Options
The rumored 100-400 replacement
I've heard rumblings that the much rumored replacement of the Canon 100-400 lens is actually the recently released 70-300 "L" lens. Thoughts? If true, its disappointing, but one does have to wonder if the L series really needs both a 70-300 and a 100-400 f/4-5.6 type lens.
Bill Jurasz - Mercury Photography - Cedar Park, TX
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
0
Comments
Bill, I think they are what they are - just rumors.
Who would call losing a whole 100mm "a replacement"?
It's like "yeah, you used to ride in Avalon, try that Corolla for size, noticed any difference?"
I've also heard rumors that Canon is working on a 200-400mm - again, just wild rumors, but who knows... The new 70-300 has been a bit hard to figure out since Canon has so many lenses in that range.
I don't believe that this lens replaces anything prior. I suspect that the older 70-300mm IS sales will be impacted however.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Raise your hand if you requested an upgraded 100-400L (F4 would be nice). (Everybody's hands go up.)
Raise your hand if you requested the Print button on your camera body. (Crickets chirping...)
Raise your hand if you requested sRAW1 and sRAW2. (Nada)
I'd really like to know what mythical group of photographers that Canon is allegedly listening to.
Link to my Smugmug site
The Nikon 200-400 VR is a reason that some folks abandon Canon for the Nikon world. This is especially true for wildlife shooters. The only other alternatives for Canon shooters are the Sigma 150-500 OS, or the Tamron 200-500 ( which is not IS). Neither of which is really L quality, but both of mine do compare favorably with my 100-400 IS L. The Sigma 120-300 f2.8 ( without IS ) is pretty nice glass.
Is Canon management that clueless about what we want and need for wildlife?
I agree that the 70-300 L just doesn't quite cut it. Maybe for football??
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
100 out of 100!
EDIT: I also like the next smaller RAW option in some cases (family party pics, etc.)
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
A 10-500/2.8 would be HUGE. I mean, have you seen the size of the 400/2.8? It would NOT be a small lens by any means. Look at the size of the Sigma 200-500 for a pointer in the direction... 37lbs. Not an "on the go" lens
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
The primary reason you won't find professional photographers talking about using the sRAW files is because the "general public" still measures image quality by the number of megapixels. It is marketing suicide for a professional to admit that they use the smaller files because the clients would many times feel cheated.
It is my preference to use full sized RAW and then process the files to a smaller size in ACR as needed, but that's just because I am not disciplined enough to consistently change back to the larger RAW files and I might inadvertently leave the camera in the wrong state for the job.
I have no current interest in the 70-300mm "L" for myself but that's mostly because I am so invested in 70-200mm glass. (I have 4 quality zooms around that range because it is an important range for my style of shooting.) If the formal reviews show that the new 70-300mm "L" is stellar, I might reconsider.
I would consider an updated 100-400mm "L". For me it would have to be improved optics and improved IS. For now, the Sigma "Bigma" is serving that role pretty well.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
Another thing I'm wondering is how much the body contributes to focus speed. Would the 1DMKIV focus more quickly with the 100-400 than say my Canon 40D?
Link to my Smugmug site
Wide open, at maximum aperture it is soft. It sharpens a bit at f8 but requires f11 to really call it sharp. I was never really super happy using it on crop 1.3x and crop 1.6x bodies, but it's really nice on the 5D MKII. It is also reasonably quick to focus on the 5D MKII, thankfully.
I used it for a fly-in this summer and it worked nicely, even though it was on a 40D. (I know that contradicts my previous statement, but the conditions were extremely bright and contrasty and I think that helped.)
According to most reviews the OS version is not quite as sharp as the non-OS version. I don't think that I would use the stabilization that much so I'm probably not going to consider the OS version.
Full frame but scaled for the Internet:
Full frame but scaled for the Internet:
100% crop from above:
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Again, that old "ïnscrutable" feeling!
Maybe the problem is that only Japanese speakers put their hands up.
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
I'm not so sure about that, the old lens is pretty sharp. I suspect there will be a lot of soul searching before people part with more than twice the price (unless they have "L" fever). That being said, i sold a 70-300 to get a 100-400 .
I had some good pics from the 70-300 but needed the extra length.
www.jtsphotoblog.blogspot.co.uk
www.johngwynant.blogspot.co.uk
Raise your hands if you'd like a fast 50mm lens that's sharp wide open, and doesn't require a mortgage to buy (everybody's hands fly to their wallets)
Raise your hands if you'd like the long-awaited 24-70IS, especially if it's consistent from copy to copy (more hands start flexing credit cards)
Well, one can live in hope....
My experience with the 100-400 on a 1DMKII is that it was head and shoulders better than a 40D, so yes, the body's AF plays a very large role. Even on the 100-400. My 100-400 was fair with my 7D in a pitching boat.
Diva, I have a first rate 24-70 f2.8 ( without IS ) that I could be persuaded to part with, maybe.....
Joel, you can see what can be done with a 100-400 and a 7D here in my Alaska Trip gallery - http://pathfinder.smugmug.com/Travel/Alaska-with-Marc-et-al-August/13910583_GA99Q#1020907393_RqRVq
Almost all of the wildlife shots were done with that combination. Several of the totem pole closeups were done with the 100-400 and a tripod and cable release, so those frames will show what the 100-400 is capable of. Just check the exif data to be sure as I also used a couple P&Ss and a 5DMKII, but usually not for wildlife.
This frame is a 100-400 from a tripod with a 5DMKII and a cable release ( and MLU if memory serves )
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
A 200-400 f/4L would make sense, Nikon offers this. As for the 70-300L, I've read, and it makes sense to me, that as far as zooms are concerned, Canon wishes to sell only EF-S and L lenses. The market is saturated with 3rd party 70-300 zooms that do a fine job for less money than the non-L Canons. Buyers in that market are more concerned with price. I think the 70-300L is aimed at the more affluent amateur who wants the versatility of a 70-300 and who has caught the L bug.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
I would like to see a 200-400mm IS lens with a constant f/4 apertute along with excellent IQ and AF. I believe that this lens would be an excellent partner with the 70-200mm L series lenses....
The 70-300L is a lot more portable than a 100-400L or 70-200/2.8L. Would be a nice vacation lens (that is, if you want 100mm more reach than a 70-200/4L at the cost of a stop). The 100-400L is for daytime action/wildlife/field sports.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
$1600 is up there, but maybe it's up against the physics of the cost. Seems a little strange that they could sell the DO version for $1250, but not this. IQ better be off the chart! I agree I'd rather spend $1200 on a 70-200/4LIS, but that's me, I'm not a fan of f/5.6 lenses. If it was 100-300 f/4, I'd be excited about it. I see the 70-300L as being for the would-be 70-200L buyer who wants more reach in a package smaller than the 100-400L. Could make sense on a FF camera, where 200mm isn't that long.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
I was a guy who said that Canon would never release a 70-200mm f/4L IS lens because it would bite into the sales of the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS lens.
I was a guy who innocently expected the 60D to be an improvement in the line of 20-30-40-50D cameras and look what happened: a Rebel with bells and whistles!
Will the Canon Gods introduce an updated 100-400L or a 24-70L with IS. You don't really want my opinion, do you?
Being wrong never stopped anyone from being wrong again, and it doesn't stop anyone from being right!
Would we love Canon more or less for being predictable?
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
That's a good question, Canon is one of the best at keeping secrets. I kinda like that about them. That's one of the few things I like about Canon. I really think they need to change big-time, but don't get me started ;~). But I dislike them the least of all the camera companies, that's why I use their system.
70-300 F4 may be a better option for me as I can leave the 3 pounds 70-200 at home.
flickr.com/photos/photoskipper/
I had the 100-400L for a while, it was great on my 5DII:
The IS worked well, I'd say you'd only need to wait for a new version if you have shaky hands. Only reason I sold it was for faster glass.
f/4 - f/5.6. It very well may be. 100-400L is another 3+ pounder.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
I meant that I would not need to bring both 100-400 and 70 -200 together for a business trip. Just on 70-300 F4 with a 1.4X would be good enough for me to catch most of the bird picture. Seriously looking into the 100-400 but still not happy that it is a bit old and anticipate it will be replaced with newer version soon like th 70-200 MarkII.
flickr.com/photos/photoskipper/