100-400 iS II?

[Peacefield]

Canon has released their II version of the 16-35, 70-200 2.8 IS as well as an IS II version of their 100 macro. The 24-70 IS II is coming. I'm headed out for some birding with my 100-400 and am wondering if maybe a 100-400 IS II version may come some day soon. I love this lens, but as many of you know, you have to go to f8 before it gets truly sharp. That leads to some unfortunate compromises on cloudy days like the one I have today. Is ther ANY talk of a new sharper version of this lens coming?

[Jim G]

24-70 IS is just as much of a rumour as a 100-400 II. Both are probable in some form... eventually.

[nightcat]

Canon doesn't need an updated version of the 100-400mm 5.6. They already have an IS version of that lens. What Canon REALLY needs is an IS version of the 400mm 5.6! This would drastically increase the versatility of this lens. I think it would be a pretty big seller for Canon and I believe it would be priced around $1650. With IS, I think a few people would trade in thier 100-400mm zooms for the very sharp 400mm 5.6 prime.

[HKGuns]

I love this lens, but as many of you know, you have to go to f8 before it gets truly sharp. Is ther ANY talk of a new sharper version of this lens coming?

What you talkin bout Willis? I own both the 100-40mm and the 400/5.6 and my 100-400 is extremely sharp below F8. Sure, it performs better at F8 as does every lens ever made. However, images shot at 5.6 are extremely usable.

[Peacefield]

Usable, but not sharp, especially if you end up doing some cropping down. And I agree, I'd be all over a 400 prime with IS. But Canon is not just adding IS; they're improving the optics. As much as I'd look hard at a 400 prime IS, I'd be happier still with a 100-400 thats sharper a little wider.

[krb]

I disagree Nightcat. IS or not, a 400mm prime is still a very long prime. No matter how great of an IS system you add to it the prime will never be as versatile as the zoom. Espaecially not a mkII version of the zoom with upgraded IS and faster AF.

[nightcat]

I disagree Nightcat. IS or not, a 400mm prime is still a very long prime. No matter how great of an IS system you add to it the prime will never be as versatile as the zoom. Espaecially not a mkII version of the zoom with upgraded IS and faster AF.

I never said it would be as versatile as the zoom. And I never suggested many people would trade the zoom in for the prime if it had IS. All I said is "a few" people would make the trade. The "few" I'm talking about would be those who need the lens strictly for the 400mm focal range, and previously bought the zoom over the prime only because it had IS. There would be absolutely no need for the great majority of zoom owners to make the switch.

On the other hand, I think the majority of the people who presently own the 400mm 5.6 prime would make the switch if Canon came out with a version that had IS.

[krb]

And I'm saying that if the zoom had a faster AF system then there would be little reason to choose the prime. The AF is the zooms weak point, not IQ/sharpness.

[HKGuns]

I guess definitions of sharp vary then. I don't have any issue with these, they're all at F5.6 extremely heavily cropped.

http://hkguns.zenfolio.com/img/v11/p816873021-4.jpg

http://hkguns.zenfolio.com/img/v4/p243624993-4.jpg

http://hkguns.zenfolio.com/img/v8/p1011552703-4.jpg

[Peacefield]

I guess definitions of sharp vary then. I don't have any issue with these, they're all at F5.6 extremely heavily cropped.

And with all due and genuine respect, I don't find those images to be especially sharp. They're acceptable, usable, very nice, and I've got bunches just like them. That said, they don't compare to the sharpness that comes with so many of Canon's other L lenses at wider aperatures.

The 70-200 2.8 mk I was an excellent lens. Now it's stunning. I'm just wondering if Canon has plans to bring those same IS and IQ enhancements to this very popular and useful lens.

[nightcat]

And I'm saying that if the zoom had a faster AF system then there would be little reason to choose the prime. The AF is the zooms weak point, not IQ/sharpness.

There would still be several great reasons to choose the prime. If I am in need of strictly the 400mm range (which I am). Why would I buy a more expensive heavier zoom? Yes, the majority of people should choose (and do choose) the zoom for its versatility and focal range. But for those in need of the 400mm focal length only, buying the heavier, more expensive zoom makes no sense.

[Grentz]

People have been rumoring a mkII version of the 100-400 for years and years and years. It might come someday, but no one knows when.

It is a great lens as it is. Wide open on a zoom telephoto, handheld, these kind of results are not bad at all:

375mm ISO1250 1/400 f/5.6 (handheld w/IS)
http://img127.imageshack.us/img127/5807/img1783ui3.jpg

100% Crop of Above, No sharpening
http://img122.imageshack.us/img122/6571/img17833gr5.jpg

[ed rader]

There would still be several great reasons to choose the prime. If I am in need of strictly the 400mm range (which I am). Why would I buy a more expensive heavier zoom? Yes, the majority of people should choose (and do choose) the zoom for its versatility and focal range. But for those in need of the 400mm focal length only, buying the heavier, more expensive zoom makes no sense.

100-400L = 3 lbs

400L = 2.8 lbs

ed rader

[JeffreyG]

My 100-400L is as sharp at f/5.6 as my 300/4L is at f/4. I do not stop down my 100-400L for sharpness (or much else really, as f/5.6 is already slow).

The only thing I'd like in a newer version is a later generation IS unit, and I'd not bother selling mine just to get that.

Parden the otherwise dullness of this shot, it is 400mm and f/5.6 with 100% crop on the 16MP 1D4.

[ben_r_]

Unless they intend to make it four stop IS AND f/4 I wouldnt bother upgrading. Same with the 24-70, adding IS wouldnt be enough to get me to give them more money, especially if its that new hybird IS system their using now... Im not really liking how clunky that sounds when the lens it unmounted.

[krb]

...especially if its that new hybird IS system their using now... I thought that was a macro-only thing. Or maybe a 'lens-with-really-narrow-DOF' thing. A 5.6 lens simply doesn't need the hybrid IS.

[ed rader]

Unless they intend to make it four stop IS AND f/4 I wouldnt bother upgrading. Same with the 24-70, adding IS wouldnt be enough to get me to give them more money, especially if its that new hybird IS system their using now... Im not really liking how clunky that sounds when the lens it unmounted.


that would be a huge and very expensive lens, Ben :D. if/when canon upgrades the 100-400L i expect 4-stop IS, incremental improvement to sharpness and several hundred dollars added to the price.

and i would upgrade with a quickness but until then the 100-400L is "still the one" :D.

ed rader

[Jannie]

I put off buying a 100-400 for over a year because of comments here about their not being sharp at 400 wide open. But a friend consistently kept churning out sharp images from his and I ised it several tomes shooting for him and finally got one. It's better than my 70-200 2.8 IS was and I thought that was a really good lens, especially after Canon had reworked it, I thought it was stellar. But I've had the 100-400 for a couple of months now and really regret not getting it a lot earlier, I am also suprised how good the IS is.

[phreeky]

I went with a prime instead as their was too much copy variation for my liking with the 100-400. I suspect they've made some QC changes as people with recent copies tend to be quite pleased. The zoom action also isn't to many peoples liking, and there is the occasional failure with it too.

One thing I doubt they'll be able to improve with a new version is OOF appearance, which IMO isn't all that appealing with the 100-400 (of course it's a bit of an opinion thing). It has something like 21 elements inside it, it's always going to have a more "complex" appearing to OOF areas as the primes that have 7 elements I believe.

[Jon]

Got no problem with my 100-400 at wider than f/8 (7D, 400 mm, f/6.3):

http://jonbarrettphoto.smugmug.com/photos/772303969_Ya2gS-XL-1.jpg

[Peacefield]

Once again, and I assure you I say this with all due respect, while that image is nice and plenty usable, it's not nearly as crisp as images coming out of some of Canon's other L zooms at varyingly wide aperatures.

The issue is people are trying to talk about something like sharpness in absolute terms; that it is or isn't sharp. Like I said, the original 70-200 2.8 was plenty sharp. Yet the 70-200 2.8 II blows it away. I feel like I've got a good copy of the 100-400 and enjoy using it. BUT, if there's a Canon L lens that could stand to have that boost in IQ, I think this would be a prime candidate.

Just wondering if there was any material talk about it from anyone in the know.

[MMX]

375mm ISO1250 1/400 f/5.6 (handheld w/IS)


Do you really think that this is the correct way how to test the sharpness? :D

[District_History_Fan]

Some have brought up the 400 f5.6 prime. I could get seriously interested in it with 4 stop IS. :D

[Jermainek]

Hi Peacefield,

With the same humble respect that you've given various readers twice in this thread, could you please post a few images of what you would consider sharp from your collection - as it would make a really good comparison, you know what they say a picture paints a thousand words. I understand that differing bodies and individual skill & technique play a part but literally just by way of a comparison so that we can get a feel of where the 100-400mm should be compared to other L series zooms, as this is a lens that I'm also considering.

[fkbelle]

Hi Peacefield,

With the same humble respect that you've given various readers twice in this thread, could you please post a few images of what you would consider sharp from your collection - as it would make a really good comparison, you know what they say a picture paints a thousand words. I understand that differing bodies and individual skill & technique play a part but literally just by way of a comparison so that we can get a feel of where the 100-400mm should be compared to other L series zooms, as this is a lens that I'm also considering.

+++1 Thank you.

[silvex]

MY old 100-400L TACK sharp!

30D 1/1600 ISO200 f/5.6 handheld
http://silvex.smugmug.com/Animals/Birds/GuineFowlUSMfull2578filtered/158743936_n6PAD-XL-9.jpg
30D 1/500 ISO400 f11 on tripod
http://silvex.smugmug.com/Animals/Birds/ColibriJan1220080693/169966358_qSysm-XL-11.jpg

[Yusef]

MY old 100-400L TACK sharp!

30D 1/1600 ISO200 f/5.6 handheld
http://silvex.smugmug.com/Animals/Birds/GuineFowlUSMfull2578filtered/158743936_n6PAD-XL-9.jpg


That's quite possibly the ugliest bird I've ever seen in my life.

[Mil]

Unless they intend to make it four stop IS AND f/4 I wouldnt bother upgrading. Same with the 24-70, adding IS wouldnt be enough to get me to give them more money, especially if its that new hybird IS system their using now... Im not really liking how clunky that sounds when the lens it unmounted.
Agree on this!

[shadowcat]

Zooms are for convenience only they'll never be as sharp or fast as a prime lens! they need to dump the 100-400is f4-5.6 for a 200-400is F4.

[DarthVader]

Are you serious ?. How many people can actually afford 200-400 f/4 IS ?. Not to mention the weight you have to deal with.

Zooms are for convenience only they'll never be as sharp or fast as a prime lens! they need to dump the 100-400is f4-5.6 for a 200-400is F4.

[krb]

Are you serious ?. How many people can actually afford 200-400 f/4 IS ?. Not to mention the weight you have to deal with.
Exactly. Just look at the Nikon 200-400 to get an idea of the size, weight and price. If I had that kind of money I'd keep the 100-400 as a walk around lens and get a 500 or 600 prime.

[timbop]

...I'd keep the 100-400 as a walk around lens ...

heh heh, 100-400 a walkaround lens .. :lol:

[krb]

heh heh, 100-400 a walkaround lens .. :lol:
It already is my "walkaround" lens for the 90% or more of the time that I'm outside of urban areas. Perfect lens to have attached to the camera while walking down a trail.

[leesurf]

Yep. The 100-400 is my walkaround too.........

[Yusef]

Yep. The 100-400 is my walkaround too.........

Mine too

[JuliusUpNorth]

Mine too, most of the time. And I am looking forward to Peacefield's response to Jermainek...

Julius

[Combatmedic870]

Once they come out with a MK2 i'll consider getting one.

[JeffreyG]

Once they come out with a MK2 i'll consider getting one.

I made that mistake for two years.

Then I just bought a used 100-400. It is my favorite lens.

[CyberDyneSystems]

heh heh, 100-400 a walkaround lens .. :lol:

This is what I use it for,. it's either that or the 500mm prime..

and no I'm not being sarcastic...

[Combatmedic870]

I made that mistake for two years.

Then I just bought a used 100-400. It is my favorite lens.

That's fine, I'm good with that. The 100-400 needs to have weather sealing for me to get it. If I were to get it, it would be for hiking,rain or shine it happens. Or a 400L with weather sealing. Doesn't matter to me which one.

[cherrymoon]

You might check other threads, the 100-400 will be replaced by 100-300L, zoom ring. Don't know yet if it will be 2.8 or f4 constant.

[krb]

Don't confuse rumor with fact. There are rumors that Canon is accouncing a new 100-300 soon. There is nothing confirmed about it, especially nothing about it replacing anything.

The 100-400 is one of Canon's most popular lenses and I would not expect them to replace it with something that is not at least as long. If the new lens turns out to be a f/2.8 then you can be sure that it is not a replacement, since it would likely cost 3 times as much.

[Snydremark]

I don't think I'd spring for a 100-300 at this stage.

But holy cow; if they gave the 100-400 the same treatment as the 70-200, I'd FIND a way to come up with the money ASAP :p

And yeah, I use it as my "walkaround" lens most of the time; although it's now sharing duty with the 24-105.

[tjbrock42]

Just give me something that is longer than the 70-200, better IS and AF than 300 f/4, and better IQ and wider than 100-400. And please keep it under $2K.

The 70-300 just ain't cuttin' it.

[ecub]

I would prefer a 100-400/2.8 IS.

[RobDickinson]

Which would be 20lbs and $15k

[cherrymoon]

This is not a rumor, those guys announced the 5Dii right on time. They work in Canon for years and years.

Don't confuse rumor with fact. There are rumors that Canon is accouncing a new 100-300 soon. There is nothing confirmed about it, especially nothing about it replacing anything.

The 100-400 is one of Canon's most popular lenses and I would not expect them to replace it with something that is not at least as long. If the new lens turns out to be a f/2.8 then you can be sure that it is not a replacement, since it would likely cost 3 times as much.

[EtherealZee]

It already is my "walkaround" lens for the 90% or more of the time that I'm outside of urban areas. Perfect lens to have attached to the camera while walking down a trail.

Just got back form Costa Rica, and I found myself using my 100-400L for about 80% of the time. I also find mine plenty sharp enough, the only thing I find that destroys sharpness and makes it hard to get consistently sharp shots is lack of light, or motion blur due to the lack of it. Found plenty of awesome stuff to shoot, and ended up putting the camera into burst mode after a while, I figured that taking shots (often below 1/100 @400mm - iso 800-1600) needed some luck, my hands are pretty steady (depending on how properly I feed myself int he mornings) but 6 shots in burst mode on the 50D usually means one or two of them get taken with the camera perfectly still (combined with IS). The only other thing that hammers picture quality @ 400mm for me, is air (haze). Z..

[krb]

This is not a rumor, those guys announced the 5Dii right on time. They work in Canon for years and years.
Until Canon sends out the official press releases it is still a rumor. And even if they are right about a 100-300 coming out, I didn't see anything about it being a replacement for the 100-400.

Having said that, if it delivers the kind of sharpness we've seen from the new 70-200 and it is no bigger than the 100-400 when fully collapsed and the hood reversed, then it will be replacing the 100-400 in my bag.

[krb]

Just got back form Costa Rica, and I found myself using my 100-400L for about 80% of the time. I also find mine plenty sharp enough, the only thing I find that destroys sharpness and makes it hard to get consistently sharp shots is lack of light, or motion blur due to the lack of it. Found plenty of awesome stuff to shoot, and ended up putting the camera into burst mode after a while, I figured that taking shots (often below 1/100 @400mm - iso 800-1600) needed some luck, my hands are pretty steady (depending on how properly I feed myself int he mornings) but 6 shots in burst mode on the 50D usually means one or two of them get taken with the camera perfectly still (combined with IS). The only other thing that hammers picture quality @ 400mm for me, is air (haze). Z..A monopod can be very useful.

[EtherealZee]

A monopod can be very useful.

One of these days I'll figure out how to post in WYSIWIG, (too lazy to insert html code, and too lazy to search for a solution) but Monopod is good solution, if only they would let me take one (or my tripod, for that matter) as carry on flights.
Z...

[themadman]

I would love the the 100-400 L to be updated. Better IS, weather sealing, and maybe some better optics (not saying the current optics are bad or anything, but look at the 70-200 f2.8 IS II... just wow)

[timbar21]

Sorry to up a dead-ish thread, but my friend bought a 100-400 at B&H, because he needed it for work, and the guy who sold it to him said they'll be upgrading the 100-400 in the first quarter of next year. Probably January. Hopefully that's true, it'd be awesome.

[RWatkins]

Sorry to up a dead-ish thread, but my friend bought a 100-400 at B&H, because he needed it for work, and the guy who sold it to him said they'll be upgrading the 100-400 in the first quarter of next year. Probably January. Hopefully that's true, it'd be awesome.

I hope so too. However, if I had a dime for every time a worker in a store had some hot 'inside info', I would be a rich man.

[KenjiS]

Sorry to up a dead-ish thread, but my friend bought a 100-400 at B&H, because he needed it for work, and the guy who sold it to him said they'll be upgrading the 100-400 in the first quarter of next year. Probably January. Hopefully that's true, it'd be awesome.

Rumors say Nikon is launching a new 80-400 at that time, So my guess is Canon will follow suit...keep in mind the 100-400 is still the sharpest in its class guys..

Also, 400mm f/5.6 vs 400mm f/8 on my 100-400

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v170/scifiguy1012/Photography/50500OS100400IS/Canon40056vsCanon4008.png

[DarthVader]

Per NL, 2010 October

* 28th A new 100-400 is on it's way according to a mis-timed remark at yesterday's Canon event in London. Can't say who said it, but they should know...

[RobDickinson]

luckily we havnt heard that before....

[Tom W]

Also, 400mm f/5.6 vs 400mm f/8 on my 100-400
.....

Perfect illustration - I find that stopping down to f/7.1 on my 100-400 really sharpens things up as opposed to f/5.6 at the long end. This lens is a workhorse for me, and I'd like to see an updated version that is crisp at f/5.6 and 400 mm.

[KenjiS]

Perfect illustration - I find that stopping down to f/7.1 on my 100-400 really sharpens things up as opposed to f/5.6 at the long end. This lens is a workhorse for me, and I'd like to see an updated version that is crisp at f/5.6 and 400 mm.

I should try 7.1

The problem on my 7D is that at f/8 you have the sharpening of the lens fighting with diffraction :( In many cases f/5.6 is actually a better choice.. Truthfully, theres not a HUGE difference between f/5.6 and f/8 in my case, and i feel its down to diffraction not the lens itself..

Of course im just musing ;)

[RobDickinson]

The 2003 example of the 100-400 I borrowed was tack sharp when I got things right, but subject distance had to be close/mid distance.

[Jahled]

I hated this zoom with it's trombone action; but nice reach, so if a replacement can be a little more normal, sounds like a great bit of gear

[krb]

The push-pull action is one of my favorite things about this lens. So much easier to use than a twist zoom.

[Jahled]

The push-pull action is one of my favorite things about this lens. So much easier to use than a twist zoom.

Except when you forget to tighten it :)

[krb]

Except when you forget to tighten it :)
At least it can be tightened, unlike the zoom creep that many other lenses in this focal range are plagued with. ;)

[Jahled]

I guess it's down to personal preference at the end of the day; that or i'm an extremely forgetful type of person :)

[KenjiS]

I guess it's down to personal preference at the end of the day; that or i'm an extremely forgetful type of person :)

What if the action changed to a button on the side of the lens, push to zoom in and out (the same push-pull action as currently) and the minute you release the lens is locked...

[MOkoFOko]

I guess it's down to personal preference at the end of the day; that or i'm an extremely forgetful type of person :)

The 100-400 is a joy to use. I've never once had an issue with the system--however, with the hood reversed it makes it difficult to tighten the locking mechanism. I think you're just forgetful :)

[Coops]

You might check other threads, the 100-400 will be replaced by 100-300L, zoom ring. Don't know yet if it will be 2.8 or f4 constant.
Rubbish. I was at said show. 100-400 is definitely on the cards for renewal. It was more than just a slip of the tongue. The rumour was put out

[timeasterday]

Rubbish. I was at said show. 100-400 is definitely on the cards for renewal. It was more than just a slip of the tongue. The rumour was put out

I just hope the USD hasn't totally tanked by the time a new 100-400 comes out. But I will buy it anyway!

[Combatmedic870]

Rumors say Nikon is launching a new 80-400 at that time, So my guess is Canon will follow suit...keep in mind the 100-400 is still the sharpest in its class guys..

Also, 400mm f/5.6 vs 400mm f/8 on my 100-400



The Sony 70-400G is the sharpest in the this class of lenses(it pretty new though so what do you expect!). I have had a chance to shoot with it on a A900(@iso 100) and its a very very nice lens. Very good resolving power. Yes, better the the 100-400 L

[KenjiS]

The Sony 70-400G is the sharpest in the this class of lenses(it pretty new though so what do you expect!). I have had a chance to shoot with it on a A900(@iso 100) and its a very very nice lens. Very good resolving power. Yes, better the the 100-400 L

Oh! I forgot about Sony's 70-400 :oops:

[Lowner]

I'd be happy with a 150 or 200mm bottom end if they could push the top end a bit. I gave up on a Sigma 170-500 for my 100-400 and while its all gain quality wise, I still miss that extra 100mm at the top end.

I am very happy with the push/pull design, but if they chose to dump that, then I'm sure I could live with it.