Looks like the 100-400 II is finally real.
http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/11/i...-5-5-6l-is-ii/
Printable View
Looks like the 100-400 II is finally real.
http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/11/i...-5-5-6l-is-ii/
Yum yum... Anyone want to buy my 70-300L ;-)
Let's see $100/month in the savings and yes I might be able to put in a pre-order to pay cash when it comes out say 20?? :)
Nice lens, especially the 0.31x mag at the 1 m MFD.
I got the 70-300L for it's more compact size for travel. The 100-400 II is longer than the current one, I have no plans to sell the 70-300L. Not sure if I'll buy the 100-400 II...I stopped using mine and recently sold it (I use the 70-300 for travel and family outings, and the 600 II when I need reach). I might be tempted if the 100-400 II takes a 1.4x with only a very minor IQ hit (assuming it takes TCs at all).
It's very nice, but I'll keep my 70-300L and buy the new Sigma 150-600 Sport. I love the compact size of the 70-300L and don't want to give it up, but if I didn't own one, this new offering from Canon would be on my Christmas wish list.
It all comes down to IQ whether it will a worthy lens to have.
I could see owning it if it is on par with the 70-200m II.
The 70-200 II has taken the place of the 100-400L in my travel kit. But, I would like a longer lens for birding and wildlife. I do use the 2x TC and the optics are close to the current 100-400L.
I would be curious as to people's thoughts regarding upgrading to the 100-400 II vs the Sigma 150-600S, vs the Tamron 150-600 or saving for a big white.
I know a lot depends on the optics of the 100-400 II, if it takes a 1.4x tc. But after seeing the size and weight, I am thinking the extra size and weight of the sigma may be worth it.
It looks to still be a push/pull zoom.... Sigh.
Actually, it is almost certainly a rotating zoom with an extending inner barrel similar to the 70-300L. But that makes me go 'sigh' as I prefer the push-pull design.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Johnston
Ahh.
I suppose it was the "smooth-tight" thing on the side of the proposed images that threw me off.
Yes, tension can still be adjusted, meaning the zoom can be locked at any focal length. I've seen an image of the lens extended, looks just like the 70-300L, there's no where to grab to push-pull except the lens hood. Another clue is the ribbing on the rubber rings – note how on the original the push-pull ring has 'transverse' ribbing for grip friction along the lens axis, the direction of the push-pull. The images of the new lens show all the ribbing oriented to provide grip friction during rotation of the ring.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Johnston
Well, the unicorn has been released.
I have been looking at the MTF charts.
Original 100-400L @ 400:
Attachment 2306
New 100-400L II
Attachment 2307
New lens with 1.4TC
Attachment 2308
First, black lines are supposed to be wide open and blue @f/8. So I am not sure why there is a difference with the 1.4TC. At this point, for the 1.4TC chart, I am assuming that the black lines are f/8 and the blue @ f/11. If anyone knows better please let me know.
It looks like a great lens. As Canon has been doing with recent lenses, it really looks like they are increasing contrast and providing some very high resolution zoom lenses. The 4 stop IS, minimum MFD, and, I assume, faster AF are very much appealing.
But, as I am looking at the MFT charts, I am not sure I am going to sell my current 100-400L, spend another ~$1,300, to upgrade. I think I may be waiting for Bryan's review. I have the 150-600S pre-ordered, mostly to try it out, but going over these MTF charts, my current sense is that the 150-600S may actually be better than this lens from 300-600 mm, which is what I care about. Please, let me know if you think differently as I am very much on the fence.
@Brant– The f/8 lines are with the lens at the physical aperture diameter that gives f/8; with a TC the f/number changes but the iris diaphragm does not. So...those lines are f/11 with the 1.4x and f/16 with the 2x (sensor diffraction is obviously not considered).
It's not totally reliable to compare theoretical MTFs from different manufacturers.
Thanks John. Agreed, I should have been clear I was just comparing the MTF charts on the two 100-400Ls. For the sigma, I am more looking at the lenstip review of the Sigma v the 100-400L v1 and adding some guess work. Ultimately we won't know anything until Bryan and other reviewers have their hands on both lenses.
I would think it would be a fair to compare MTF charts from recent Canon lenses to formulate an idea of how the lens will perform.
Compared to the 70-200mm II the 100-400 II chart looks better at 400mm than the 70-200 II at 200. I think there will no longer be a 70-200mm with 2x or 100-400mm debate.
It looks better than the 70-300mm L, leaving the only reason to have that lens is weight and economy.
The only reason to buy the 400m F/5.6 will be the additional cost of the 100-400mm.
The 100-400mm II looks promising so far. I doubt I would want one though.
In my case, it's size. I'm not really concerned with weight, but the smaller size of the 70-300L makes it a great travel telezoom.Quote:
Originally Posted by HDNitehawk
Agreed that it looks very promising. The MTF with the 1.4xIII is quite good. I'm slightly tempted by this lens, but I doubt I'll succumb to that temptation. The TS-E 17mm is next up for me (and soon, as it looks like I'll have some travel to urban destinations coming up). After that, I'd likely put the money towards a 300/2.8 II (or a 35/1.4L II if one comes out) before the 100-400 II, then there may be a 1D X II along...Quote:
Originally Posted by HDNitehawk
I am tempted. I'm just not sure what to sell to make it happen.
For those wanting a 70-300mm debate... going from 300 to 400mm doesn't seem like much, but it is. I mean, it sounds bigger yes, but not enough that it would make much of a difference, would it?. But it's 33% more range (+100/300), which translates to 77% more pixels on target (1.33 x 1.33). That's a fair chunk of extra detail, and/or newly usable shots.
I would use this when I'm focal length limited, ie: stuck outside the agility ring at the opposite side from the dog. Especially a small dog. At this distance (95-105 ft), at 300mm, framing is 7-8 feet wide, which isn't ideal for a 1 foot long Yorkie. The 400mm would drop that down to 5.25-6 feet, and the DOF would drop from 7', to 4', and the background blurring away fairly quickly.
I'd actually done most of this math already, and was considering using the 70-300L + second body w/ 400 f/5.6. I didn't think the Tamron 150-600mm IQ would be good enough, or the focusing fast enough, nor accurate enough. The new 100-400 makes things easier, as it gives me a known level of IQ, build quality, IS, and focus speed.
If they had pushed past 400 that would have been icing on the cake, but I think this lens will make a lot of people very happy.
Exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidEccleston
It really does look like a great lens, perhaps one of the better ones. I was going over it again this morning and there seems to be improvement across the board. Better contrast, bokeh (using the theory that the closer the meridional and sagittal lines are, the better the bokeh), and very even corner to corner sharpness. Combine that with 4-stop IS, assumed better AF, etc. This looks like a great lens.
The only reason I haven't preordered this, as I am looking for something in the telephoto/super telephoto range, is that with the 1.4TC, the 30 mm line @ 560 mm f/8 drops to ~85%. At f/11, it is astounding (~96%). So, somewhere between f/8 and f/11 even with the 1.4 TC this lens goes from good to a very good option even at 560 mm. EDIT: I spent a little time looking at other lenses with MTF ~85%. This actually includes most of the Big Whites with 2x TC.
That may be enough for me. I am fence sitting. A few good reviews may push me over the edge.
Well, I guess there is also the cost factor as I would also need to buy a 1.4xTC (I own the 2x).