100-400 iS II?

maverick678 wrote in post #10677738
Are you serious ?. How many people can actually afford 200-400 f/4 IS ?. Not to mention the weight you have to deal with.

Exactly. Just look at the Nikon 200-400 to get an idea of the size, weight and price. If I had that kind of money I'd keep the 100-400 as a walk around lens and get a 500 or 600 prime.

krb wrote in post #10678409
...I'd keep the 100-400 as a walk around lens ...

heh heh, 100-400 a walkaround lens ..

timbop wrote in post #10683409
heh heh, 100-400 a walkaround lens ..

It already is my "walkaround" lens for the 90% or more of the time that I'm outside of urban areas. Perfect lens to have attached to the camera while walking down a trail.

Yep. The 100-400 is my walkaround too.........

leesurf wrote in post #10715028
Yep. The 100-400 is my walkaround too.........

Mine too

Mine too, most of the time. And I am looking forward to Peacefield's response to Jermainek...

Julius

Once they come out with a MK2 i'll consider getting one.

Combatmedic870 wrote in post #10733591
Once they come out with a MK2 i'll consider getting one.

I made that mistake for two years.

Then I just bought a used 100-400. It is my favorite lens.

timbop wrote in post #10683409
heh heh, 100-400 a walkaround lens ..

This is what I use it for,. it's either that or the 500mm prime..

and no I'm not being sarcastic...

JeffreyG wrote in post #10734223
I made that mistake for two years.

Then I just bought a used 100-400. It is my favorite lens.

That's fine, I'm good with that. The 100-400 needs to have weather sealing for me to get it. If I were to get it, it would be for hiking,rain or shine it happens. Or a 400L with weather sealing. Doesn't matter to me which one.

You might check other threads, the 100-400 will be replaced by 100-300L, zoom ring. Don't know yet if it will be 2.8 or f4 constant.

Don't confuse rumor with fact. There are rumors that Canon is accouncing a new 100-300 soon. There is nothing confirmed about it, especially nothing about it replacing anything.

The 100-400 is one of Canon's most popular lenses and I would not expect them to replace it with something that is not at least as long. If the new lens turns out to be a f/2.8 then you can be sure that it is not a replacement, since it would likely cost 3 times as much.

I don't think I'd spring for a 100-300 at this stage.

But holy cow; if they gave the 100-400 the same treatment as the 70-200, I'd FIND a way to come up with the money ASAP

And yeah, I use it as my "walkaround" lens most of the time; although it's now sharing duty with the 24-105.

Just give me something that is longer than the 70-200, better IS and AF than 300 f/4, and better IQ and wider than 100-400. And please keep it under $2K.

The 70-300 just ain't cuttin' it.

I would prefer a 100-400/2.8 IS.