Canon making a NEW 100-400 lens?

MrChad wrote in post #2369307
I'm not generally one to like a push-pull lens, mainly because I had to use some very horrid examples of them in my 35mm days.

That said, why does everyone want this lens upgraded? I doubt it will happen soon given the recent introduction not that long ago of the 28-300mmL IS which shares the build.

My buddy aquired one of these (100-400L), after using if for a brief period you simply forget that it's a push pull. It's instinctive and a truely wonderful lens. And the AF is very quick in deed. I doubt many better zooms stretching to 400mm can be had for the money.

If you've never tried one out you owe it to yourself...

I rented one, and was left wanting. It was soft at 400mm, and that seems to be common. Some suggest I rented a bad copy, but I just cannot seem to get excited about it. I picked up a refurb EF 35-350 L, and I am much more pleased with it. I call it my paparazzi lens, a role the 100-400 can't fill.

I had some bad experiences with push-pull zooms in the film days, too. My biggest objection is that it can be harder to zoom precisely when pushing/pulling than rotating.

Have Fun,

CoolToolGuy wrote in post #2369553
I rented one, and was left wanting. It was soft at 400mm, and that seems to be common. Some suggest I rented a bad copy, but I just cannot seem to get excited about it. I picked up a refurb EF 35-350 L, and I am much more pleased with it. I call it my paparazzi lens, a role the 100-400 can't fill.

I had some bad experiences with push-pull zooms in the film days, too. My biggest objection is that it can be harder to zoom precisely when pushing/pulling than rotating.

Have Fun,

I can't say that I'd see a huge difference between 300 and 400mm in subject FOV, however I think 400mm does a much better job of isolating the background that last little bit.

I'm with you for the size of lens I'd opt for the 28-300mm L, but I must admit 400mm had such a nice background isolation. And from my buddy's copies sharpness was better then any 200mm or 300mm I have used even at 400mm. I found it as pleasing in IQ, as my 70-200mm L for my needs though.

I have been hoping for an upgrade for a couple of reasons
1. The IS is first gen, came out just after the original 75-300 IS lens. I would like to see 3rd Gen IS.

2. Could stand some minor optical improvement which all Canon lenses seem to be getting these days.

3. It is way over due for upgrade.

On the flip side, I do not want anything but Push Pull for this lens, unless it is better optically then my 70-200 across the board, as the Push-Pull zoom is it's best feature for what I use this lens for now, which is airshow pictures (or when I need more range then my 70-200/2.8L can get). twist zoom takes way too long to be able to follow a jet aircraft close up as it goes by you at 500+MPH.

Just my opinion,

I guess this is a personal preference, but my argument with push/pull is that if I want to adjust the zoom "just a little" to get the best framing, a twist action is more precise than a push/pull. I have had the problem with all sorts of situations including motorsports, and although I have not shot an air show in several years, I would consider it the same. In the pre auto-focus days, push/pull was usually mixed with the focus (one-touch zooms), so it was a bonus, but I'll take my zoom with a twist, please.

Have Fun,

Jaetie wrote in post #2359295
only cause they're going to give you the newest IS.

I often see this argument but it doesn't stand up IMO. When IS was first introduced it was new and unproven technology using difficult to manufacture components.
Now, these kind of small electronic components and processing technologies are considerably easier and cheaper to manufacture. I utterly fail to see how putting the latest IS on a lens would even be as expensive as the antiquated and originally expensive parts used previously.

Same logic applies to the 85L mk2. People said the $500 bought you faster focusing because of more modern parts. They fail to understand these parts are now commonplace when the weren't in 1989. Canon is having our pants down.

Sprout Crumble wrote in post #2403113
I often see this argument but it doesn't stand up IMO. When IS was first introduced it was new and unproven technology using difficult to manufacture components.
Now, these kind of small electronic components and processing technologies are considerably easier and cheaper to manufacture. I utterly fail to see how putting the latest IS on a lens would even be as expensive as the antiquated and originally expensive parts used previously.

Same logic applies to the 85L mk2. People said the $500 bought you faster focusing because of more modern parts. They fail to understand these parts are now commonplace when the weren't in 1989. Canon is having our pants down.

I wish they would introduce slipstream upgrades of the electronics, but then we'd all go nuts trying to get 'late versions' of the lens as evidenced by the date codes, and our investments would depreciate just like any other electronic, techno-toy on the market now. That is the whole root cause of the depreciation, the continuing improvement. Nobody wants yesteryear's computers.

Though I do agree that the IS components have become cheaper.. you should see the Nintendo Wii, while I'm no longer a computer gamer, that console is a prime example of how exotic gyrosensors have now become a mainstream technology. Move the controller around (in real space) and it detects your motion, feeding it back to the game..

The 100-400 was introduced in Nov. 1998. Not as aged as some other lenses in Canon's lineup, but the original 85 f/1.2 L was introduced at the same time and has been upgraded.

Push-pull is wonderful to use. Don't fear it too much regarding dust, that issue has been over-hyped mainly by those who don't have a push-pull. I can imagine a modern push-pull with a fixed rear element so no chamber airflow anyway.

I am considering getting this lens, but will probably wait until PMA and see what is announced. Even then I might pick up a used one going cheap from somebody moving up.

The 85L was released in 1989

Sprout Crumble wrote in post #2502164
The 85L was released in 1989

I see. I transposed two digits. Sorry

This is again the subject of heated rumors. Anyone with any substantive info on this?

Ok so the 400mm f/4 DO didn't set the world on fire but why couldn't the DO manufacturing process (which was supposed to yield lighter and cheaper?) be applied to other lenses?

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #6315144
Ok so the 400mm f/4 DO didn't set the world on fire but why couldn't the DO manufacturing process (which was supposed to yield lighter and cheaper?) be applied to other lenses?

They could - it's the price of DO lenses (certainly the 400mm DO) that's the problem.

TIme for a 100-400 f4 IS

I just read a rumor that it is coming up in Spring 2009. but it is unreliable rumor at this time.

raghu75 wrote in post #6453509
TIme for a 100-400 f4 IS

Have you seen the size and price of the Nikkor 200-400mm/4 VR? Good heavens you can have it...