New 100-400 in a few months?

Started Mar 29, 2013 | Discussions thread
joger
Senior MemberPosts: 2,578Gear list
Like?
Re: "nothing wrong"
In reply to Wyville, Apr 4, 2013

Wyville wrote:

joger wrote:

don't mention the type II tele lenses here - you might get serious bashing for that

Sure - the type II tele lenses are a good deal better then any current zoom and probably ever will BUT in terms of convenience and weight they are of course different and the 100-400 would surely be a f/5.6 end aperture design (being in reality t/6.x)

And as such it would be lighter and more affordable. I am sure it would take several months until it is in regular supply anyhow - even with a moderate demand - the price is for some people no trigger point - it is the quality of the lens - a superb 100-400 would find it's market - no doubt.

And even 7D owners would benefit without purchasing a new 7D II body

I guess the 7D, 5D, 5D II and 5D III and 6D owners would be a huge crow of potential buyers - as said many times before - Canon has a lot of tele zooms but only two meet my personal expectations and also 70-200 f/2.8 II owners might be tempted to get a travel zoom on the same optical quality but most of them would never buy a II tele - 3 k USD dosen't sound that crazy with the Nikon offering in parallel

of course IMHO

But the situation for Canon and Nikon are very different. Nikon only has an affordable 70-300 and it didn't have a very good 80-400. Canon on the other hand has the 70-300L, which is a really good lens, worth every penny of its reasonably high pricetag, and Canon has a good 100-400L that is actually very affordable for what it delivers.

Nikon really needed to udate the 80-400, but for Canon there are various options to consider and plenty of time to consider them. To me it doesn't make sense for Canon to release a 100-400L that is equal in price and performance to the new Nikkor. Unless of course they see a booming market for such a lens.

I own the 100-400L and love it. If I had $3k to spare and wanted to get a step up from what I have now, I would consider a used 300/2.8 mkI. In fact, that is one of the options I'm considering unless Canon comes up with a 400/5.6L IS or Sigma makes a 300/2.8 OS 'Sports' (with improved quality control).

I am not so sure if the situation is really different?

Let's do one step back and look at the broader picture (which is causing severe troubles here sometimes)

In the advent of higher resolving sensors (I am certain we will see them from Canon too) the "quality" of the lens gets even more important that it is today. Lenses are keeprs and my assumption is that the number of sold lenses slows down as well as the number of DSLRs goes down over time with the really more then acceptable quality of many P&S cameras. Canon is even marketing the smallest current DSLR.

The trend goes to smaller and lighter cameras which are not necessarily DSLRS. Thus all DSLR manufacturers will be tempted to up the price to compensate for this envelopment.

I would't be surprised with a new lens automatically means the stop of production for the old version.

Canon has several 70-200rds parallel in production for different aspects.

Don't get me wrong - there is nothing wrong with the current good 70-300L or the good 100-400L - yet there is a market for high res corner to corner sharp images wide open with the need to travel lean.

Will all those guys buy a type II tele? Surely not. There are many aspects in a (travel-)zoom that are very attractive.

the 70-200 f/4.0 L IS USM is an outstanding piece of engineering - unparalleled in weight and optical performance at 135 till 200 mm - I'd surely want this performance at 300-400 mm at f/5.6 for a lightweight travel-zoom with great IS and mode 3 please

Please also very compact and please below 1.5 kg - push pull or rotating mechanism - well - I think whatever delivers the lightest package maintaining the highest precision is welcome.

Is there a future market for that - of course - my assumption is that Canon has a very different marketing strategy compare to Nikon. While Nikon introduced first a high res body Canon seems to upgrade their lenses first before upgrading their sensors. Nothing wrong with both strategies and nothing wrong with people willing to pay less.

I'd surely buy a stellar 100-400 L sooner or later - especially getting older could be a driving force to reduce weight

Why do thoe lenses have to be excellent wide open in the corners?

Well for me it's all about composition and the important aspect is not necessarily in the center of the frame (rule of thirds) and I want the freedom to choose the aperture suitable to the effect I want and not being forced to use the aperture that works best.

Then I want to print s big as I think the image looks right (for an exhibition or my own walls) - if you ever printed big you will see the flaws of a 7D at ISO 800 (which is a very common ISO value for wildlife and action) - that's also the reason why I want to shoot wide open.

If you do a compromise on size and weight f/5.6 seems to be a very good compromise for 400 mm.

Why is it important to have the utmost optical quality?

Well - here I see the shier enjoyment of seeing all details and deciding later how much to crop and alter the image. A good deal of my occupation is working in LightRoom  or PhotoShop to get to the point.

Why I am so keen on the utmost imge quality - well 1st and foremost it is fun to work with excellent tools. 2ndly is the option of having choices in post production and the 3rd important fact is simply the after market - it could likely be that I'd like to sell some parts of my gear - excellent epic lenses get a very good 2nd hand price tag and their brought lot's of fun until they are sold.

Please don't get me wrong - I am just searching for the best money can buy - and most of the time I succeed sooner or later - it's a passion and that's what IMHO photography should be all about - passion for the right moment and situation.

Opposite to some other guys I own only very few lenses - for each purpose one - in total only some 5 lenses but none of them is behind my expectations and all of them need good craftsmanship to get the utmost out of them. A 100-400L II on a high optical and mechanical level (with better centering then the current longer tele-zooms) would be my 6th lens for replacing two lenses for lean traveling.

Let's cross fingers that Canon is thinking the same way - but I would also be happy for others if Canon thinks going cheap is the right way.

just my 2CT - hope this clarifies some points.

-- hide signature --

__________________________________
isn’t it funny, a ship that leaks from the top
ISO 9000 definition of quality: 'Degree to which a set of inherent characteristic fulfills requirements'
I am the classic “Windows by Day, Mac by Night user'
“The horizon of many people is a circle with zero radius which they call their point of view.” Albert Einstein

 joger's gear list:joger's gear list
Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L USM Canon TS-E 17mm f/4L Canon TS-E 90mm f/2.8 Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II USM Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow