100-400 iS II?

Canon has released their II version of the 16-35, 70-200 2.8 IS as well as an IS II version of their 100 macro. The 24-70 IS II is coming. I'm headed out for some birding with my 100-400 and am wondering if maybe a 100-400 IS II version may come some day soon. I love this lens, but as many of you know, you have to go to f8 before it gets truly sharp. That leads to some unfortunate compromises on cloudy days like the one I have today. Is ther ANY talk of a new sharper version of this lens coming?

24-70 IS is just as much of a rumour as a 100-400 II. Both are probable in some form... eventually.

Canon doesn't need an updated version of the 100-400mm 5.6. They already have an IS version of that lens. What Canon REALLY needs is an IS version of the 400mm 5.6! This would drastically increase the versatility of this lens. I think it would be a pretty big seller for Canon and I believe it would be priced around $1650. With IS, I think a few people would trade in thier 100-400mm zooms for the very sharp 400mm 5.6 prime.

Peacefield wrote in post #10105882
I love this lens, but as many of you know, you have to go to f8 before it gets truly sharp. Is ther ANY talk of a new sharper version of this lens coming?

What you talkin bout Willis? I own both the 100-40mm and the 400/5.6 and my 100-400 is extremely sharp below F8. Sure, it performs better at F8 as does every lens ever made. However, images shot at 5.6 are extremely usable.

Usable, but not sharp, especially if you end up doing some cropping down. And I agree, I'd be all over a 400 prime with IS. But Canon is not just adding IS; they're improving the optics. As much as I'd look hard at a 400 prime IS, I'd be happier still with a 100-400 thats sharper a little wider.

I disagree Nightcat. IS or not, a 400mm prime is still a very long prime. No matter how great of an IS system you add to it the prime will never be as versatile as the zoom. Espaecially not a mkII version of the zoom with upgraded IS and faster AF.

krb wrote in post #10106233
I disagree Nightcat. IS or not, a 400mm prime is still a very long prime. No matter how great of an IS system you add to it the prime will never be as versatile as the zoom. Espaecially not a mkII version of the zoom with upgraded IS and faster AF.

I never said it would be as versatile as the zoom. And I never suggested many people would trade the zoom in for the prime if it had IS. All I said is "a few" people would make the trade. The "few" I'm talking about would be those who need the lens strictly for the 400mm focal range, and previously bought the zoom over the prime only because it had IS. There would be absolutely no need for the great majority of zoom owners to make the switch.

On the other hand, I think the majority of the people who presently own the 400mm 5.6 prime would make the switch if Canon came out with a version that had IS.

And I'm saying that if the zoom had a faster AF system then there would be little reason to choose the prime. The AF is the zooms weak point, not IQ/sharpness.

I guess definitions of sharp vary then. I don't have any issue with these, they're all at F5.6 extremely heavily cropped.

HKGuns wrote in post #10106380
I guess definitions of sharp vary then. I don't have any issue with these, they're all at F5.6 extremely heavily cropped.

And with all due and genuine respect, I don't find those images to be especially sharp. They're acceptable, usable, very nice, and I've got bunches just like them. That said, they don't compare to the sharpness that comes with so many of Canon's other L lenses at wider aperatures.

The 70-200 2.8 mk I was an excellent lens. Now it's stunning. I'm just wondering if Canon has plans to bring those same IS and IQ enhancements to this very popular and useful lens.

krb wrote in post #10106376
And I'm saying that if the zoom had a faster AF system then there would be little reason to choose the prime. The AF is the zooms weak point, not IQ/sharpness.

There would still be several great reasons to choose the prime. If I am in need of strictly the 400mm range (which I am). Why would I buy a more expensive heavier zoom? Yes, the majority of people should choose (and do choose) the zoom for its versatility and focal range. But for those in need of the 400mm focal length only, buying the heavier, more expensive zoom makes no sense.

People have been rumoring a mkII version of the 100-400 for years and years and years. It might come someday, but no one knows when.

It is a great lens as it is. Wide open on a zoom telephoto, handheld, these kind of results are not bad at all:

375mm ISO1250 1/400 f/5.6 (handheld w/IS)

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

nightcat wrote in post #10106414
There would still be several great reasons to choose the prime. If I am in need of strictly the 400mm range (which I am). Why would I buy a more expensive heavier zoom? Yes, the majority of people should choose (and do choose) the zoom for its versatility and focal range. But for those in need of the 400mm focal length only, buying the heavier, more expensive zoom makes no sense.

100-400L = 3 lbs

400L = 2.8 lbs

ed rader

My 100-400L is as sharp at f/5.6 as my 300/4L is at f/4. I do not stop down my 100-400L for sharpness (or much else really, as f/5.6 is already slow).

The only thing I'd like in a newer version is a later generation IS unit, and I'd not bother selling mine just to get that.

Parden the otherwise dullness of this shot, it is 400mm and f/5.6 with 100% crop on the 16MP 1D4.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Unless they intend to make it four stop IS AND f/4 I wouldnt bother upgrading. Same with the 24-70, adding IS wouldnt be enough to get me to give them more money, especially if its that new hybird IS system their using now... Im not really liking how clunky that sounds when the lens it unmounted.