100-400 - Any Updates on the horizon???

[Michael Modlin]

The Canon 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS has been around for quite awhile. Has anyone any information of Canon updating this lens in the near future?

[gasrocks]

Rumors have a separate section.

[JWright]

I doubt Canon wants to kill off the cash cow the 100-400 has become. The development costs have been fully amortized several times over and everything they make on it now is profit. Judging from what I see at the events I go to Canon has sold thousands of the 100-400, if not millions...

[phreeky]

I'm sure a replacement will come eventually, but people have been hoping for one for years now - it might come next month, or maybe not for another couple of years or even more. You'll drive yourself crazy waiting and hoping - if you need/want the lens then buy it, or look at the Sigma alternatives.

[Kronie]

I'm sure they will announce it with the 24-70 2.8 IS:)

[20DNewbie]

God I hope not, I just ordered one yesterday. :lol:

[Larry Weinman]

I went to a raptor release a couple of weeks ago. The place was full of photographers. I'd say about 75-80% of them were shooting with a 100-400. Why would Canon want to screw around with a popular lens like this

[CountryBoy]

I went to a raptor release a couple of weeks ago. The place was full of photographers. I'd say about 75-80% of them were shooting with a 100-400. Why would Canon want to screw around with a popular lens like this

To improve it and make more money. Much like they did the 100mm macro and the 70-200mm f/4 lens.

[hannibal31]

How old is the current 100-400 ?

[Madweasel]

How old is the current 100-400 ?
It was introduced in November 1998, and among L-series zooms only the 70-200/2.8L is older. Although IS technology has improved, I'm not sure I'd pay double the price for an upgrade, which seems to be the way Canon is pricing them lately (thinking of the TS-E24mmL II and the 100mm IS L macro).

[WittyzTH]

At least, I want the new version not to be push pull zoom. :)

[Madweasel]

I'm a fan of the push-pull design.

[Kevin B]

I thought the same thing and hesitated for a long before buying one. After using it for a few hours, I'm happy with it. For trying to capture birds in flight, it's really nice to start at 100mm and get them in the center of the frame and then zoom to 400mm. I think most people who don't like it have never actually used it for any length of time. For many they may prefer the twist zoom but the push-pull is still very functional and it's a really nice lens for the money. I'd love a better IS but I wouldn't pay $3000 for it.

At least, I want the new version not to be push pull zoom. :)

[JayCee Images]

I'm a fan of the push-pull design.

Same here...its faster and easier to use than a zoom ring and i find the extra length at longer focal lengths great for stability control. I used to shoot Nikon and had one of their 80-400's which was a very comparable lens but with a zoom ring instead of a push\pull design and i hated it.

[amfoto1]

To each his own... I always hated push/pull zooms, much prefer the separate zoom ring.

OP, no doubt there is an update of the 100-400 somewhere on the horizon... It's inevitable. However anyone who might actually know just how far off that horizon might be has signed a non-disclosure agreement and would be in big trouble if they shared any info with us. Could be announced next week, or maybe not for five years or longer. I figure it's not worth worrying about. If you need a 100-400 to get the shots you want, go for it.

[KenjiS]

Same here...its faster and easier to use than a zoom ring and i find the extra length at longer focal lengths great for stability control. I used to shoot Nikon and had one of their 80-400's which was a very comparable lens but with a zoom ring instead of a push\pull design and i hated it.

Ooooh question, How was the AF on the 80-400? I always thought it was...not so hot to be honest, but that was more speculation than actually ever getting to handle one...

Anyways, I agree, I had a 150-500 and the 100-400 is far FAR better in terms of handling..The thing is an absolute joy to shoot, and while i welcome a new version, I also think the old one is -the- standard in its class...

[JayCee Images]

Ooooh question, How was the AF on the 80-400? I always thought it was...not so hot to be honest, but that was more speculation than actually ever getting to handle one...

Anyways, I agree, I had a 150-500 and the 100-400 is far FAR better in terms of handling..The thing is an absolute joy to shoot, and while i welcome a new version, I also think the old one is -the- standard in its class...

SLOWWWW, much slower than the 100-400 and a good bit noisier.

[jdizzle]

Constant f/4? :) Just wishing of course. ;)

[KenjiS]

Constant f/4? :) Just wishing of course. ;)

Hell no

The Nikon 200-400 f/4G is 7lbs and about $6k...

or is it 7K now, i forget...

[jdizzle]

Hell no

The Nikon 200-400 f/4G is 7lbs and about $6k...

or is it 7K now, i forget...
I know.:( It would definitely bring the price up. I would like to see Canon make something along the lines of a 200-400 with a constant aperture. I'd be all over it! My reason behind this is that I wouldn't have to lug a long telephoto prime with me.

[cfibanez]

I thought the same thing and hesitated for a long before buying one. After using it for a few hours, I'm happy with it. For trying to capture birds in flight, it's really nice to start at 100mm and get them in the center of the frame and then zoom to 400mm. I think most people who don't like it have never actually used it for any length of time. For many they may prefer the twist zoom but the push-pull is still very functional and it's a really nice lens for the money. I'd love a better IS but I wouldn't pay $3000 for it.

I've been in the same boat for a couple of years now. Waiting... waiting... I have a trip to the Galapagos coming up next month, a once in a lifetime opportunity, so I'm giving up the wait and picking up one pump from Adorama this weekend. C'est la vie!

[KenjiS]

I know.:( It would definitely bring the price up. I would like to see Canon make something along the lines of a 200-400 with a constant aperture. I'd be all over it! My reason behind this is that I wouldn't have to lug a long telephoto prime with me.

This is true, the Nikon 200-400 is a great lens, a lot of birders and sports shooters love it..

But for the same money in Canon you can have a 500 instead...Thats not so true in Nikon...

[Canonswhitelensesrule]

I'd love to see Canon come up with an EF 200-400mm f2.8L I.S. USM lens. With extenders, you'd have some great focal length/aperture combinations. The wonderful 300mm f2.8 & 400mm f2.8 fast focal lengths, a 560 f4 super telephoto focal length, and 800 f5.6 super duper focal length!

It would save having to not only change lenses, i.e. from 300 to 500-600 etc, and allow you to only have to carry ONE telephoto zoom, instead of trying to decide which lens to bring, or even more importantly which lens to BUY!

There are different occasions/shooting situations where each lens would be "best", but having to decide between the 300 f2.8L, the 400 f2.8L, the 500 f4L, the 600 f4L, or the 800 f5.6L when maybe a person could only afford one, but would like the option of having more than one, can be frustrating.
So having such a lens as an EF 200-400mm f2.8L I.S. (Canon "L" series super telephoto WHITE of course)would be a wonderful option!

I also don't think it would be much (if any) heavier than the current EF 400mm f2.8L I.S. lens, which BTW is actually quite handholdable, if you have ANY strength whatsoever, and these lenses really should be used on a tripod with quality head anyway, so that really shouldn't be much of an issue.

Of course I know I'm just dreaming here, but as I've said before, it would be nice if Canon would come up with some NEW telephoto/super telephoto (zoom) focal lengths, instead of concentrating on "updating" current focal lengths. The current lenses seem to be working fine the majority of times, so let's have some NEW telephoto/super telephoto-zoom focal length lenses!!

[KenjiS]

I'd love to see Canon come up with an EF 200-400mm f2.8L I.S. USM lens. With extenders, you'd have some great focal length/aperture combinations. The wonderful 300mm f2.8 & 400mm f2.8 fast focal lengths, a 560 f4 super telephoto focal length, and 800 f5.6 super duper focal length!

It would save having to not only change lenses, i.e. from 300 to 500-600 etc, and allow you to only have to carry ONE telephoto zoom, instead of trying to decide which lens to bring, or even more importantly which lens to BUY!

There are different occasions/shooting situations where each lens would be "best", but having to decide between the 300 f2.8L, the 400 f2.8L, the 500 f4L, the 600 f4L, or the 800 f5.6L when maybe a person could only afford one, but would like the option of having more than one, can be frustrating.
So having such a lens as an EF 200-400mm f2.8L I.S. (Canon "L" series super telephoto WHITE of course)would be a wonderful option!

I also don't think it would be much (if any) heavier than the current EF 400mm f2.8L I.S. lens, which BTW is actually quite handholdable, if you have ANY strength whatsoever, and these lenses really should be used on a tripod with quality head anyway, so that really shouldn't be much of an issue.

Of course I know I'm just dreaming here, but as I've said before, it would be nice if Canon would come up with some NEW telephoto/super telephoto (zoom) focal lengths, instead of concentrating on "updating" current focal lengths. The current lenses seem to be working fine the majority of times, so let's have some NEW telephoto/super telephoto-zoom focal length lenses!!

Actually i think it would be quite a bit heavier than the 400 f/2.8 IS..in fact i practically guarantee you it would be a lot heavier than the 400 f/2.8 IS...

The lens you're describing has already sort of been made, I call it the Sighowitzer..its a 200-500 f/2.8

http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/sigma_200-500_2_8_ex_dg_review_test_hands_on.htm

Its $25k...it weighs 34.6lbs, it requires its own power supply and has a powered zoom mechanism because the elements are too heavy to be moved unassisted

Even if you take out the extra 100mm for a 200-400 f/2.8L, I say it would still be a heavyweight at 20lbs+....and the cost would be way, WAY too high for even most professionals to justify, For the same cost you could likely pay for a second body with a second big telephoto...

Theres a good reason zooms like this just arent made, They're too big and too unfeasable to be used..And these days with high ISO performance getting better and better, lenses of that length just dont necessarily -have- to be any brighter..

I mean, heck, the support you'd need for this is WAY above what you'd be using for a 400 f/2.8 even, You'd be looking at a tripod setup in the 10-15lb range if not more [I heard one guy say you'd be looking at a tripod that weighs close to this lens most likely]

That will be VERY expensive and VERY heavy...

Also, the quality is likely to be nowhere NEAR a supertele prime....i bet you it would be quite softish at f/2.8, and likely not too good till f/4, Only because you'd be at the edge of whats really practically possible in lens design...

[Canonswhitelensesrule]

Hey, I did say I was dreaming!

Also, I know that today's cameras have great high ISO capabilities, but to me, that's more of a "band-aid" solution. "Don't have a fast lens, increase the ISO." I'd prefer to shoot at ISO's 400 or under if possible! Having a fast lens also means a nice BRIGHT viewfinder, and the ability to AF with converters.

Also if you want to stop down a couple of stops, you can do so from f2.8 to f5.6, instead of going from say, f5.6 to f11, which would normally mean a much slower shutter speed.

Plus it's just cool to say "I have an f2.8 super telephoto!"

But you're probably right at it weighing a lot more than the 400 f2.8, but if it could be done with similar weight, it would still be a sweet piece of glass.

And hey, it doesn't cost anything to DREAM!

It's all cool though!

BTW, that Green Sigma 200-500 f2.8 is so friggin' BUTT UGLY it shouldn't even have seen the light of day!! My imaginary Canon EF 200-400mm f2.8L I.S. Creamish-White telephoto Zoom would be BREATHTAKING!!

It would also cause all other photographers around to be in awe, which would make them forget about their shooting, and thus allow us CANON shooters privileged enough to own it, to be the ONLY photographers to capture images at the scene, therefore significantly increase OUR chance to make sales due to lack of competition!!

Also, since it WAS my idea, I'd get a percentage from each sale of the lens. :p ;) :cool:

[KenjiS]

BTW, that Green Sigma 200-500 f2.8 is so friggin' BUTT UGLY it shouldn't even have seen the light of day!! My imaginary Canon EF 200-400mm f2.8L I.S. Creamish-White telephoto Zoom would be BREATHTAKING!!


I agree with you pretty much on everything you said, but especially this..

I wonder if they'll make a white one if you ask :/

[Canonswhitelensesrule]

I agree with you pretty much on everything you said, but especially this..

I wonder if they'll make a white one if you ask :/

:lol: Hey it still wouldn't be CANON white, so it would still be butt ugly! The ONLY way I'd buy it, is if it were made of solid gold (but priced like the green one), so I could melt it down, and then buy REAL lenses...i.e. CANON WHITE lenses, plus a few Canon bodies, black lenses, and other equipment that I want!

[KenjiS]

:lol: Hey it still wouldn't be CANON white, so it would still be butt ugly! The ONLY way I'd buy it, is if it were made of solid gold (but priced like the green one), so I could melt it down, and then buy REAL lenses...i.e. CANON WHITE lenses, plus a few Canon bodies, black lenses, and other equipment that I want!

I've never been impressed with the optical performance of solid gold lenses, WAY too much flare...

[Canonswhitelensesrule]

I've never been impressed with the optical performance of solid gold lenses, WAY too much flare...

Oh how true! Plus you can't tell me there hasn't been at least ONE photographer who didn't try and peel off the coating, to see if there was chocolate underneath.

NOT to mention the gawking it must cause! Too much trouble for me, which is why I'd melt it down A.S.A.P.

Also, I wonder how much B&H would sell it for? Well let's see...if it would weigh approx 32 lbs (which is what I believe the 200-500 f2.8 roughly weighs), that's 512 ounces, @ $1,000.00 an ounce for the price of gold, that would be $512,000.00 give or take! *Dusts off credit card :p

[KenjiS]

Oh how true! Plus you can't tell me there hasn't been at least ONE photographer who didn't try and peel off the coating, to see if there was chocolate underneath.


Ugh, chocolate lenses are terrible the minute its a little hot outside...

[Canonswhitelensesrule]

Ugh, chocolate lenses are terrible the minute its a little hot outside...

:rolleyes: Whoa, you can say that again! :lol:

Of course they might come in handy if one is stuck in the field waiting for something to happen, and hasn't eaten for half a day, and forgot to pack a lunch. *breaks off tripod foot...

[KenjiS]

:rolleyes: Whoa, you can say that again! :lol:

Of course they might come in handy if one is stuck in the field waiting for something to happen, and hasn't eaten for half a day, and forgot to pack a lunch. *breaks off tripod foot...


Oh hey it solves the prime vs zoom debate "Damn i need a 200 but only packed my 400... *snaps it in half* hey i got a 200 now!"

[Canonswhitelensesrule]

The toughest thing though, would be to decide which type of lens to buy...some prefer WHITE chocolate, some prefer MILK chocolate, while others, myself included, prefer DARK chocolate.

Although I might have to make an exception if I'm going to stay loyal to my username.

[KenjiS]

The toughest thing though, would be to decide which type of lens to buy...some prefer WHITE chocolate, some prefer MILK chocolate, while others, myself included, prefer DARK chocolate.

Although I might have to make an exception if I'm going to stay loyal to my username.

..We've derailed this thread now

[cfibanez]

Let's see ... anyone thinks an update to the pump will come alongside Canon's announcement of the 1DsMarkIV on October 20? I am coming to NYC this weekend and have decided to pick up this lens from Adorama. Can't stay until the 20th to find out. Hmmmm..... :confused: