Anyone Frustrated Like Me?

I am frustrated by the gap in the Canon L series tele-photo zoom lenses. Photography is purely a hobby and the budget is a consideration. I have a full frame body, and although lens speed is important, that is secondary to lens weight (on the longer end) and the budget.

In most respects Canon does a great job offering L series for the pros and the "poor-boy" geeks like me...until we get beyond the 70-200L series. Kudos to Canon for offering a wide array of 70-200 options.

Basically I'm left with two options for more reach. The 100-400L is a quality lens but long in the tooth (and rumored to be replaced for some five years now) and has other drawbacks with weight, push/pull barrell, and variable aperature.

I think most would agree within reason that the 70-300L is compact, very good quality, and price apporopriate. However the 4.0-5.6 variable is frustrating in the sports arena (especially indoors). Somewhat frustrating is the reversal of the zoom and focus rings. But most frustrating is the incompatibility with a teleconverter for that extra reach.

In an ideal world, I'd like a 100-300 4.0L that is compatible with the 3rd generation teleconverters (even a 150-300 would be acceptible to hold price, weight and maintain 4.0 lens speed). No doubt it would be a little heavier and a few more bucks than the 70-300, but lighter and smaller than the 100-400, and it would be a great alternative to the current offerings.

I'm a rookie on this board, and I'm wondering if I'm just a lone wolf howling in the distance, or is am I a part of a herd that needs to start growling to prod Canon to expand their lineup in an overlooked area?

They just made/are making a 200-400L


EDIT:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …der-1.4x-Lens-Review.aspx

There's always the sigma 100-300f4 and 2.8 versions for those who are happy using non-L lenses.

Each lens has its own pros and cons, learn to deal with it.

Hey I want a 24-105f2.8 IS too

70-300L is compatable with kenko TC's - just not canon's
and never had an issue with the variable aperture with outdoor sports

Another vote for the Sigma 100-300/4, its an excellent lens!

Thanks for the reply guys but I'd like to limit the discussion to the parameters that I outlined. Specifically Canon products that fit a reasonable budget. FWIW, Canon has yet to announce the 200-400 and it's rumored to be $4k+; and Sigma does not offer a 4.0 version of the 100-300 (2.8 is out of the price range) http://www.sigmaphoto.​com …photo-zoom-lenses?page=99

Honestly OP, you can't have it both ways...

You can't lay out 20 pre-conditions as to why you wont buy lens x, y or z, and then complain that there are no options.

Oh, and your short by about 2/3 on the price of the new 200-400...

Sigma 100-300/4: Then they recently discontinued it. Here's a review:
http://www.photozone.d​e …o-lab-test-report--review

I love mine. A typical used price here (Germany) is 400-500€ depending on condition. Works good with a 1.4x converter too. (never tried a 2x)

Christina.DazzleByDesi​gn wrote in post #14963643
70-300L is compatable with kenko TC's - just not canon's
and never had an issue with the variable aperture with outdoor sports

This. My 70-300L+Kenko 2x combo works very well. It *is* MF only once you start to zoom, but that's not really a big deal. I've never used it to shoot indoor sports, so I can't speak to that. I can tell you that the IS is phenomenal on this lens, but that doesn't help freeze motion.

Willbeen wrote in post #14963550
I am frustrated by the gap in the Canon L series tele-photo zoom lenses. Photography is purely a hobby and the budget is a consideration. I have a full frame body, and although lens speed is important, that is secondary to lens weight (on the longer end) and the budget.

In most respects Canon does a great job offering L series for the pros and the "poor-boy" geeks like me...until we get beyond the 70-200L series. Kudos to Canon for offering a wide array of 70-200 options.

Basically I'm left with two options for more reach. The 100-400L is a quality lens but long in the tooth (and rumored to be replaced for some five years now) and has other drawbacks with weight, push/pull barrell, and variable aperature.

I think most would agree within reason that the 70-300L is compact, very good quality, and price apporopriate. However the 4.0-5.6 variable is frustrating in the sports arena (especially indoors). Somewhat frustrating is the reversal of the zoom and focus rings. But most frustrating is the incompatibility with a teleconverter for that extra reach.

In an ideal world, I'd like a 100-300 4.0L that is compatible with the 3rd generation teleconverters (even a 150-300 would be acceptible to hold price, weight and maintain 4.0 lens speed). No doubt it would be a little heavier and a few more bucks than the 70-300, but lighter and smaller than the 100-400, and it would be a great alternative to the current offerings.

I'm a rookie on this board, and I'm wondering if I'm just a lone wolf howling in the distance, or is am I a part of a herd that needs to start growling to prod Canon to expand their lineup in an overlooked area?

No.

One of Canon's longest primes the 400mm f5.6 is only about 1k. Yes there are a few longer but the reach and IQ are great for the money. I think the amount of R&D, weatherproofing, and glass elements materials and creation are why the cost for even a regular consumer L lens is high. Micro precision is not cheap. I for one am glad I am able to afford L glass on a very modest budget.

For action the 100-400 is unbeatable, the weight is non-existant versus fixed apertures, and the push pull is possibly the best design for moving subjects IMHO.

Even though the 100-400L is an older design it can still deliver superb results. I rented one on vacation and was very pleased with the image quality and the push pull design didn't bother me at all.

While I know fixed aperture is ideal, if it comes to keeping cost and weight down while still delivering good IQ I don't see a problem with that trade off.

Nature Nut wrote in post #14963784
For action the 100-400 is unbeatable, the weight is non-existant versus fixed apertures, and the push pull is possibly the best design for moving subjects IMHO.

there's no other zoom (IMHO) in performance and value that delivers like the 100-400. Sure, the new 200-400 rumored at multiple 000'swill eventually be available and there will be a new 100-400 some day but that will probably cost a lot more. There are Sigma and Tamron alternatives, you can read the reviews, do the comparisons. I was somewhat frustrated there was no EF-S 400mm telephoto zoom but eventually I sucked it up and got the 100-400 - now it's my most used lens

What are you shooting that you need 300mm????