often than they are now due to the 100-400 L IS 2 coming out.


----------



## JonAustin (Nov 6, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Am I missing something, or does just the foot of the tripod ring come off? Looks like the ring itself is permanent to me.
> ...



Well, if you gentlemen are correct, that at least answers the question of whether or not the tripod ring is included in the box!


----------



## JonAustin (Nov 6, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> I hate the inner pinch lens caps ...



Why? They still retain the outer pinch capabilities of the old-style caps.


----------



## dstppy (Nov 6, 2014)

1) If this is around $2400 or less, they'll do fine. 
2) With all this talk about Unicorns, I really have to warn you: Do NOT lick the Rainbow Unicorns. Yes, they SMELL like Doritos, but if you actually taste one, you get that bakers chocolate/vanilla extract yuck taste.


----------



## Lee Jay (Nov 6, 2014)

JonAustin said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > I hate the inner pinch lens caps ...
> ...



Here's why I don't like them.

When I reach inside a hood to remove the lens cap, and the cap is already in my pocket (this happens sometimes), if I'm reaching for a center pinch cap, I smear my greasy fingers on the front element of the lens. When I'm reaching for the edge of a standard cap, I just touch the metal edge of the lens and don't goober up the front element. I also find the regular ones easier to remove with just one finger and easier to remove with gloves on. The new ones, while you can remove them from the edge, they are stiffer and harder to remove without squeezing the center.


----------



## docsmith (Nov 6, 2014)

If this is correct, I really have to hand it to Canon. They find niches to differentiate their products. Size and (assuming) weight. Using lenstip numbers, I bet the optics (center frame) are ~38-42 lpmm. Very good, maybe a bit better than the 70-300L. But not so good that they compete with the Big Whites (e.g. 300 mm f/2.8 II ~46 lpmm). Maybe not as good as the Sigma 150-600S @ 600 (assuming fall off with TC). 

But the market for this lens....size and weight. I have the Sigma 150-600S pre-ordered since day 1 (still waiting), but I have to say, Canon may get me to cancel. Even if this is slightly worse than the Sigma 150-600S @~560-600 mm, the portability of this lens will likely tip the scales for me.

Simply great product differentiation. This lens could actually _create_ a niche. Smallish, lightweightish telephoto zoom.

Show me the price, and MTF charts (w and w/o 1.4 TC).


----------



## Chaitanya (Nov 6, 2014)

If this lens is really smaller and lighter than the version 1, then I wouldn't mind spending a little extra for 100-400 over a used 70-200 f/2.8 IS + 1.4x TC. I need a long lens for shooting shy lizards. And right now I am using a 400mm f/5.6 just for that purpose.


----------



## RGF (Nov 6, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sweet! Looks like the length might be similar to the 70-200/4.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I, too, have the 70-300 and plan to get the 100-400 II (assuming its IQ is as good as the rumors claim).

The challenge for me will be 70-200 F2.8 II and 200-400 or the 100-400 II and 600 II. the 70-200/200-400 will be lighter and sharper but the 100-400/600 will have longer reach and sharper at the long end.

Nice to have options ;D ;D


----------



## NancyP (Nov 6, 2014)

Shy lizards? Yes, the 400 f/5.6 and the 180 f/3.5 macro with 1.4x TC are my go-to lenses for shy herps of all types, including poisonous snakes. But, I daresay the 300 f/4 IS, an old but excellent lens, may be a good and cheaper near-macro alternative for herps and large insects (butterflies and dragonflies). I have seen some great photos from the 300 f4. I also shoot birds, hence the choice of the 400.


----------



## PureClassA (Nov 6, 2014)

All due respect to some folks, but I think some of these price guesses are going way too high. This lens is not going to priced north of the 70-200 IS Mk II, which is now $2299. Remember a few months ago tons of people were speculating on a $2500 7D2. and out came $1799. This lens will be $1999ish or the same price as the 70-200 IS2 is now. $2500 or $3k for this would be corporate suicide. Show of hands, how many people would buy this at either of those prices over a 70-200 IS2 plus a 2.0 EX III? That's a far more versatile combination for the price even considering the larger size. Thoughts?


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 6, 2014)

Had to do it. See attached. Picture credits for the non-unicorns go to TDP:

Note that TDP's shots have a slightly isometric perspective to them that make an apples to apples comparison difficult. Note that I scaled the lower-res Digicame shot of the Unicorn off of the _lens cap_, which is not terrible accurate at the resolution we're working with.

So *if* the shot is real and I didn't pooch the scaling too badly, this will clearly be a larger front element. Veeeery crudely, the Unicorn looks to be about 15% bigger than the 70-200 F/4L IS, which puts that front element in the 78-80 neighborhood. Obviously, minor differences in the thickness of the outer ring could mean that this is a 77 or an 82, so there's no way to nail that down at this point.

- A


----------



## Lee Jay (Nov 6, 2014)

PureClassA said:


> All due respect to some folks, but I think some of these price guesses are going way too high. This lens is not going to priced north of the 70-200 IS Mk II, which is now $2299. Remember a few months ago tons of people were speculating on a $2500 7D2. and out came $1799. This lens will be $1999ish or the same price as the 70-200 IS2 is now. $2500 or $3k for this would be corporate suicide. Show of hands, how many people would buy this at either of those prices over a 70-200 IS2 plus a 2.0 EX III? That's a far more versatile combination for the price even considering the larger size. Thoughts?



My though is that it'll come out high to get some extra cash from early adopters that are willing to pay more, and quickly fall below $2k during the first year.

Of course, I have absolutely no real information, just speculation.


----------



## candc (Nov 6, 2014)

I am more interested in this lens than any 70-200 with t'cs. I would pay $2500 no question.


----------



## docsmith (Nov 6, 2014)

PureClassA said:


> This lens will be $1999ish or the same price as the 70-200 IS2 is now.



That is actually my guess as well. I can see $1,800-$2,200 if the lens is as I expect. If they do something unexpectedly good with the optics, I could see $3,000-$3,500. The other thing that could drive up the price is the weight. If it is surprisingly light, that could drive up the price as well. But this is likely meant as a high end consumer lens. My guess is optics and price will match.


----------



## DanN (Nov 6, 2014)

PureClassA said:


> Show of hands, how many people would buy this at either of those prices over a 70-200 IS2 plus a 2.0 EX III? That's a far more versatile combination for the price even considering the larger size. Thoughts?



Probably all the wildlife photographers who want to throw a 2.0 EX on the 100-400. Which is the real question -- does the new 100-400 have better optical quality and can it handle extenders better than the old one (which goes super soft even with a 1.4 extender).

Of course, if the new 100-400 has excellent optical quality and works well with extenders, then what of the new 400 DO prime? (A $5K differential is a lot to pay for 1 F-stop.) And if it doesn't have notably better optical quality, then how does it compete with the 100-600 zooms?


----------



## bear (Nov 6, 2014)

I think its fake. No point for smooth/tight ring on zoom ring lens.


----------



## Lee Jay (Nov 6, 2014)

DanN said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > Show of hands, how many people would buy this at either of those prices over a 70-200 IS2 plus a 2.0 EX III? That's a far more versatile combination for the price even considering the larger size. Thoughts?
> ...



No it doesn't. This is with a 2x on an 18MP 1.6-crop body. To be clear, I'm no fan of the old one, but with the right settings, the optics are pretty solid (and with the wrong ones, they are pretty terrible).


----------



## PureClassA (Nov 6, 2014)

I just look at the 100-400 now that is ages old and $1600. While of course there will be a new premium on the new version....I'm not seeing Canon go up 40% - 100%. Original 7D $1500. New 7D2 $1800. 20% premium. So I'm guessing $1999-$2200 (high side being where the 70-200 is now) I think making these same priced where one gets you constant aperture while the other gets you longer focal range is a good trade.


----------



## Lee Jay (Nov 6, 2014)

bear said:


> I think its fake. No point for smooth/tight ring on zoom ring lens.



Both of the new Sigma 150-600s are twist-zooms and have zoom lock switches.

http://vimeo.com/107165203


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 6, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



... which forms the mounting spot for an RRS / Kirk /Markins replacement foot ... with Arca groove. PIA.


----------



## PureClassA (Nov 6, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> bear said:
> 
> 
> > I think its fake. No point for smooth/tight ring on zoom ring lens.
> ...



I can adjust the amount of friction on my Manfrotto tripod head to give more or less resistance to pan and tilt depending if i need to make large or fine adjustments. Why not have the same thing the zoom?? Makes perfect sense to me. Then twist it all the way to lock if you like.


----------



## rrcphoto (Nov 6, 2014)

PureClassA said:


> All due respect to some folks, but I think some of these price guesses are going way too high. This lens is not going to priced north of the 70-200 IS Mk II, which is now $2299. Remember a few months ago tons of people were speculating on a $2500 7D2. and out came $1799. This lens will be $1999ish or the same price as the 70-200 IS2 is now. $2500 or $3k for this would be corporate suicide. Show of hands, how many people would buy this at either of those prices over a 70-200 IS2 plus a 2.0 EX III? That's a far more versatile combination for the price even considering the larger size. Thoughts?



not really. the 100-400L originally came out at 260,000 Yen. canon's been pretty consistent about keeping that around the same on the version II's. speculating that it will be around the 300K yen value for the update isn't outlandish. which would make it easily around the 2700 to 2500 USD value.

I'm also not sure why you think it's suicide and outlandish when the Nikkor 80-400 is 2700.

and btw, the 70-200 2.8L IS II came out at 2499. what it's selling for now is meaningless.


----------



## PureClassA (Nov 6, 2014)

GraFax said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > All due respect to some folks, but I think some of these price guesses are going way too high. This lens is not going to priced north of the 70-200 IS Mk II, which is now $2299. Remember a few months ago tons of people were speculating on a $2500 7D2. and out came $1799. This lens will be $1999ish or the same price as the 70-200 IS2 is now. $2500 or $3k for this would be corporate suicide. Show of hands, how many people would buy this at either of those prices over a 70-200 IS2 plus a 2.0 EX III? That's a far more versatile combination for the price even considering the larger size. Thoughts?
> ...



The 400 DO and 200-400 with built in TC are for a whole different professional market. The 100-400 is made to serve the pro but also the enthusiast. Plus it is not a fixed aperture like the other two which require exponentially more glass and more expensive glass. Granted I agree they are high priced, the market they intend to serve will happily pay for them.


----------



## rrcphoto (Nov 6, 2014)

GraFax said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > All due respect to some folks, but I think some of these price guesses are going way too high. This lens is not going to priced north of the 70-200 IS Mk II, which is now $2299. Remember a few months ago tons of people were speculating on a $2500 7D2. and out came $1799. This lens will be $1999ish or the same price as the 70-200 IS2 is now. $2500 or $3k for this would be corporate suicide. Show of hands, how many people would buy this at either of those prices over a 70-200 IS2 plus a 2.0 EX III? That's a far more versatile combination for the price even considering the larger size. Thoughts?
> ...



you're really not comparing this to the 200-400/4 are you?


----------



## Lee Jay (Nov 6, 2014)

rrcphoto said:


> you're really not comparing this to the 200-400/4 are you?



Why not? It's only one stop of difference. The 100-400 has the 100-200 range while the 200-400 has the built-in TC. I'd bet the optics are similar and that it would be really hard to tell the difference between them at the same focal length.


----------



## docsmith (Nov 6, 2014)

GraFax said:


> I'm not comparing the IQ. I'm saying that asking 1/4th the price for this lens that they ask for the F4/5.6 doesn't seem out of line by Canon's pricing strategy. Assuming the IQ, weight and AF are pretty good which I expect them to be. As you can tell by these threads there is a lot of demand for this lens. I certainly would not expect then to come in under the new Sigma S. If they asked me how much to charge that's what I'd tell them. Pick off the early adopters and then let the market dictate the price.



Of course, the fear would be that they cripple it in some way such as having rear elements such that it won't take a 1.4TC. That would differentiate it further from the 200-400 and likely I keep my order of the Sigma.


----------



## PureClassA (Nov 6, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > you're really not comparing this to the 200-400/4 are you?
> ...



And that may be precisely why/if Canon will keep it difficult as the first one (Ive heard) to mount a TC on it ....


----------



## Khalai (Nov 6, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > you're really not comparing this to the 200-400/4 are you?
> ...



I'd say "it's a WHOLE stop of difference". Night and day in those focal lengths. Compare 300/2.8 and 300/4 or 200/2 and 200/2.8 - there is also "only" one stop difference, yet there is quite surprising PRICE difference


----------



## MichaelHodges (Nov 6, 2014)

Looks beautiful.


----------



## Plainsman (Nov 6, 2014)

...price correlates closely to optical quality for Canon - so lets hope it's not to cheap then!

For Canon its position in the lens hierarchy has been carefully calibrated from way back.


----------



## Lee Jay (Nov 6, 2014)

Khalai said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > rrcphoto said:
> ...



Yes, and that's one reason I find Canon superteles so hugely overpriced.

Compare a 70-200/4L IS and a 70-200/2.8L IS and you'll see a difference that I think is much more justified than the difference between a 300/4L IS and a 300/2.8L IS or a 100-400L IS and a 200-400/4L IS.


----------



## FTBPhotography (Nov 6, 2014)

Maximilian said:


> Assuming this real and no hoax it looks really interesting.
> 
> I love to see that friction ring again so you have full control on this and lens creep.



if you look closely it does have it.


----------



## Viggo (Nov 6, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Khalai said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



You can't be serious? Comparing the 300 f4 and 2.8 ? The 2.8 is sharper by a wide margin all over when both lenses wide open. And comparing the 200 f2.8 against the 200 f2 I'm not even going to comment on.

But as I always say, if you can't tell the difference, then you're lucky and saved yourself a huge amount of money.
Nothing wrong with that.


----------



## bluenoser1993 (Nov 6, 2014)

This will make for tough choices. I bought 70-200 2.8 II primarily so I could have the 2.8, but also to use with 2x III on my 7D and still have AF. This is for shooting paddling from dry land. Not so satisfied with this - still not quite enough reach, but for other uses the 70-200 has made a lot of my favorite shots. Now upgrading to 7DII, i'm tempted to sell the 70-200 plus 2x and get the new 100-400 plus 1.4x if the sharpness is there. Maybe then add a 135 f2 later, as that falls in the range of where I've gotten my favorite non-sporting shots (+- 20mm to make up with feet).

The plus, will never have to explain to parents around me why I can't see the other end of the lake with something so big!


----------



## 2n10 (Nov 6, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Khalai said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



A lot of that price difference has to do with the size of the optics. It costs much more than 2X the $ to make a lens that is 2x the diameter. You have a much greater volume of high quality lens glass and a much longer time of grinding it to tolerance.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 6, 2014)

2n10 said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Khalai said:
> ...



Plus fluorite crystals that take over a year to grow.


----------



## Lee Jay (Nov 6, 2014)

2n10 said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Khalai said:
> ...



The rule-of-thumb is cubic with diameter.

So, a 300/2.8 is just short of 3 times as expensive as a 300/4. But that's just for the front elements. The rear elements and the rest of the lens are close to the same.

So, I think the 300/2.8 should be about 1.5x-2x as expensive as a similarly high-quality 300/4 or 200/2.8 (about the same size). And that's just about what the old one was. When I was considering it, the 70-200/2.8L IS was $1,700 and the 300/2.8L IS was $3,600. Now, Canon is off in la-la-land.


----------



## Khalai (Nov 6, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> 2n10 said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



Also, from the Canon production factory videos, they stated and it was also demonstrated, that e.g. 500/4L IS USM takes about 6 wks to complete (from raw glass to finished lenses, barrel, assembly and calibration...). Add this to slow fluorite elements production (and twice the light means twice the AREA, you need a hell bigger crystals for that) and the price now seems almost understandable


----------



## 20Dave (Nov 6, 2014)

Just speaking for me (hobbyist bird and insect photography), if this lens has a minimum focusing distance that is relatively close to the 300 f/4 (which I don't own), then it would be a terrific lens for both birding and insect photography. If the MFD is far like the 400 f/5.6 (which I do own), then there's one less reason for me to swap out the 400. But, if the image quality is on par with the 400 and the IS is as good as I expect, then it is still a tempting upgrade for me.


----------



## nebugeater (Nov 6, 2014)

Hawker_Driver said:


> Wow looks awesome! I can't wait to get a copy. I'll have to wait though, gotta buy a 7D Mk II first. Now I just have to figure out which museum I'm going to donate my old 100-400mm too.




NEBUGEATER Museum would gladly accept it. Let me know if you need a shipping address.


----------



## mycanonphotos (Nov 6, 2014)

Looks it might have a "manual" slide option or a twist...notice the band between the zoom and focus ring...might be a tension ring...?


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 6, 2014)

Anyone find it odd that Canon chose the _*day*_ of low ISO loving DXO releasing a (predictably) scathing review of the 7D2 sensor to leak the Unicorn to us?

I know these lenses take years to get ready for us, but from a PR perspective, Canon could not have picked a better day to throw us a bone. 

#dayoftheunicorn

- A


----------



## scyrene (Nov 6, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Khalai said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



Of course what seems good value is subjective, but you mustn't forget the superteles have better ruggedness and weather sealing, better IS, better AF speed and accuracy, and are sharper wide open than their little siblings. It's not just about the aperture.


----------



## LSV (Nov 6, 2014)

Let us take a moment to give thanks to Tamron and Sigma for hastening the release of version II of the 100-400mm -- without their competition it may have taken another 16 years and much lighter wallets.


----------



## PureClassA (Nov 6, 2014)

bluenoser1993 said:


> This will make for tough choices. I bought 70-200 2.8 II primarily so I could have the 2.8, but also to use with 2x III on my 7D and still have AF. This is for shooting paddling from dry land. Not so satisfied with this - still not quite enough reach, but for other uses the 70-200 has made a lot of my favorite shots. Now upgrading to 7DII, i'm tempted to sell the 70-200 plus 2x and get the new 100-400 plus 1.4x if the sharpness is there. Maybe then add a 135 f2 later, as that falls in the range of where I've gotten my favorite non-sporting shots (+- 20mm to make up with feet).
> 
> The plus, will never have to explain to parents around me why I can't see the other end of the lake with something so big!



I bought the 70-200 IS2 first then just recently finally picked up the 135 f2 for headshots. Very different lens even with overlapping focal ranges. 135 at f2 is very sharp with gorgeous bokeh. The 70-200 IS2 does a great job as well but not quite as well as the prime. As it should be. That said, after having bought the 135f2 I kinda regret a little bit not getting the 100-400 instead of the 70-200, but the extra stop is still more important to me than the extra reach. Now with the new version I'll be tempted to consider it anyway. Get the right lens for your needs! Don't worry as much about the versatility of one piece of glass. Concentrate on usability for your type of photography.


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Nov 6, 2014)

Let's shake the old trusty magic eight ball:

How much will this cost?







geez... 

What about a holiday discount to make a lot of photogs happy this Christmas, or Hanukkah?


----------



## thedman (Nov 6, 2014)

Can this really be happening?!?!?!?!?! Better not be this again:


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 6, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> It's about time. Now is when I'd flip the version 1 to get the most $$$$ for it to prep for the version 2.


 

If history is any indicator, used prices have already dropped, I see used ones for $800. However, when potential buyers see the price of a new one, ( ~ $3,000 if the Nikon 80-400 is a example) then prices on used lenses rise after the new ones are out. 

Eventually, prices of everything will drop, but I plan to wait before jumping. MFD is important to me, as is the use of a TC, if those expectations are not met, I might keep mine or go for a different brand.


----------



## jarrodeu (Nov 6, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Plus fluorite crystals that take over a year to grow.


I believe that the current 100-400 has fluorite glass, do you anticipate the replacement to also have fluorite?
Jarrod


----------



## Occams_Cat (Nov 6, 2014)

Viggo said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Khalai said:
> ...



Funny, I've got both the F2.8 and F4 version of the 300mm and I can't see any difference in sharpness wide open. The bokeh is subjectively softer on the 2.8 but more than often I choose to carry the f4 version as it's images are so sharp and with the 5D3 and 1DX being so good in the higher ISO's, I'm happy to take the 1 stop hit.

This new 100-400 has a lot to live up to. I have never encountered 1 copy of this lens over the last 10 years worth owning, they have all been soft at anything near the long end. Such a compromised lens. Hopefully, Canon can do something magical with this version.


----------



## wsmith96 (Nov 6, 2014)

Can't wait to see the price! This may become my second L lens  I was holding off on a 400 f/5.6L to see if unicorns really existed. It appears they do.


----------



## bluenoser1993 (Nov 6, 2014)

Second look (who am I kidding), after several looks I noticed there are no focal length markings, which by reference to 70-200 and 70-300 layout should be visible wrapping over the top. Excitement fading :'(


----------



## Harv (Nov 6, 2014)

bluenoser1993 said:


> Second look (who am I kidding), after several looks I noticed there are no focal length markings, which by reference to 70-200 and 70-300 layout should be visible wrapping over the top. Excitement fading :'(



It is probably racked all the way around to the short focal length setting and the last mark is top/center in that position and not visible from this particular viewing side.


----------



## danski0224 (Nov 6, 2014)

Availabilty, Q1, 2016


----------



## nwardrip (Nov 6, 2014)

Harv said:


> bluenoser1993 said:
> 
> 
> > Second look (who am I kidding), after several looks I noticed there are no focal length markings, which by reference to 70-200 and 70-300 layout should be visible wrapping over the top. Excitement fading :'(
> ...



Agreed. If you look at the comparison picture from ahsanford on page 4 of this thread, the top view of the 70-300 shows that the numbers go down the side of the lens that we do not see in this leaked 100-400 image (when zoomed all the way out).


----------



## Besisika (Nov 6, 2014)

Chaitanya said:


> I need a long lens for shooting shy lizards. And right now I am using a 400mm f/5.6 just for that purpose.


There is always something funny at CR. Among all other things on this planet, shy lizards actually the reason to buy a big white lens. Hmmm! That is dedication.
Where I grew up, they are not shy, they are fearful. They hide as fast as they can as soon as they spot a human.
Good luck with shy lizards, hope you post a link someday. I like insect macro.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 6, 2014)

jarrodeu said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Plus fluorite crystals that take over a year to grow.
> ...



My X-ray vision failed to see through the image online.  We'll see...the 70-300L does not, though.


----------



## hoodlum (Nov 6, 2014)

20Dave said:


> Just speaking for me (hobbyist bird and insect photography), if this lens has a minimum focusing distance that is relatively close to the 300 f/4 (which I don't own), then it would be a terrific lens for both birding and insect photography. If the MFD is far like the 400 f/5.6 (which I do own), then there's one less reason for me to swap out the 400. But, if the image quality is on par with the 400 and the IS is as good as I expect, then it is still a tempting upgrade for me.



I suspect it will have a low minimum focus distance but that would also involve significant focus breathing so the actual focal length at short distances will be much less than 400mm at the long end. This seems to be the norm with most tele zooms these days as they try to make them more compact.


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 6, 2014)

FTBPhotography said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > Assuming this real and no hoax it looks really interesting.
> ...


FTBPhotography, thanks for pointing that out.
But I did already look closely. Otherwise I would have written "*I'd love *" (compare to bolt above)
If my grammar was wrong in first place, sorry, but as no native speaker I try to do my best in avoiding failures and misunderstandings.
In other words: "I am really happy to see this friction ring again".


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 6, 2014)

Occams_Cat said:


> Funny, I've got both the F2.8 and F4 version of the 300mm and I can't see any difference in sharpness wide open. The bokeh is subjectively softer on the 2.8 but more than often I choose to carry the f4 version as it's images are so sharp and with the 5D3 and 1DX being so good in the higher ISO's, I'm happy to take the 1 stop hit.



Perhaps there's an issue with your copy of the 300/2.8L? Both the MkI and MkII are noticeably sharper than the 300/4L IS. 




Occams_Cat said:


> This new 100-400 has a lot to live up to. I have never encountered 1 copy of this lens over the last 10 years worth owning, they have all been soft at anything near the long end. Such a compromised lens. Hopefully, Canon can do something magical with this version.



My copy of the 100-400L was sharp at 400mm. Not quite as sharp as my 300/4L IS bare, but sharper than the 300/4L IS + 1.4x TC.


----------



## Besisika (Nov 6, 2014)

danski0224 said:


> Availabilty, Q1, 2016


I need it earlier than that so please predict something nicer! Who knows, maybe you are a real fortune teller.


----------



## bluenoser1993 (Nov 6, 2014)

nwardrip said:


> Harv said:
> 
> 
> > bluenoser1993 said:
> ...



Good to see some "the cup is half full" attitudes, I tend to go with "the cup is too big", but in this case I'm looking forward to some big glass.


----------



## lintoni (Nov 6, 2014)

Besisika said:


> danski0224 said:
> 
> 
> > Availabilty, Q1, 2016
> ...


It's arriving with the 46MP body. 
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=23524.0


----------



## Act444 (Nov 6, 2014)

Nice!

Another lens I've been wanting a while. Might trade in the 70-300 for this - or try and see if it's worth having both...


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 6, 2014)

cool, looks like a really fat 70-300L.


----------



## zim (Nov 6, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sweet! Looks like the length might be similar to the 70-200/4.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wasn't really considering my photographic requirements more how to keep them apart so wife doesn't see both in the same room at the same time ;D ;D ;D

That's a good point about the TC 
I do love the 70-300 when I'm on a 'two lens trip' though usually with a single wide prime

So one for airshows, sport and a bit of casual birding the other for general travel, holidays etc........ OK OK see I'm getting there!


----------



## AlanF (Nov 6, 2014)

I use the Tamron 150-600mm as a very decent lens for portability and the 300/2.8 + TCs more generally for best performance. A decent 600 will outperform a very good 400 for small subjects far away, but I would sacrifice the extra length of the Tamron for the much better portability of the 100-400 (and probably pair it with a 7D II) if it is better than the Mk 1. So. if it is good, I'll sell the Tammy and get the new 100-400. I wasn't one of the few lucky ones to have a sharp copy of the 100-400.


----------



## candc (Nov 6, 2014)

there have been some other "first image of lens" pictures that have been blurry like this one. is that some marketing thing from canon? seems to be a pattern. i am sure somebody already said " i hope the lens is sharper than the picture of it"


----------



## Besisika (Nov 7, 2014)

Besisika said:


> Chaitanya said:
> 
> 
> > I need a long lens for shooting shy lizards. And right now I am using a 400mm f/5.6 just for that purpose.
> ...


I just went on Flickr and see these shy lizards. 
Oh nice! 
Now I understand the need for white lens. Thanks for the tip.
Good luck!


----------



## Werz (Nov 7, 2014)

How likely do you think they'll do a "7D Mark II + 100-400" bundle (like the 24-70 first bundle) ?


----------



## Click (Nov 7, 2014)

Looks great. I want one also.


----------



## candc (Nov 7, 2014)

Werz said:


> How likely do you think they'll do a "7D Mark II + 100-400" bundle (like the 24-70 first bundle) ?



i would say 0-2% chance. the best would be "buy 7dii with kit lens" and receive $100-$200 discount on 100-400 if purchased at the same time.


----------



## docsmith (Nov 7, 2014)

I am trying to get my head wrapped around what appears to be the "zoom touch adjustment ring" on the image.

This is a bit out there, but maybe not impossible. What if this lens is both push-pull and twist-zoom? Could the forward ring be manual focus and the back ring be the twist zoom? But you could also push pull the lens?

Not a completely original idea, I saw a video with the 150-600S where they were using it as a push-pull and twist zoom. I wonder if this could be true here as well. Otherwise, what is the point of the tension ring?


----------



## JoeDavid (Nov 7, 2014)

AlanF said:


> I wasn't one of the few lucky ones to have a sharp copy of the 100-400.



I don't think there is such a thing. The existing 100-400 is an OK lens but not a great one. It's a good range but sharpness isn't one of its strong points. I've quit using mine altogether in favor of the 70-300/L IS. It won't take much for Canon to improve on the original quite a bit; i.e., sharper and better IS. I just wish they had at least made it an f4-5.6...


----------



## ehouli (Nov 7, 2014)

Might consider to replace my 400mm f5.6 L and have a good range when needing to stay light on the backpack


----------



## TeT (Nov 7, 2014)

I am curiously awaiting real world reviews of the tripod mount from ppl who commonly remove and reattach their mounts with some regularity.

John


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 7, 2014)

candc said:


> there have been some other "first image of lens" pictures that have been blurry like this one. is that some marketing thing from canon? seems to be a pattern. i am sure somebody already said " i hope the lens is sharper than the picture of it"



Digicame always gets these fuzzy leak pictures before an announcement. I'm surprised CR hasn't flagged this with a proper CR2 rating already. This, plus a spate of recent rumors, have many folks actually buying this rumor.

- A


----------



## Omar H (Nov 7, 2014)

Not drooling over it... not yet at least. So relieved I don't have the money for it! I'll keep my 100-400 until reviews and price match thinking about this lens. Anyways I've got other equipment I want (noticed I said want, not need) before replacing my current lens.

I'm still interested of course! Seems the endless rumours are finally coming to an end.

Regards,


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 7, 2014)

Next picture ... extended:
http://p.twpl.jp/show/orig/M4d18


----------



## Lee Jay (Nov 7, 2014)

As hypothesized above, it looks like it's capable of being operated as a twist zoom or a push pull.


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 7, 2014)

Don't think so ... it is probably just the new feature on the lens hood giving easier access to mounted (polarizer) filters. As mentioned in the earlier cr "specs rumor".
http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/11/another-ef-100-400-f4-5-5-6l-is-ii-mention/

"Lens hood is designed to make using polarizers easier"

I guess the guy is just turning the polarizer filter. 

Btw there don't seem to be focal length or distance markings on the right side of the lens either... Maybe a prototype?


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 7, 2014)

If the new pic is real i'd guess the filter to be 77mm not 82mm ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 7, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> As hypothesized above, it looks like it's capable of being operated as a twist zoom or a push pull.



Think not. Unlikely the design would require 'pushing/pulling' with the hood or the short region where the filter attaches if no hood was attached.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 7, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> Next picture ... extended:
> http://p.twpl.jp/show/orig/M4d18



Nice get!!! Where did you find that?

(relinking your post here)

This completely backs up the Digicame shot.

So we're looking at a CR3 for the lens *existing* and the picture being generally accurate, now we just need a date and a price.

Also: look at his left hand: Any chance that the _entire filter ring might turn if the hood is turned?_ This would be possible if the hood was non-petal-shaped (and Canon designs a rotating ring). What a killer feature that would be -- I always have to choose between the CPL or the hood on my 70-200 and I hate that decision.

- A


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 7, 2014)

Yep, could be. Most canon lenshoods for tele/zooms are non-petal shaped (exception 70-200ii) ... 100-400 (old) and 70-300 l are non-petal.
See pic some way down the page: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-300mm-f-4-5.6-IS-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx


If lens filter thread and hood both turn ... not sure, what/how canon is going to implement it without risking any (long-term) stability issues on the front of the lens ...


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 7, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> Next picture ... extended:
> http://p.twpl.jp/show/orig/M4d18


AvTvM, thanks for finding and sharing this pic.



ahsanford said:


> So we're looking at a CR3 for the lens *existing* and the picture being generally accurate, now we just need a date and a price.


Finally the unicorn steps out of the forest. ;D
So there seems to be 0% chance of a hoax.
Let's hope the price is not too far north :-\


----------



## mrsfotografie (Nov 7, 2014)

I quickly did a superimpose of the 70-300L over the 100-400LII. Size comparison is based on the size of the sealing gasket on the lens mount.

Looks like it won't fit 'standing up' in most lens bags, so the 70-300L still holds its value as a travel lens for that purpose.

I've attached the psd too if you'd like to play around some more with the image.


----------



## Occams_Cat (Nov 7, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Occams_Cat said:
> 
> 
> > Funny, I've got both the F2.8 and F4 version of the 300mm and I can't see any difference in sharpness wide open. The bokeh is subjectively softer on the 2.8 but more than often I choose to carry the f4 version as it's images are so sharp and with the 5D3 and 1DX being so good in the higher ISO's, I'm happy to take the 1 stop hit.
> ...



I think that I have (had - i dropped it, and just had fixation do a £500 repair!I'm yet to use it) a superb copy of the 300 f4. I agree with you over the 1.4TC use on the f4, but after many years of using a 1.4TC mk2 I decided to sell it since I found that I didn't like to use it on any of my L lenses as it degraded the image too much for me. I'd crop in a bit in post and still be able to easily produce 45MB+ TIFF files that the editor requests. Now I have a new 2.8 version i'll try one again. Sounds like you're the one who had the sharp copy of the 'classic' 100-400! 

Looking forward to seeing what improvements Canon have made with this MK2 version, there may still be a place in my travel Billy if it's 100% weather sealed & sharp at the long end.


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 7, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> I quickly did a superimpose of the 70-300L over the 100-400LII. Size comparison is based on the size of the sealing gasket on the lens mount.
> 
> Looks like it won't fit 'standing up' in most lens bags, so the 70-300L still holds its value as a travel lens for that purpose.
> 
> I've attached the psd too if you'd like to play around some more with the image.



hmmm ... this way it definitely looks like an 82mm filter thread. 

re. "length" ... my bag (thinktank retrospective 20) is limited to Camera body with attached 70-200 II. So 100-400 II might still fit.


----------



## mb66energy (Nov 7, 2014)

scyrene said:


> mb66energy said:
> 
> 
> > scyrene said:
> ...



Ad (1): I like scenes in deep forests where you have the play of light and shadows. The shadows are DEEP so I need these long exp. times to get the DOF with a telephoto lens.

Ad (2): That's what I meant with "replacing 70-200 4.0 and 400 5.6": Just having one compact lens which substitutes two lenses I usually carry with me is a great option - if the new 100-400 delivers the quality I like!
It will help me too in situations where I have the tripod NOT with me. 

Ad (3): I now shoot with APS-C exclusively - a matter of cost/availability of lenses etc. ISO 200 or a maximum of ISO 800 delivers the quality I want with the equipment I have: 40D / 600D / EOS M .
For bird in Flight ISO 800 - 1600 are fine because freezing the motion adds more detail compared to the detail loss by increased noise/NR - but: The EOS 40D AF is good but 1Dx or 7Dii might be a little bit better - so I haven't tried this field of photography a lot ...

Michael


----------



## Plainsman (Nov 7, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> I quickly did a superimpose of the 70-300L over the 100-400LII. Size comparison is based on the size of the sealing gasket on the lens mount.
> 
> Looks like it won't fit 'standing up' in most lens bags, so the 70-300L still holds its value as a travel lens for that purpose.
> 
> I've attached the psd too if you'd like to play around some more with the image.




..unlike the 70-300 no focal length markings on the "new" 100-400 photo...rather odd.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Nov 7, 2014)

Plainsman said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > I quickly did a superimpose of the 70-300L over the 100-400LII. Size comparison is based on the size of the sealing gasket on the lens mount.
> ...



That's not so strange. The 70-300 is top view, the 100-400 is side view.


----------



## AUGS (Nov 7, 2014)

So it is true!
Interesting to see the "EOS 7D Mark II" text in the top right corner of the new (second) image.


----------



## timcz (Nov 7, 2014)

Im suspecting a pretty substantial price increase from version 1 as well....


----------



## docsmith (Nov 7, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> I quickly did a superimpose of the 70-300L over the 100-400LII. Size comparison is based on the size of the sealing gasket on the lens mount.
> 
> Looks like it won't fit 'standing up' in most lens bags, so the 70-300L still holds its value as a travel lens for that purpose.
> 
> I've attached the psd too if you'd like to play around some more with the image.



The current 100-400L is only 1.8" longer and 0.1" wider than the 70-300 L. This comparison makes me think the II is about the same size. Maybe a bit wider. 

And I agree, I think the new photo showing it extended takes away the idea it is push pull. Remove the lens hood and that looks very similar to the current 70-300L.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 7, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> Also: look at his left hand: Any chance that the _entire filter ring might turn if the hood is turned?_ This would be possible if the hood was non-petal-shaped (and Canon designs a rotating ring). What a killer feature that would be -- I always have to choose between the CPL or the hood on my 70-200 and I hate that decision.



I think it would be a rather bad idea, unless it was designed so the filter ring would rotate *only* with the hood mounted. Else, attaching and removing filters would be a real PITA if the lens threads rotated freely. Such a design would also preclude use of a variable ND filter with the hood mounted (personally, I was able to reach inside the current 100-400 and turn a CPL with a fingertip). 

The 'sliding window' idea seems better from both a practical and an engineering standpoint.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 7, 2014)

docsmith said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > I quickly did a superimpose of the 70-300L over the 100-400LII. Size comparison is based on the size of the sealing gasket on the lens mount.
> ...



The 70-200/4L IS is ~1" longer than the 70-300L, but that 1" precludes it fitting vertically in my lens bags (preferable as horizontal takes two 'slots'), while the 70-300L does fit vertically. I suspect the new 100-400 won't be more than an inch shorter than the current one, probably closer to 0.5" shorter. I'd worry that if they designed it much shorter, close to 70-300L size, that design would have the rear element too close to the mount at the short end of the zoom range to allow Canon TC compatibility. I hope they wouldn't make the 100-400 II not take TCs, particularly with f/8 AF now in the 7DII (but I wouldn't rule out the possibility, Canon being Canon and all...).


----------



## hoodlum (Nov 7, 2014)

Now we have the specs. The only thing missing is weight and dimensions.

http://digicame-info.com/2014/11/ef100-400mm-f45-56l-is-ii-usm-1.html

- One fluorite lens, the one Super UD glass to use 
- For the first time adopted a new development of the Air Sphere coating (ASC) 
- IS unit effect of a shutter speed four stages 
- Equipped with the IS mode 3 for sport shooting 
- A minimum focusing distance of 0.98m 
- Maximum magnification of 0.31 times 
- The diaphragm blades nine circular aperture 
- AF motor the ring-type USM 
- Rotate zoom 
- Zoom touch adjustment ring 
- Detachable tripod mount 
- Dust and water structure 
- Fluorine coating


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 7, 2014)

hoodlum said:


> Now we have the specs. The only thing missing is weight and dimensions.
> 
> http://digicame-info.com/2014/11/ef100-400mm-f45-56l-is-ii-usm-1.html
> 
> ...


Thanks for sharing and translating. Sounds impressive  and therefore expensive 
MFD of 0.98m would be 0.82m better than V1 and fitting to max.mag. of 0.31 (to 0.20).
That would be very impressive.


----------



## Meatcurry (Nov 7, 2014)

Wow! Looking forward to the reviews and possibly one day owning one as I'm selling my mark 1 soon, anybody care to speculate on why we can't see the focal length indication marks in either picture? I wonder if the marks are on the locking ring and only line up when unlocked? Also intrigued by the possible filter/hood rotating solution. 



EOS 70D, EF 100-400,EFS 15-85,EFS 10-22,EF 50(f1.8)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 7, 2014)

A 1 m MFD and 0.31x mag is awesome!


----------



## bcflood (Nov 7, 2014)

I will be glad when this White Whale finally gets released so that Canon can work on some lenses I might actually be able to afford ;D


----------



## viggen61 (Nov 7, 2014)

Sign. Me. Up.

Focal length markings: If the first photo we saw is right, then the ring between the zoom and focus rings may be a zoom lock in the manner of the current 100-400. Since that ring rotates against the focus ring, has no fixed position, so you could not put markings on that ring. My thought is the markings are on the top of the extending barrel, just like the current 100-400.

Push-pull vs. twist: Judging by the textures on the rubber rings, the new lens is definitely a twist zoom. The push/pull zooms have texture in the rubber that helps one push or pull, where the new lens has texture that helps in twisting.

The hood in the second photo definitely looks interesting. I bought a BGN hood cheap from KEH a while back, and someday, I was going to get around to cutting a slot in the bottom section so I could turn the CPL easily. I figure it being on the bottom, it wouldn't be that much of a problem for glare, and I could always cover it with tape...


Can't wait!


----------



## Besisika (Nov 7, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> A 1 m MFD and 0.31x mag is awesome!


I have no need for the 300mm f4 anymore if that is true (MFD 1.50m, mag. 0.24x).
Hmmm, sounds too good to be true, but who knows?
If true, I wouldn't be surprise if price is high.


----------



## dolina (Nov 7, 2014)

It will sell for around $2,700.


----------



## JonAustin (Nov 7, 2014)

Besisika said:


> Hmmm, sounds too good to be true, but who knows?
> If true, I wouldn't be surprise if price is high.



I'm more concerned about the specs than the price ... the price will fluctuate (mostly drop) over time, but the specs are / will be locked in "forever."

If the price at launch is too high, wait until the "new & shiny" premium goes away ... or for a rebate ... or for a refurb ... or for it to hit the used market.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 7, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> A 1 m MFD and 0.31x mag is awesome!



Concur. That's a nice upgrade (if true). Most lenses in these FL run around 0.2x.

- A


----------



## NancyP (Nov 7, 2014)

I was not going to be interested in this, being very fond of my 400 f/5.6L, but I have to say, I am intrigued.


----------



## bluenoser1993 (Nov 7, 2014)

viggen61 said:


> Focal length markings: If the first photo we saw is right, then the ring between the zoom and focus rings may be a zoom lock in the manner of the current 100-400. Since that ring rotates against the focus ring, has no fixed position, so you could not put markings on that ring. My thought is the markings are on the top of the extending barrel, just like the current 100-400.



Good point about the rotating locking ring, and the markings may well end up on the top in production models, but the angle of the second picture is such that it should be just slightly visible. Maybe down the other side of the barrel as that would work with the right hand operation of DSLRs?


----------



## pknight (Nov 7, 2014)

AlanF said:


> I use the Tamron 150-600mm as a very decent lens for portability and the 300/2.8 + TCs more generally for best performance. A decent 600 will outperform a very good 400 for small subjects far away, but I would sacrifice the extra length of the Tamron for the much better portability of the 100-400 (and probably pair it with a 7D II) if it is better than the Mk 1. So. if it is good, I'll sell the Tammy and get the new 100-400. I wasn't one of the few lucky ones to have a sharp copy of the 100-400.



I just today sold my 100-400, after having the Tamron 150-600 for several months and comparing the two. I have no doubt that the new 100-400 will probably focus faster than the Tammy does, and it is likely to be sharper at pixel-peeping magnification. I, for one, am willing to sacrifice a bit of AF speed and wide-open sharpness I can only see at 100% (when I can see it at all) for having 600mm native focal length, especially when the new 100-400 will certainly cost more than twice as much as I paid for the Tamron. After having used the 100-400 for years, and the Tamron for months, I value the reach over the other considerations for what I do (many small subjects, far away).

I suspect that when the Sigma 150-600 Sport shows up, it could rival the new 100-400 in most, if not all, criteria. The question will be whether the extra weight of that lens is compensated for by the additional length and cost savings. 

But, I am sure that the 100-400 II will indeed be a very good lens. If it butters your bread, I am happy for you.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 7, 2014)

pknight said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > I use the Tamron 150-600mm as a very decent lens for portability and the 300/2.8 + TCs more generally for best performance. A decent 600 will outperform a very good 400 for small subjects far away, but I would sacrifice the extra length of the Tamron for the much better portability of the 100-400 (and probably pair it with a 7D II) if it is better than the Mk 1. So. if it is good, I'll sell the Tammy and get the new 100-400. I wasn't one of the few lucky ones to have a sharp copy of the 100-400.
> ...



Agree on what you said. I imagine that the preference of the 3rd party 150-600s vs. the 1st party 100-400 II will be similar to that of comparing the Canon 24-105 to the various Canon 24-70s: some folks will prioritize sharpness and others will prioritize reach. Get what makes you happy.

- A


----------



## Lee Jay (Nov 7, 2014)

I'd be interested to see a comparison when these are out.

100-400L II at 400mm and f/5.6 upresed 50% compared to Tamron 150-600 at 600mm and f/6.3.
100-400L II + 1.4x TC III at 560mm and f/8 compared to Tamron 150-600 at 600mm and f/8.

My prediction as that both would be a near tie, except the Canon will have less CA and faster focusing on the first test.


----------



## 2n10 (Nov 7, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> A 1 m MFD and 0.31x mag is awesome!



That is what I thought when I saw those figures. WOW!


----------



## mrsfotografie (Nov 7, 2014)

bluenoser1993 said:


> viggen61 said:
> 
> 
> > Focal length markings: If the first photo we saw is right, then the ring between the zoom and focus rings may be a zoom lock in the manner of the current 100-400. Since that ring rotates against the focus ring, has no fixed position, so you could not put markings on that ring. My thought is the markings are on the top of the extending barrel, just like the current 100-400.
> ...



I noticed that, too. Interesting that they retained the lock ring. That will allow us to keep shooting with it at a fixed focal length position like could be done with the MkI if we'd want to.


----------



## Etienne (Nov 7, 2014)

Still waiting for the most important spec ...

... the $ spec


----------



## mrsfotografie (Nov 7, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> docsmith said:
> 
> 
> > mrsfotografie said:
> ...



Yes, I was 'worried' for a minute that my use of the 70-300L as a travel tele-lens would be short lived, but alas it will stay in my collection. 

Not that I truly believed the 100-400 could achieve the same level of compactness - the 70-300L is a bit of a squeeze in my Lowepro Fastpack 250. 

Now I have to make up my mind if I want to go for the new 100-400 + 7DMKII or the 400DO II for my days at the racetrack. Quite possibly the latter (and retain the 100-400 MkI for its evil push-pull fast zoom capability). In that case I hope the 400DO II performs well with the 1.4TC II.


----------



## dadgummit (Nov 7, 2014)

Etienne said:


> Still waiting for the most important spec ...
> 
> ... the $ spec



I hope you are sitting down!! Just kidding, I am expecting a $3000 MSRP settling to a street price of about $25-2700 with discounts and rebates.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 7, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> It's about time. Now is when I'd flip the version 1 to get the most $$$$ for it to prep for the version 2.



Actually now is when you hold onto the 1 so that when people see the $8000 price of the 2 and that the 1 is no longer being made they become willing to pay 50% more than current used prices (and more than the 1 sells for new now)! ;D

At least that is what happened when it came to the Mark II super-tele and a couple other recent lenses .

Then again the 16-35 f/4 IS came in not quite so crazy high as expected and that was the most recent release of all.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 7, 2014)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> Judging by the released image, the unicorn exists and is beautiful. It also seems very solid and compact. It was a long wait.



hah, ironic though that you show a picture not having any unicorns in it! I guess what they say is true, only one unicorn can exist at any given time and now that the 100-400 II is here, all photos of unicorns got transformed into photos of pegasuseseseses (or is the proper plural term pegi? i guess strictly speaking there is only supposed to be one, Pegasus himself, so there actually should be no need for a plural).


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 7, 2014)

Lenscracker said:


> Why did the first picture of this lens have to be out of focus?



because it was taken with the 100-400 II ;D ;D ;D

(or since it's actually in focus, but just a tiny pic that got scaled up and thus looks blurry, maybe it was taken from the next 1/2 MP 5D4, they had to be different from Nikon, so instead of bumping to 36MP, they decided to go for some old school nostalgia and make it 1/2 MP ;D)


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 7, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > you're really not comparing this to the 200-400/4 are you?
> ...



I doubt that. The 200-400 delivers as well as Mark I Super-tele, not even the 70-300L or 70-200 f/4 IS or 70-200 2.8 II do that.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 7, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Khalai said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



300 2.8 IS + 1.4x TC is at least as good as a bare 300 f/4


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 7, 2014)

2n10 said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Khalai said:
> ...



And that is even more true for fluorite elements.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 7, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> 2n10 said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



Yeah the Mark II 300 2.8 price is a bit nasty. It used to be that you went with Canon if you were not the super rich or full-time paid pro requiring that lens since the $3600-3800 made it vicious but manageable for some while the Nikons at like $5500-6300 were just out of reach of even most of the few. Now Canon is even above that price range so the upper end avg shooter is really in a spot now when it comes to super-tele. Canon no longer has an entry point.

That said, the Mark II, if I recall correctly, uses TWO giant fluorite elements and both are right up near the front.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 7, 2014)

jarrodeu said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Plus fluorite crystals that take over a year to grow.
> ...



It says that it has one fluorite plus one Super UD (equal in quality to about 0.85 of a fluorite perhaps, probably more than that factor less expensive to produce though).


----------



## gpolly (Nov 7, 2014)

If it is more than 2K I will go 70-200Mk2 with 1.4 or 2x extenders. If it is around 3k...I would just buy a 300. 2.8 and use a 1.4 if needed.

I rented a new 300 2.8 from lens rental for my HI trip this past spring....did not want to return it. amazing lens...sharp as a tack. much more versatile than I thought it would be.

I just do not expect this lens to be in the sharpness range of the 70-200 2.8 or 300 2.8 to be asking a premium price for it. I might be surprised.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 7, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> jarrodeu said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



I guess the leak has been updated since you guys posted, but it states one fluorite and one Super UD element.

FOr ref, the 100-400 and 100-300L both had one fluorite.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 7, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> I quickly did a superimpose of the 70-300L over the 100-400LII. Size comparison is based on the size of the sealing gasket on the lens mount.
> 
> Looks like it won't fit 'standing up' in most lens bags, so the 70-300L still holds its value as a travel lens for that purpose.
> 
> I've attached the psd too if you'd like to play around some more with the image.



Just like the old days, the 100-300L and 100-400L were similar and now we get the similar 70-300L and 100-400 II designs.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 7, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> A 1 m MFD and 0.31x mag is awesome!



That is pretty cool.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 7, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> I'd be interested to see a comparison when these are out.
> 
> 100-400L II at 400mm and f/5.6 upresed 50% compared to Tamron 150-600 at 600mm and f/6.3.
> 100-400L II + 1.4x TC III at 560mm and f/8 compared to Tamron 150-600 at 600mm and f/8.
> ...



my prediction is that the first comparison would put the tamron far ahead for total detail, 200mm is an insane amount to make up for, the tamron would have to pale even compared to a coke bottle for that to be true

now in the second case maybe it would be about a tie???? who knows or even better?


----------



## PureClassA (Nov 7, 2014)

Still thinkin some folks are way over shooting on price here. And someone else just added evidence regarding the suspicions pre-release of the 16-35 f4. $1200 steal in my opinion. 7D2, same thing. Everyone was thinkin $2500, and it came at $1799. I'm still saying this will be closer to $2k. Seems most everyone here feels the Sig or Tammy 150-600 is a much better value than a $3k 100-400. The current model is being gobbled up at $1699, I just don't think they would so radically abandon an already well-established price range. If this comes out at $3k, I'll buy the SIg Sport instead, and I think a not-so-insignificant amount of others will follow suit. Canon didn't price the 7D2 out of the target market. They won't do that to this lens either. But I will be happy admit I'm wrong if it turns out I am ;D


----------



## JonAustin (Nov 7, 2014)

gpolly said:


> If it is more than 2K I will go 70-200Mk2 with 1.4 or 2x extenders...
> 
> I just do not expect this lens to be in the sharpness range of the 70-200 2.8 or 300 2.8 to be asking a premium price for it. I might be surprised.



I consider myself squarely in the market for this lens. I've never been a big fan of extenders (I've only owned a 1.4x TC II, which I sold this summer), and I expect the 100-400 II to be smaller and lighter than the 70-200 II + 2x TC III, so it'll be interesting to see how these compare performance-wise, since I already have a 70-200 II.


----------



## Omni Images (Nov 7, 2014)

New specs are out.
I really want this lens now ... if only for the min focus distance .. 0.98m wow !
Min focus has been the main reason for not buying the 400F5.6L prime @3.5m ... and leaning towards the 300F4 @ 1.5m.
I've been making do with the 70-200F2.8is for ages with mfd of 1.4m ... but 0.98m .. sweet !
I'm sure the price will be fine ... I'm over trying to 400 using a 2x .. just not up to scratch image quality wise and slow auto focus.
Now just need to see some image reviews before I finally commit, but I'm sure it'll be better than version 1 .. so I'm sure it'll be a winner.


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 7, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Lenscracker said:
> 
> 
> > Why did the first picture of this lens have to be out of focus?
> ...


I was very tempted to answer to the OP "because it was below MFD of the 100-400 II".
But that would have made me looking very stupid if this MFD of 1 m would come true


----------



## daniela (Nov 7, 2014)

PureClassA said:


> Still thinkin some folks are way over shooting on price here. And someone else just added evidence regarding the suspicions pre-release of the 16-35 f4. $1200 steal in my opinion. 7D2, same thing. Everyone was thinkin $2500, and it came at $1799. I'm still saying this will be closer to $2k. Seems most everyone here feels the Sig or Tammy 150-600 is a much better value than a $3k 100-400. The current model is being gobbled up at $1699, I just don't think they would so radically abandon an already well-established price range. If this comes out at $3k, I'll buy the SIg Sport instead, and I think a not-so-insignificant amount of others will follow suit. Canon didn't price the 7D2 out of the target market. They won't do that to this lens either. But I will be happy admit I'm wrong if it turns out I am ;D



Hello PureClassA!

You are right, many of us were expecting the 7D2 at about 2500€/$. This was a big surprise (a positive one for me). My contacts from Japan are irritated, why they all were wrong. The inner circle of the rumor board (they call themself as insiders (maybe they are working for Canon)), were a little bit shocked. There were many scenarios discussed. One of this is, that they were all foolished by an "insider" who made an joke. Another scenario was, that an "Canon-Foe" positioned an faked rumor. Another one, that Canon decided to cut off features from the 7D2, that were firstly contained in the Cam (e.g. Wifi, or an higher resolution sensor.). This last scenarion would made have sense, if Canon did an market analysis and realised, that an 2.5k Cam would not be accepted by the mass of possible customers. So, cutting off features would make sense.

And now, rurmors from Japan say, that this lens will be cheaper than first rumored. Maybe, the announcements of 2 possible competitors (Sigma, Tamron), changed their market strategy too and they will announce it cheaper than calculated.

We will see in some days.


----------



## heptagon (Nov 7, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > I'd be interested to see a comparison when these are out.
> ...



Results are mixed, see for yourself:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=113&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=10&API=2&LensComp=929&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=2

The Tamron loses a lot of quality from 500mm to 600mm.


----------



## fish_shooter (Nov 8, 2014)

I will be curious as to how much the magnification varies at a fixed close focus distance say 1m. Will the ratio be 4:1 when zooming from 400 to 100mm?


----------



## dufflover (Nov 8, 2014)

Nice look specs and size too. Like others I have little doubts the image quality will impress; just comes down to Canon typical pricing and if they think this lens is special (esp with some of these design features) I can imagine them charging beyond the 70-200 II price initially.

The even shorter retracted length is nice. On the flipside all the differences (as in not just IQ like the 70-200 II) mean there is prospect I will upgrade to it in lieu of say that Sigma 150-600 S I was tempted to buy (not saying they are interchangeable, just talking about money wise)


----------



## JonAustin (Nov 8, 2014)

dufflover said:


> ... On the flipside all the differences (as in not just IQ like the 70-200 II) mean there is prospect I will upgrade to it in lieu of say that Sigma 150-600 S I was tempted to buy (not saying they are interchangeable, just talking about money wise)



I'm not a third-party lens guy, but I took a look at the specs and videos of the Sport 150-600 on Sigma's website, and there's no denying that their working hard to produce quality, well-featured and price-competitive lenses. Good for them, and if they're successful (as I hope they are) good for us all.


----------



## iowapipe (Nov 8, 2014)

heptagon said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



Though, as has been mentioned, the center sharpness remains and for 'most' instances with this lens, the point of interest will be reasonably centered and not offset overly far. As always, a compromise, though in this case one that 'generally' will work. It is by far not a perfect tele, but for the price it is more-or-less astounding.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 8, 2014)

PureClassA said:


> I just look at the 100-400 now that is ages old and $1600. While of course there will be a new premium on the new version....I'm not seeing Canon go up 40% - 100%. Original 7D $1500. New 7D2 $1800. 20% premium. So I'm guessing $1999-$2200 (high side being where the 70-200 is now) I think making these same priced where one gets you constant aperture while the other gets you longer focal range is a good trade.


 
I suspect your prices are wishful thinking.

Take a look at prices for the 1+ year old Nikon 80-400mm lens, and then add $300.

http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-80-400mm-4-5-5-6G-NIKKOR-Digital/dp/B00BOZ1Y46/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1415419938&sr=8-1&keywords=nikon+80-400mm


----------



## 9VIII (Nov 8, 2014)

.31x maximum magnification makes this an almost instantaneous "must have" for me.

Living with .12MM on the 400f5.6 is a bit of a pain, getting three times closer will be great for small birds.

If it actually gives good quality at minimum focus distance, this lens will replace a lot of other potential lenses.


----------



## dufflover (Nov 8, 2014)

Have to keep in mind this lens potentially could have serious focus breathing at MFD though, or not. Just have to wait and see ...


----------



## sagittariansrock (Nov 8, 2014)

I hope the compactness doesn't come at the expense of incompatibility with TCs.


----------



## xps (Nov 8, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > I just look at the 100-400 now that is ages old and $1600. While of course there will be a new premium on the new version....I'm not seeing Canon go up 40% - 100%. Original 7D $1500. New 7D2 $1800. 20% premium. So I'm guessing $1999-$2200 (high side being where the 70-200 is now) I think making these same priced where one gets you constant aperture while the other gets you longer focal range is a good trade.
> ...



I hope, you will be wrong. 2900€ for this lens would be to much. I hope to see it around 2000€.
The new Sigma Sport is much heavier, but its 600mm @ 6.3 is an serious opponent. You get 20mm more focal lenght with an better aperture and you can use theoretically all your AF points. So, why buy an 400mm lens, where you need to have to fetch an extender too and then use just your F8 capable center AF point (maybe some more) and your lens is 800€ more expensive than the Sigma?


----------



## xps (Nov 8, 2014)

dufflover said:


> Have to keep in mind this lens potentially could have *serious focus breathing at MFD though*, or not. Just have to wait and see ...



Can you explain, please??


----------



## weixing (Nov 8, 2014)

Hi,
Hope the "Zoom touch adjustment ring" is a tension ring that can use to lock the lens at any focal length... If that so and the lens is very sharp, I might consider sell both my EF 400mm 5.6L and Tarmon 150-600mm to get this one.

Have a nice day.


----------



## Plainsman (Nov 8, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > I just look at the 100-400 now that is ages old and $1600. While of course there will be a new premium on the new version....I'm not seeing Canon go up 40% - 100%. Original 7D $1500. New 7D2 $1800. 20% premium. So I'm guessing $1999-$2200 (high side being where the 70-200 is now) I think making these same priced where one gets you constant aperture while the other gets you longer focal range is a good trade.
> ...



Your figuring would be correct a few years ago but now we have the Tamron 160-600 (which BTW is very good up to 500mm) and two Sigmas arriving before the Canon.

No, Canon will have to factor down their pricing expectations on this one for sales to get some early traction.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 8, 2014)

Plainsman said:


> Your figuring would be correct a few years ago but now we have the Tamron 160-600 (which BTW is very good up to 500mm) and two Sigmas arriving before the Canon.
> 
> No, Canon will have to factor down their pricing expectations on this one for sales to get some early traction.



That would explain why Nikon dropped the price on their 80-400. Except they didn't.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Nov 8, 2014)

I want it NOW.
Just I wish the maximum aperture at the short distance would be f/4 instead of f/4.5. I hope this one focus faster than the V1.


----------



## fish_shooter (Nov 8, 2014)

Using the calculator found on this page: http://www.mhohner.de/formulas.php
I found that focal lengths of 176 to 178mm focus at 0.31 magnification when focused at a distance of 0.98m.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 8, 2014)

heptagon said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



1. that's comparing the current 100-400L not the new one, which will likely be noticeably sharper at 400mm (although it remains to be seen of course)

2. often enough TDP has not matched my own results (which more often, if not always, match what photozone.de or lens rentals gets)


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 8, 2014)

dufflover said:


> Have to keep in mind this lens potentially could have serious focus breathing at MFD though, or not. Just have to wait and see ...



At the end of the day though it apparently rates .31x mag at MFD while the 400 f/5.6 rates .12x mag at MFD so even if it breathes it still works out way better.

The 70-300L breathes a ton, by MFD the 300mm rates as 200mm (which is why it ends up with no better mag at MFD than the 70-200 f/4 IS despite the close MFD distance it has).


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 8, 2014)

fish_shooter said:


> Using the calculator found on this page: http://www.mhohner.de/formulas.php
> I found that focal lengths of 176 to 178mm focus at 0.31 magnification when focused at a distance of 0.98m.



Wow that it is some extreme focus breathing, sounds like it goes as crazy as the 70-300L. But as mentioned, at the end of the day you get .31 vs .12 from the 400L.

I wonder how bad the breathing is at decently beyond MFD but not all that far distances though for small birds, if it acts like 250-300mm instead of 400mm that could be a bit rough.


----------



## PureClassA (Nov 9, 2014)

Soooooo now that the official pricing is out at $2199 (which I called at $1999-2200 and got a little good natured ribbing for) .... do any of my fellow shooters and respected friends on here wish some salt with their crow : $3000 my butt.


----------



## dufflover (Nov 10, 2014)

Probably will be for us with the Australia-tax lol


----------

