is the canon 100-400 still relevant?

My 100-400L is quite relevant. It is paid for.

thanks all....
good information here.

Do you need it as a low light (indoor) telezoom too? Because that's where the 70-200 will shine.

The 100-400 is absolutely still relevant; and the 150-600 is certainly on par with it, with the added benefit of getting to 600mm.

I attempted the 70-200 + TC to compare to the 100-400 a couple of years ago. While the 70-200 is a spectacular lens on its own, it just didn't hold up with the TC:70-200 + TC
100-400
While my results don't appear to be typical, they do illustrate exactly what the problems can be with throwing a TC on zoom lenses. I would always recommend native focal length over adjusting a zoom with a TC; TCs are primarily intended to extend the reach of prime lenses and do not have to match up to multiple focal lengths.

I've shot the 100-400 now, for 4 years...ish; would have to dig back to see for sure. But, I've recently picked up the 150-600 and it's really quite nice. While it's easy to try and envision the difference between 400mm and 600mm and to rationalize that you can just crop/resize the 400 shot, it isn't quite that simple. Cropping/resizing is work that just doesn't need to be done, now, with the price point of this lens, and the real-world difference between 400 and 600 is quite significant: (both uncropped photos to show full field of view, on a crop sensor [7D]):

400:

Good comparsion, Snydremark!
150-600 seems to produce pretty weird (actually quite horrible) bokeh compared to 100-400L.
Look at those OOF branches, looks like there is two branches in one with 150-600.
With 100-400L, results are much smoother.

I'm curious why the 70-300L hasn't been brought up in this thread... Not enough reach? The size is hard to beat and the image quality and IS are as good as any. No?

Owl_79 wrote in post #16720986
Good comparsion, Snydremark!
150-600 seems to produce pretty weird (actually quite horrible) bokeh compared to 100-400L.
Look at those OOF branches, looks like there is two branches in one with 150-600.
With 100-400L, results are much smoother.

i don't think that's a "bokeh" issue... it's the result of the extra compression from the focal length. By most accounts, the 150-600 has nice bokeh.

1Tanker wrote in post #16721004
i don't think that's a "bokeh" issue... it's the result of the extra compression from the focal length. By most accounts, the 150-600 has nice bokeh.

Can't agree, because I have seen this before also. Same issue with Sigma 150-500, I just don't like the bokeh at all. 100-400L is much closer to prime lenses there (but still not quite).
Best results are achieved when avoiding nearby objects surrounding the actual subject (like branches).

Owl_79 wrote in post #16721006
100-400L is much closer to prime lenses there (but still not quite).

right, even severely cropping the 100-400 images they are still sharp

turns the 100-400 into a 800mm lens !!!


60D
100-400 @ 400mm
cropped 80%

Owl_79 wrote in post #16719165
My voice for 100-400 as well. I would take it over Tamron 150-600 just because 100-400L is so reliable work horse (AF) and produces very good IQ, time after time.

My exact reason for going for the 100-400; it just came in yesterday and I hope to take it out this weekend. The 100-400L has been a reliable work horse for years, you can't possibly go wrong especially since the price of used ones have gone down with the Intro of the Tammy.

The Tammy is a great lens that I do believe opens a whole new ball park for Canon. They need to compete with a 150-600 lens with very high IQ and a reasonable price point - that's not going to happen with a "100-400L II" - the price point has been blown away. I am curious to see how Canon will respond.

Lumens wrote in post #16721285
They need to compete with a 150-600 lens with very high IQ and a reasonable price point - that's not going to happen with a "100-400L II" - the price point has been blown away. I am curious to see how Canon will respond.

My guess is that they'll respond in the exact same way as they responded to the Sigma 50-500 and 150-500.

While the 100-400 continues to sell a lot, why would Canon want to replace it?

hollis_f wrote in post #16723591
My guess is that they'll respond in the exact same way as they responded to the Sigma 50-500 and 150-500.

While the 100-400 continues to sell a lot, why would Canon want to replace it?

Good Point, unless sales drop change is unlikely. Perhaps this is the reason for the longevity of the "100-400L II" rumors

Well, i would say they aren't totally oblivious to the idea of upgrading it.. or they wouldn't have filed a few patents on updates.