Rumor: EF 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS

[Tony Printezis]

Hi all,


I hope you are enjoying your holidays.


Canon Rumors is reporting that someone who was apparently involved in testing the 100-400 mk II e-mailed them about it:


http://www.canonrumors.com/2008/12/ef-100-400-f4-56l-is-cr2/ ("http://www.canonrumors.com/2008/12/ef-100-400-f4-56l-is-cr2/)


The summary:

traditional zoom ring
latest (4-stop) IS
f4 instead of f4.5 on the wide end
weather sealed
announcement Feb 2009
sharp



Sounds real sweet.


Tony

[Bryan Carnathan]

That would be very sweet.Rumors are fun, but unfortunately, it seems that most do not come true. Apparently some people get excitement out of gaming the system. I think the people at CanonRumors.comare legit (don't want to discredit them), but as it is a rumors site, theyreport information they receive. And their "CR2" rating is a low confidence level.


I like the current 100-400 L a lot - and a better 100-400 L would be - well - even better!

[Tony Printezis]

Hi Bryan,



Rumors are fun, but unfortunately, it seems that most do not come true.


Of course! But, this one doesn't sound totally unreasonable to me. It's consistent with other rumors I've seen on the net about a potential 100-400 replacement, with the only new info being the Feb 2009 date. Anyway, we'll know in a couple of months. [:)]


Tony

[Bryan Carnathan]

I agree. It is a long-wished-for upgrade. With a (rumored) Feb availability date, the lens would likely be included in the (typically) January announcement.

[Jeff]

It will be fun to see what is announced in early 2009. There are many things a lot of us are waiting to hear and see :)

[adam]

If that were true, it might convince me to abandon my beloved Sigma 100-300 f/4...


But I won't get my hopes up :)

[Dan Pinder]

If so, I might buy one. Had a great time with a rented 100-400 for 2 weeks recently. It was very sharp but couldn't initiate focus at 400mm—you had to back it down in the 300s before it would focus. Even better would be a 200-400 f/4!


100-400:


http://pindy.smugmug.com/photos/443822400_UTFBJ-L.jpg

[aphanta]

Great news if the rumor becomes reality. It is too bad that this lens isn't a constant f/4 but then again I wouldn't want(can't afford) to pay > $3000 for it either.

[adam]

Great news if the rumor becomes reality. It is too bad that this lens isn't a constant f/4 but then again I wouldn't want(can't afford) to pay > $3000 for it either.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





It wouldn't be hand-holdable either...Nikon's 200-400 f/4 weighs over 7 lbs...one of the best features of the 100-400 is its size.

[Dan Pinder]

A nicer 100-400 would be a must buy.

[HiFiGuy1]

So would a 24-105 plus one of these 100-400s be pretty much all the lenses a fella would ever need? I was thinking of a 70-200 2.8 IS and a 24-105, but I'm open to alternate ideas.

[aphanta]

I think the 24-70 would be a better match with the 70-200 2.8IS as
their focal lengths don't overlap. The 24-105 and 100-400 complement
each other very well. But with that said, any combination will work as
it comes down to what you need and what you shoot

[Tony Printezis]

So would a 24-105 plus one of these 100-400s be pretty much all the lenses a fella would ever need? I was thinking of a 70-200 2.8 IS and a 24-105, but I'm open to alternate ideas.


Well, the answer depends on many many things!


What body do you use? If it's a full frame one, then 24mm might be wide enough on the wide end. I personally like to go wider, so something like the 17-40 or the 16-35 would be a nice addition to that kit.


On a 1.6x crop body, 24mm is definitely not wide enough (IMHO at least). I'd recommend the 10-22 for the ultra-wide focal lengths. Of course, it would also depend on whether you like to go really wide (it's real fun and allows for a lot of creativity; I'm personally getting addicted).


Another consideration is of course the speed of the lens; do you really need 2.8? Or you'd be happy with a slower option? If you're looking at the 70-200 f2.8 L IS, you should also consider the f4 L IS too. Apart from being cheaper, it's also smaller, weighs half what the f2.8 version does (i.e., your back will love you!), has better IS, and it's consider to be slightly sharper too.


My two cents,


Tony

[Tony Printezis]

I think the 24-70 would be a better match with the 70-200 2.8IS as
their focal lengths don't overlap.


The 24-70 woud compliment the 70-200 2.8 IS better given that it's a f2.8 so the two would make a great low light combo. But, I don't think overlapping focal lengths are such a big issue. If anything else it's an advantage, given that you might be able to take a shot without having to change the lens, which is less hassle, minimizes dust spots, etc.


Tony

[chris medico]

It would make for a very nice lens.


I have the current version of this lens and I find it very useful. I
would welcome the newer IS but I'm happy with it otherwise. Its not as
sharp as my 70-200F4L but its plenty sharp enough when you need the
extra reach.


Here is a shot I took recently with the 100-400.


http://flickr.com/photos/dieseladdict/3103129145/


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3196/3103129145_8799b30a7b_b.jpg

[Pascal Bleuler]

More than a new 100-400 I'd prefer to see a 200-400 F2.8. But i guess it's never gonna happen. Best I can imagine is a 200-400 F4 and still. It would be awsome. Then add it a 14-24 F2.8 and you would have it all form 14 to 400 opend at 2.8. Sometimes I envy my friends and their Nikon SLRs. Sometimes...

[dancam]

Personally I've been very happy with the 100-400. I have it matched to the 24-105 and 10-22 on a 40D. I actually like the push-pull zoom design, I know it's not for every one. However, I feel with a push/pull you can zoom faster and easier on a subject. As far as IQ goes, this lens is awesome! Images are sharp and colors are great. Just don't use teleconverters. Focusing is fast and accurate. The changes I would like to see are the newer IS. My 100-400 jumps the image if you engage/dissengage the AF on a moving subject. Not a big deal, but its there. The other change I would be interested in is possibly a longer FL. Like the 200-500 Tamron. A larger apperature and weather sealing are always welcome, so they would be a nice addition but, not enough for me to switch to the newer design. I'm sure the new lens will be amazing, I'll be intereted in seeing what happens.

[Benjamin]

I agree with people who're mentioning the 200-400 lens. The current 100-400 is good enough; it's sweet if it will get any better but before that I will be more happy to see something like a 200-400 comes along -- the 200-400 will be a new lens and it will rival the Nikon.


For most people who has a 70-200 lens (me included), the 100-400 will become attractive only when it goes beyond 200mm. I'm not the one to use 200-400mm that frequently, so I found a 70-200/2.8 +2x will save a lot of money and weight.


Canon, stop redo your homework which has already been marked A. a 200-400 lens will make more sense to have in Canon's lineup than a updated 100-400 lens!

[mike]

<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"]
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"]<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;"]I was not certain the best place to post this message so here goes. If anyone feels there is a better place on this site please let me know and I will post it there also.<o:p></o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"]<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;"]<o:p></o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"]<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;"]After too much reading about the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 IS USM lens I finally purchased the lens. I did obtain some valued opinions from several experienced people that own this lens and they all indicated it was a very good and solid performing lens. At this site I am very thankful to <st1:city w:st="on"]<st1:place w:st="on"]Bryan</st1:place></st1:city> his insights. <o:p></o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"]<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;"]<o:p></o:p>
<font face="Times New Roman" size="3"]
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"]<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA;"]This is my first L lens and after owning it for three days I am extremely pleased with its picture quality (I also have a Canon 50D). The contrast and details in my pictures are wonderful and the sharpness (which appears to be a main concern of this lens) appears great. Now I am an amateur so what is sharp to me may not be to others so after reading so much about the sharpness I was concerned. I performed the lens testing suggested at <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"]http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/testing_lenses.html ("http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/testing_lenses.html), thank you Bob Aktins.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] The weather condition were not optimal (slight breeze and 10 degrees) but it was a clear sunny day. After cropping my test to 100% my images taken at 400 mm f/8 were still resolved at 3.2 lp/mm. It is my understanding this is very good but most importantly my images taken with this lens look great to me. My suggestions to anyone that might have concerns about a lens they own read the article and perform the tests. Any thoughts are appreciated
</font>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"]

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"]