is the canon 100-400 still relevant?

Sorry for the flippant title but...

I am interested in examining the 100-400 focal lengths...

and it seems that there are many people out there who have the canon 100-400 f4.5-5.6 L IS enjoy it.

and out of some of the other single lens options out there (e.g. the sigma 120-300 f2.8) it is the smaller and lighter option - though slower for sure.

and for the past 70 billion years there has been a rumor out there that a second version of this lens will be coming out...

and it will be a very small part of my photography (though one I miss)

and I am weighing getting the canon 70-200 f2.8 II

hence - I ask - assuming that "tomorrow" there is no new announcement of another 100-400 (ish) and assuming that I can afford the price point of a brand new retail 100-400,

would you all think that the lens is still "relevant" or would you just get a extender X2 III in the case that I indeed get the 70-200 II?

many thanks for opinions

...or would i buy the Tamron 150-600?

The 100-400 will be relevant until the Mk II comes out - and lots of people will continue to see it relevant then too.

The big question is if it is the best lens for you - something that is very hard for anyone to answer.

really - you think that the IQ of the 150-600 is on par or better than the 100-400 or the 70-200 II with extender? interesting. I will check into that.

I understand that the 100-400 still works as a tool. That wasn't exactly the question. But the question was more about options that exist considering the advancement - and that many people were not happy with the 100-400 (even though many ARE happy).... but you are right - only I can answer if I want to lug it around for the small percentage of pics that I will be using it for....

thanks for all your responses

I'm happy with mine. Having said that I would seriously look at the Tamron options if I were in the market for something with similar range....

The 100-400 is still a popular lens with photographers, even though the lens is over 15 years old. Personally, I have also been looking at a really good telephoto lens. It just depends on how much you are trying to spend, and what exactly are you shooting.

The lenses I looked at is:

70-200 IS II F2.8
70-200 IS F2.8
300 F4
400 F5.6
100-400 F4.5-5.6
Tamron 150-600 F5-6.3

Personally, I am going with the Tamron 150-600. All Lenses are really good, but with the Canon L series being above $1,400 and the Tamron that is just above $1,000, I am going with the Tamron because of the price and the reviews look very positive on this lens.

thanks Joeseph - i suppose that the tamron options are indeed interesting....
Shamlyn - in that mix I added the 120-300 + extenders, and I wasn't interested in the primes.
so to get to the fastest 600 outside of a prime would be the 120-300 + 2X, which brings the lens up to approx $4k - something I don't want to pay at this point.
and the 70-200 II - I may be getting without connection to this lens - hence the question of maybe just getting two extenders.... though that comes to almost $1000 as it is.... but the volume of what is carried is definitely reduced. - max distance 400 f5.6
and the 150-600 - I wasn't too familar with - though you are the third person to bring it up...
i need to look into that... how heavy is it? the price is right....

thanks for the idea. and it is nice to see others in the same boat...

and I guess that it is the reason that the 100-400 *IS* 15 years old that I am even asking the question...

ceriltheblade wrote in post #16718361
Shamlyn - in that mix I added the 120-300 + extenders, and I wasn't interested in the primes.
so to get to the fastest 600 outside of a prime would be the 120-300 + 2X, which brings the lens up to approx $4k - something I don't want to pay at this point.
and the 70-200 II - I may be getting without connection to this lens - hence the question of maybe just getting two extenders.... though that comes to almost $1000 as it is.... but the volume of what is carried is definitely reduced. - max distance 400 f5.6
and the 150-600 - I wasn't too familar with - though you are the third person to bring it up...
i need to look into that... how heavy is it? the price is right....

thanks for the idea. and it is nice to see others in the same boat...

and I guess that it is the reason that the 100-400 *IS* 15 years old that I am even asking the question...

The Tamron is just a little bit heavier than the Canon 100-400. 4.3 pounds for the Tamron vs 3.04 for the Canon. If you haven't held a Canon body with a telephoto lens say for example 100-400, it might take some getting use to. The Tamron is slightly heavier, but shouldn't be any more difficult than the other Canon telephoto L series lenses.

The Tamron was just released just a few months ago. Trust me when I say that I wasn't aware of it until last month. There are other telephotos also, like other Tamron telephotos and Sigma, but for the range, price, quality, you can't the 150-600. I still love the Canon telephoto L series Lenses, and definitely the sexiness of how the Canon L series looks with their distinctive white color, but so far the reviews are that the Tamron is on the same level as Canon for their 150-600. For people shooting wildlife, sports, et cetera who arent wanting to spend more than $2,000, the Tamron is an exellent lens for the money.

Ceriltheblade - Here is a link to a website with some reviews on the Tamron 150-600 and comparing them to other Canon / Tamron telephoto lenses.

One review I would take a look at is the Dustin Abbott review.

http://camahoy.com …-150-600-review-round-up/

Also, even if or when Canon does make a 100-400 IS II lens, it could be another several years before Canon announces the replacement to their original 100-400 lens. Its been 15 years already with nothing although there has just been speculation the past couple of years. The price for that replacement could be in the $2,000 range.

I still have the 100-400L but haven't used it since obtaining the Tamzooka (150-600). My copy is definitely on par or better IQ wise than the L and with the 5D MkIII it will focus just fine, AI Servo or otherwise. And this is compared to what I believe is a very sharp copy of the 100-400L. The only advantage that I can see with the L now is it's size, it will physically fit into many of my camera bags, the Tamron being about 1/3 bigger and heavier will not.

The Sigma 120-300 is mouthwatering but it's also incredibly huge and heavy. Almost as heavy as my 500L is and I've noticed that most owners admit to using a TC with it almost always, which narrows the gap between it and the 500L.

With the Tamzooka I find it very refreshing to have 600mm on a full frame camera. Beautiful files. I no longer want (as much) for more focal length and when that does occur of course, that's when I lug the 500L around.

Since getting the Tamzooka I haven't even used my 7D yet, but one day I will. There have been reports of it not focusing correctly, something I haven't verified yet. The files from the 7D just can't compete with either the 5DII or 5DIII. The angle of view, (perceived focal length), higher pixel density and higher fps are the only things going for it now.

I've used the 2XIII TC with my 70-200L II and the IQ is okay but the focusing is very sluggish. Really bad in dark forests, jungles or shadows, sometimes it won't lock focus if it's dark enough. I've only used it that way a few times when I was out in the field with the wrong tools for what I was trying to do, just a stop gap. The lens when used with the 1.4 II or III is very useful and functional, I use it that way all of the time.

If you are wanting to shoot birds and unless you have a blind set up extremely close to them, you will always lust for more focal length.

Just my 2 cents, and strictly imho.

Roger

ceriltheblade wrote in post #16718320
Sorry for the flippant title but...

I am interested in examining the 100-400 focal lengths...

and it seems that there are many people out there who have the canon 100-400 f4.5-5.6 L IS enjoy it.

and out of some of the other single lens options out there (e.g. the sigma 120-300 f2.8) it is the smaller and lighter option - though slower for sure.

and for the past 70 billion years there has been a rumor out there that a second version of this lens will be coming out...

and it will be a very small part of my photography (though one I miss)

and I am weighing getting the canon 70-200 f2.8 II

hence - I ask - assuming that "tomorrow" there is no new announcement of another 100-400 (ish) and assuming that I can afford the price point of a brand new retail 100-400,

would you all think that the lens is still "relevant" or would you just get a extender X2 III in the case that I indeed get the 70-200 II?

many thanks for opinions

ceriltheblade wrote in post #16718320
Sorry for the flippant title but...

I am interested in examining the 100-400 focal lengths...

and it seems that there are many people out there who have the canon 100-400 f4.5-5.6 L IS enjoy it.

and out of some of the other single lens options out there (e.g. the sigma 120-300 f2.8) it is the smaller and lighter option - though slower for sure.

and for the past 70 billion years there has been a rumor out there that a second version of this lens will be coming out...

and it will be a very small part of my photography (though one I miss)

and I am weighing getting the canon 70-200 f2.8 II

hence - I ask - assuming that "tomorrow" there is no new announcement of another 100-400 (ish) and assuming that I can afford the price point of a brand new retail 100-400,

would you all think that the lens is still "relevant" or would you just get a extender X2 III in the case that I indeed get the 70-200 II?

many thanks for opinions

depends on what you shoot, using an extender on the 70-200 II won't be as sharp and the AF fast as the 100-400 -

https://photography-on-the.net …p?p=15006715#po​st15006715

and some of the early reviews show the 100-400 sharper at focal lengths below 400mm but if you are shooting at 600mm in a zoom the Tamron 150-600 could be a good choice, however you might want to wait for reviews at photozone and the wildlife and birding sites like Juza, etc.

70-200 2.8 II Is i have, and used it with extenders. Tamzooka is much better when you compare - for its reach and faster focus. (without extender of course the 70-200 is a dream to use)

100-400 I have never used.

sanil

I have the 100-400 and the big Tamron. For me, the Canon is more compact and faster to use. I find the Tamron to be bulky and heavier but certainly expected as it is 600mm.

I shoot primarily center point focus and AI Servo with the 60D. The Tamron can focus as quickly as the Canon but hunts more. It has a tendency to run through the entire focal range to make a minor correction in focal distance. The IQ is comparable to the Canon.

I will be keeping both for the time being.

Yes the 100-400 L is still relevent! Some of us are still choosing it because we believe it best meets our needs. I care more about having 100 on the short end than 600 on the long. Good used 100-400Ls are not more expensive than the Tamron 150-600. I'm very pleased with the 100-400 that I recently purchased.

Before getting the 100-400 I was using a 70-300L and 400 5.6L, so its not like I'm comparing it to bad lenses.

i find my 100-400 works great on my 5d3 as well