Jun 28, 2012 08:24 | #31 ScottyK86 wrote in post #14643142  Hmmmm, I was looking at getting a 100-400 rather soon, to wait or not? I asked myself the same question when I bought mine. There were rumours of a new version of the 100-400. Luckily I ignored them and bought the lens - and I've had great use from it in the five years since then. Frank Hollis - Retired mass spectroscopist
LOG IN TO REPLY |
DreDaze happy with myself for not saying anything stupid  More info | Jun 28, 2012 11:19 | #32 ScottyK86 wrote in post #14643142 Hmmmm, I was looking at getting a 100-400 rather soon, to wait or not? waiting for something that hasn't been announced is a bad idea...even after the lens gets announced sometimes it takes a while to actually hit the market...like the 500L was announced feb 11', and released just this month... Andre or Dre
LOG IN TO REPLY |
gocolts Goldmember 1,246 posts Likes: 14 Joined Oct 2010 More info | Jun 28, 2012 11:42 | #33 Buy it for the right price now and you can sell it when the new one comes out and probably only lose a little, if any, money on the sale.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
watt100 Cream of the Crop 14,021 posts Likes: 34 Joined Jun 2008 More info | Jun 28, 2012 13:21 | #34 hollis_f wrote in post #14643442 I asked myself the same question when I bought mine. There were rumours of a new version of the 100-400. Luckily I ignored them and bought the lens - and I've had great use from it in the five years since then. I was also glad I didn't wait for the new 100-400, although the current model is old design it still produces great pics
LOG IN TO REPLY |
DavidArbogast Cream of the Crop  More info | Jun 28, 2012 13:32 | #35 watt100 wrote in post #14644706 I was also glad I didn't wait for the new 100-400, although the current model is old design it still produces great pics Same here! Frankly, I'm shocked and delighted at the sharpness of the 100-400m. David | Flickr
LOG IN TO REPLY |
ScottM Goldmember More info | Jun 28, 2012 13:51 | #36 hollis_f wrote in post #14643442 I asked myself the same question when I bought mine. There were rumours of a new version of the 100-400. Luckily I ignored them and bought the lens - and I've had great use from it in the five years since then. Same here. Only in my case it's been a couple of years... not five.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
KenjiS "Holy crap its long!"  More info | Jun 28, 2012 23:40 | #37 gocolts wrote in post #14644300 Buy it for the right price now and you can sell it when the new one comes out and probably only lose a little, if any, money on the sale. This Gear, New and Old! RAW Club Member
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Jul 25, 2012 09:14 | #38 bumping an old thread, I saw they mentioned the re-vamp of the 100-400 to be sooner than expected, so I'm thinking maybe to hold off on the 400L! I'm actively lazy!!
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Roroco Senior Member 647 posts Joined Oct 2010 More info | Jul 25, 2012 09:58 | #39 Bigger Canon unicorn... The 100-400mm L mk 2 or the 24-70mm IS? Roger Lights -- Alien Bees B800 -- 580 EX II -- Yongnuo YN-560 II & YN-568EX -- Mother Nature -- RF 602s
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Lowner "I'm the original idiot"  12,924 posts Likes: 18 Joined Jul 2007 Location: Salisbury, UK. More info | Jul 25, 2012 10:44 | #40 Roroco wrote in post #14767287 Bigger Canon unicorn... The 100-400mm L mk 2 or the 24-70mm IS? I would love to see a revamp of the 100-400 (mostly because it would drive the price down of the mk1), but I am not holding my breathe. Canon already has a few L lenses that over lap this one. We know that Canon, like other major players, are updating their lens line-up to suit the lines per mm resolution requirements of ever higher MP sensors. The 100-400 is a popular lens and as such is a prime candidate for such an update. The fly in the ointment is the 200-400L, which promises to be have superb image qualities and might replace the 100-400 in our affections. Richard
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Roroco Senior Member 647 posts Joined Oct 2010 More info | Jul 25, 2012 10:51 | #41 Lowner wrote in post #14767507 We know that Canon, like other major players, are updating their lens line-up to suit the lines per mm resolution requirements of ever higher MP sensors. The 100-400 is a popular lens and as such is a prime candidate for such an update. The fly in the ointment is the 200-400L, which promises to be have superb image qualities and might replace the 100-400 in our affections. Those lenses are in two different leagues. The 100-400 is a sub $2K lens and the 200-400 will be north of $10K. I am sure we will all have affection for that lens, but only as much as most men have affection for Jessica Alba... From afar... way far. Roger Lights -- Alien Bees B800 -- 580 EX II -- Yongnuo YN-560 II & YN-568EX -- Mother Nature -- RF 602s
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Lowner "I'm the original idiot" 12,924 posts Likes: 18 Joined Jul 2007 Location: Salisbury, UK. More info | Jul 25, 2012 10:55 | #42 Roroco wrote in post #14767538 Those lenses are in two different leagues. The 100-400 is a sub $2K lens and the 200-400 will be north of $10K. I am sure we will all have affection for that lens, but only as much as most men have affection for Jessica Alba... From afar... way far. I cannot say price has no bearing, but its just one aspect, the other major factor is suitability for the subjects I'm interested in. The biggest problem for me with the 200-400 is that stupid converter. Why not just have a straight 200-400 and let it be? Richard
LOG IN TO REPLY |
MikeFairbanks Cream of the Crop 6,428 posts Likes: 2 Joined Jun 2009 More info | Jul 25, 2012 11:01 | #43 I hope a new one comes out too so that I can get the old one at a cheaper price (although....the new one might be 2500 bucks, which would keep the old one hovering at its current 1200-1350 used price. If the new one is 1600 new, then the old one will become much more affordable, but I doubt that will happen).   This picture isn't that good, but I'll tell you what: This puppy of ours (she's now two and still looks just like that) is darn near impossible to photograph because of the dark eyes surrounded by dark fur. This is one of those rare shots in which I was actually able to get the eyes. I think it's because of the glass.
This picture isn't good either, but it shows that the lens (in better hands than mine) has potential. Those mountains with snow are about 75 miles away (as the crow flies......or any bird for that matter), and a lot further than that if you drive. This photo was taken from thirty miles north of San Diego, but those mountains are in San Bernadino, relatively close to LA.  I think I'll double-post this one in the "show me your photographers" thread. This guy is a real kook (and I don't know if I mean that in a good way or a bad way). Take a close look at this picture and you'll notice that not only is that a boat made to look like a car, but the dude is driving it with his feet. And if you further notice, he's holding L-glass. That's a-freaking-mazing. San Diego Bay.  Here's a 90% crop of the above image. That dude is serious. He has a video camera mounted on top of his camera with the L-lens. Anyone care to guess what that lens might be? I thought it was the 100-400 but someone else thought it was the 70-200L 2.8. ???  Thank you.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Lowner "I'm the original idiot" 12,924 posts Likes: 18 Joined Jul 2007 Location: Salisbury, UK. More info | Jul 25, 2012 11:08 | #44 MikeFairbanks wrote in post #14767592 ......I loved the push-pull dust-pump action. I found it incredibly useful for tracking. You start at 100, and find your target, then in a split-second you can thrust to 400 and focus, nailing the shot. I rented it a couple times. Love it. You and I should form a supporters fan club. We seem to be the only ones who like the push-pull action. I find its far quicker than turning the zoom and for motorsport where vehicles/bikes are travelling at maybe 200 mph thats important. Richard
LOG IN TO REPLY |
ceremus Senior Member  266 posts Joined Jun 2012 Location: Southeastern Michigan More info | Jul 25, 2012 11:21 | #45 MikeFairbanks wrote in post #14767592 That dude is serious. He has a video camera mounted on top of his camera with the L-lens. Anyone care to guess what that lens might be? I thought it was the 100-400 but someone else thought it was the 70-200L 2.8. ??? That looks like a push-pull zoom, but the hood is wrong for it to be the 100-400, so my guess is the 28-300L.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
 | x 1600 |
| y 1600 |
| Log in Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!
|
| ||
| Latest registered member is MWCarlsson 1115 guests, 151 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 | |||
