New 100-400 in a few months?

Started Mar 29, 2013 | Discussions
schmegg
schmegg MOD
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,258
Like?
Re: Just curious
In reply to joger, Apr 3, 2013

joger wrote:

surprised to see YOU quoting DXOmark

Sure - DXO predominantly ranks the wide open performance and since the f/4.0 version is one stop slower it can never be on the same level according to their ranking - it is also double the weight and a bit bigger . . .

Meh - I have less problem using DxO data if the body used remains the same for each comparison - as it does in this case.

Photozone agrees - "It surpasses its predecessor easily and it did even manage to top (very slightly so) the EF 70-200mm f/4 USM L IS".

But who cares - I don't. Just surprised you'd accept second best. Seems your normal "no compromise" approach does have some limits after all!

(in theory a f/4.0 lens can never be as good as a f/2.8 lens - look here)

The article does not conclude the an "f/4.0 lens can never be as good as a f/2.8 lens" at all.

It actually says ...

"The sweet spot of any lens is at medium aperture values because aberrations are reduced and diffraction effects aren’t strong yet."

And by "medium apertures" they are talking about apertures smaller then f4 ...

"The sweet spot— the range of apertures with excellent sharpness, tends to be between f/5.6 and the aperture corresponding f/11 for the 35mm format"

That said - it would be extremely nice to see a 100-400 on the level of the current 70-200 f/2.8 II

Yep - I agree. And, to my mind, it would need to improve by around this amount before I'd be bothered considering it (and even then, only if it also included Mode3 IS). Personally, I'd also be sad to see the push-pull design go - so I'd be hoping that stayed (though I admit this is a personal preference - I just find it quicker and more convenient than the alternative).

But I rather suspect that, if that was the case, the price would be stupid and I'd still not bother. The current one does me just fine.

I'd certainly buy it if it is also lighter then the current 70-200 II

Zooms are for lean traveling and convenience aspects - otherwise I prefer primes

Yep - me too.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
joger
Senior MemberPosts: 2,690Gear list
Like?
Re: Just curious
In reply to schmegg, Apr 3, 2013

schmegg wrote:

joger wrote:

surprised to see YOU quoting DXOmark

Sure - DXO predominantly ranks the wide open performance and since the f/4.0 version is one stop slower it can never be on the same level according to their ranking - it is also double the weight and a bit bigger . . .

Meh - I have less problem using DxO data if the body used remains the same for each comparison - as it does in this case.

Photozone agrees - "It surpasses its predecessor easily and it did even manage to top (very slightly so) the EF 70-200mm f/4 USM L IS".

But who cares - I don't. Just surprised you'd accept second best. Seems your normal "no compromise" approach does have some limits after all!

the 70-200 f/4.0 L IS USM is the best of the slower and lighter lenses - as said before - zooms are for convenience and lean traveling (IMHO) - the 70-200 f/2.8 is a quite heavy lens for hiking and it is a bit bulky as well - the difference to a good deal better and longer range prime is not that big - thought several times about getting the 70-200 f/2.8 II but skipped it because it does not bring significant advantages and it is quite heavy.

The 70-200 f/4.0 L IS USM is the best of the slow zooms - and probably not really much worse but the other slow zooms are a good deal worse then the 70-200 f/2.8 II

(in theory a f/4.0 lens can never be as good as a f/2.8 lens - look here)

The article does not conclude the an "f/4.0 lens can never be as good as a f/2.8 lens" at all.

It actually says ...

"The sweet spot of any lens is at medium aperture values because aberrations are reduced and diffraction effects aren’t strong yet."

where does this statement differ from mine? I said in theory

Yet some really good primes perform excellent wide open and almost as good as stopped down one or two stops

I'd certainly buy it if it is also lighter then the current 70-200 II

Zooms are for lean traveling and convenience aspects - otherwise I prefer primes

Yep - me too.

seems we (almost) fully agree

-- 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
Gearóid Ó Laoi, Garry Lee
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,874Gear list
Like?
Re: Just curious
In reply to joger, Apr 3, 2013

that big - thought several times about getting the 70-200 f/2.8 II but skipped it because it does not bring significant advantages and it is quite heavy.

More contradiction.

The 70-200 F2.8 has no significant advantages. This is from the chap who goes on and on (correctly) about the bokeh of a 300 f2.8 yet does not see this huge advantage of the 70-200 f2.8 in that regard..

Also, how about the 70-200 F2.8 being heavy but the 300 f2.8 NOT being that heavy...

The 70-200 f/4.0 L IS USM is the best of the slow zooms - and probably not really much worse but the other slow zooms are a good deal worse then the 70-200 f/2.8 II

No. The 70-300 L is as good.

Yet some really good primes perform excellent wide open and almost as good as stopped down one or two stops

I could detect no difference in the 400 f5.6 L stopped down.

Joger, you are as consistent as a decerebrate drunk mouse chasing a piece of cheese on a tightrope...

 Gearóid Ó Laoi, Garry Lee's gear list:Gearóid Ó Laoi, Garry Lee's gear list
Canon PowerShot S90 Fujifilm X10 Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Canon EOS-1D Mark IV +25 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
schmegg
schmegg MOD
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,258
Like?
Re: Just curious
In reply to joger, Apr 3, 2013

joger wrote:

schmegg wrote:

joger wrote:

surprised to see YOU quoting DXOmark

Sure - DXO predominantly ranks the wide open performance and since the f/4.0 version is one stop slower it can never be on the same level according to their ranking - it is also double the weight and a bit bigger . . .

Meh - I have less problem using DxO data if the body used remains the same for each comparison - as it does in this case.

Photozone agrees - "It surpasses its predecessor easily and it did even manage to top (very slightly so) the EF 70-200mm f/4 USM L IS".

But who cares - I don't. Just surprised you'd accept second best. Seems your normal "no compromise" approach does have some limits after all!

the 70-200 f/4.0 L IS USM is the best of the slower and lighter lenses - as said before - zooms are for convenience and lean traveling (IMHO) - the 70-200 f/2.8 is a quite heavy lens for hiking and it is a bit bulky as well - the difference to a good deal better and longer range prime is not that big - thought several times about getting the 70-200 f/2.8 II but skipped it because it does not bring significant advantages and it is quite heavy.

That is indeed a compromise.

The 70-200 f/4.0 L IS USM is the best of the slow zooms - and probably not really much worse but the other slow zooms are a good deal worse then the 70-200 f/2.8 II

Yep - though maybe not a 'significant' deal worse for many - just as the difference between the 2.8 II and the 4 is not 'significant' to you.

(in theory a f/4.0 lens can never be as good as a f/2.8 lens - look here)

The article does not conclude the an "f/4.0 lens can never be as good as a f/2.8 lens" at all.

It actually says ...

"The sweet spot of any lens is at medium aperture values because aberrations are reduced and diffraction effects aren’t strong yet."

where does this statement differ from mine? I said in theory

LOL! Fair enough.

Yet some really good primes perform excellent wide open and almost as good as stopped down one or two stops

I'd certainly buy it if it is also lighter then the current 70-200 II

Zooms are for lean traveling and convenience aspects - otherwise I prefer primes

Yep - me too.

seems we (almost) fully agree

Yeah - I think we agree on many more things than we disagree on. And I suspect much of what we don't agree on is in the realm of "value judgements" - which means neither of us is really 'right or wrong' - we just have different values.

And I think that's why many people are still quite happy with the current 100-400L. It does deliver great images in many situations and is still reasonably portable with a very convenient zoom range for certain applications.

Would I want a newer one? Well, I'd not say no of course, but it'd want to be pretty damn good and at a reasonable price to tempt me away from my current one - unless someone gave it to me!

Faster AF, updated Mode3 IS, lighter, but still a push-pull design, with some upgrade to IQ perhaps (though this is less important than the preceding things to me - apart from the bokeh which I would like to see improved) and I might be interested (if the price wasn't too much higher than the current one - which is highly unlikely).

But that's just me.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
joger
Senior MemberPosts: 2,690Gear list
Like?
Re: Just curious
In reply to schmegg, Apr 3, 2013

schmegg wrote:

joger wrote:

schmegg wrote:

joger wrote:

surprised to see YOU quoting DXOmark

Sure - DXO predominantly ranks the wide open performance and since the f/4.0 version is one stop slower it can never be on the same level according to their ranking - it is also double the weight and a bit bigger . . .

Meh - I have less problem using DxO data if the body used remains the same for each comparison - as it does in this case.

Photozone agrees - "It surpasses its predecessor easily and it did even manage to top (very slightly so) the EF 70-200mm f/4 USM L IS".

But who cares - I don't. Just surprised you'd accept second best. Seems your normal "no compromise" approach does have some limits after all!

the 70-200 f/4.0 L IS USM is the best of the slower and lighter lenses - as said before - zooms are for convenience and lean traveling (IMHO) - the 70-200 f/2.8 is a quite heavy lens for hiking and it is a bit bulky as well - the difference to a good deal better and longer range prime is not that big - thought several times about getting the 70-200 f/2.8 II but skipped it because it does not bring significant advantages and it is quite heavy.

That is indeed a compromise.

The 70-200 f/4.0 L IS USM is the best of the slow zooms - and probably not really much worse but the other slow zooms are a good deal worse then the 70-200 f/2.8 II

Yep - though maybe not a 'significant' deal worse for many - just as the difference between the 2.8 II and the 4 is not 'significant' to you.

(in theory a f/4.0 lens can never be as good as a f/2.8 lens - look here)

The article does not conclude the an "f/4.0 lens can never be as good as a f/2.8 lens" at all.

It actually says ...

"The sweet spot of any lens is at medium aperture values because aberrations are reduced and diffraction effects aren’t strong yet."

where does this statement differ from mine? I said in theory

LOL! Fair enough.

Yet some really good primes perform excellent wide open and almost as good as stopped down one or two stops

I'd certainly buy it if it is also lighter then the current 70-200 II

Zooms are for lean traveling and convenience aspects - otherwise I prefer primes

Yep - me too.

seems we (almost) fully agree

Yeah - I think we agree on many more things than we disagree on. And I suspect much of what we don't agree on is in the realm of "value judgements" - which means neither of us is really 'right or wrong' - we just have different values.

And I think that's why many people are still quite happy with the current 100-400L. It does deliver great images in many situations and is still reasonably portable with a very convenient zoom range for certain applications.

Would I want a newer one? Well, I'd not say no of course, but it'd want to be pretty damn good and at a reasonable price to tempt me away from my current one - unless someone gave it to me!

Faster AF, updated Mode3 IS, lighter, but still a push-pull design, with some upgrade to IQ perhaps (though this is less important than the preceding things to me - apart from the bokeh which I would like to see improved) and I might be interested (if the price wasn't too much higher than the current one - which is highly unlikely).

But that's just me.

oh sure - fully agree - only on the comproimise thing I'd like to add the 200 mm tests from SLRgear

only one of many tests that proof the same thing

for me there is a notable difference between splitting hairs (e.g. with the f/4 version vs the f/2.8 II) and seeing differences.

My 300 f/2.8 II is roughly as far away from my 70-200 f/4.0 as the 70-200 f/4.0 is away from the 70-300L and I can clearly see it - even at screen size - is this necessarily a bad thing - surely no - but it is also cheaper and lighter!!

So better, lighter and cheaper and faster compare to the 70-300L - only a few mm are missing - copping does a really nice job here and that's also the reason why I am waiting for a high res Canon - may it be a 7D II and/or a 4x to 5x Mpixel FF

-- 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
Steve Balcombe
Forum ProPosts: 10,788
Like?
Re: "nothing wrong"
In reply to Steve Balcombe, Apr 3, 2013

Steve Balcombe wrote:

BigBen08 wrote:

Try panning a flying aircraft hand held. Updated IS and AF would be welcomed.

Yes, I was wondering whether a new 100-400L might be the first in its class to get the new Mode 3 IS which so far only features on the MkII big whites.

Just realised birdbrain had already made the same point - sorry, missed that until now.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
SHood
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,139Gear list
Like?
Re: "nothing wrong"
In reply to Wyville, Apr 3, 2013

Wyville wrote:

Howard wrote:

You can certainly say that, but to think that it cannot be improved upon would be short-sighted. I love this lens, but it could use an updated AF, IS and better wide-open IQ.

Once we all thought Canon's 300 f/2.8 (and the like) were flawless, yet, the II version really exceeded the "perfection" previously perceived.

There is always room for improvement, but what I question is whether or not it is expedient to do so. It is possible to make the 100-400L the same quality as the mythical 200-400L, but at a price.

Right now, everyone who has the 100-400L loves the lens. It probably has the best price/range/performance ratio of all the lenses on offer. Are there many practical reasons to update this lens from Canon's point of view?

Rationally, I don't think a new 100-400L will be more than a longer version of the 70-300L but with the same pricetag as the new Nikkor 80-400. Is that attractive enough?

If the rumors of a higher MP 7DII are correct then a higher quality lens will be required to achieve the resolution output from these sensors.

 SHood's gear list:SHood's gear list
Sony RX100 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH3 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 100-300mm F4-5.6 OIS
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Wyville
Senior MemberPosts: 3,362Gear list
Like?
Re: "nothing wrong"
In reply to SHood, Apr 3, 2013

SHood wrote:

If the rumors of a higher MP 7DII are correct then a higher quality lens will be required to achieve the resolution output from these sensors.

Even if that is true, it doesn't mean that people will be lining up for a $3k 100-400L. The old one won't perform any worse on a 24MP APS-C body. Maybe (but I don't know if that is true, or just a popular myth) it won't get the maximum performance out of the sensor. But if I wanted the maximum performance out of my 7D, I would be buying the mkII tele primes.

I'm not talking about the ideal situation or some clinical test. I'm talking about what is expedient in the real world, for real world use, and the current 100-400L is not terribly outdated. It is still a very good lens with a great price/performance ratio.

 Wyville's gear list:Wyville's gear list
Canon PowerShot S95 Canon EOS 7D Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
joger
Senior MemberPosts: 2,690Gear list
Like?
Re: "nothing wrong"
In reply to Wyville, Apr 3, 2013

Wyville wrote:

SHood wrote:

If the rumors of a higher MP 7DII are correct then a higher quality lens will be required to achieve the resolution output from these sensors.

Even if that is true, it doesn't mean that people will be lining up for a $3k 100-400L. The old one won't perform any worse on a 24MP APS-C body. Maybe (but I don't know if that is true, or just a popular myth) it won't get the maximum performance out of the sensor. But if I wanted the maximum performance out of my 7D, I would be buying the mkII tele primes.

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

-- 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
Gearóid Ó Laoi, Garry Lee
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,874Gear list
Like?
Re: "nothing wrong"
In reply to joger, Apr 3, 2013

joger wrote:

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

It's not your mentioning of your God-lenses that gets you bashed. You can lick them as far as I'm concerned and you can construct altars in you house and sacrifice mice to them, if that makes you happy.

It's your constant denigration of perfectly good lenses with stellar performance because you didn't happen to choose them. For a novice reading this rubbish, it's likely to put him off sensible purchases. You are talking about differences measured by people whose life is measurement, differences which are difficult to see in results, and even if present really contribute little to the merit of a photograph.

An awful lot of the merit of photography has to do with light and lighting. Have you heard of that?

Your measurement gurus never talk about it because it can't be measured, but it sure as hell can be seen..

-- hide signature --

Níor bhris focal maith fiacail riamh (Irish Gaelic)
A good word never broke a tooth.

 Gearóid Ó Laoi, Garry Lee's gear list:Gearóid Ó Laoi, Garry Lee's gear list
Canon PowerShot S90 Fujifilm X10 Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Canon EOS-1D Mark IV +25 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
mlf123
Junior MemberPosts: 34
Like?
Re: "nothing wrong"
In reply to Gearóid Ó Laoi, Garry Lee, Apr 3, 2013

I'm a bit confused?  Are all these rants because Joger is ignoring you?  Or have you been deadly enemies for ages?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Gearóid Ó Laoi, Garry Lee
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,874Gear list
Like?
Re: "nothing wrong"
In reply to mlf123, Apr 3, 2013

Not a rant dear boy, but a shot across the bows of an illegal fishing boat!

 Gearóid Ó Laoi, Garry Lee's gear list:Gearóid Ó Laoi, Garry Lee's gear list
Canon PowerShot S90 Fujifilm X10 Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Canon EOS-1D Mark IV +25 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
amd
amd
Regular MemberPosts: 150Gear list
Like?
Re: Just curious
In reply to joger, Apr 3, 2013

joger wrote:

Wyville wrote:

joger wrote:

birdbrain wrote:

I would love an upgraded 100-400 with tha latest version of the IS perhaps even Mode 3. Even if the optical performance wasn't that much better the improvement in IS would be the thing I want.

Panning prop planes at 1/250 or even slower shutter speeds you need all the help you can get. So I would definitely buy one.

Mode 3 is definitely THE most attractive single offering of the new II tele lenses to date beside the optical performance. I use it now exclusively and I can see this function as a welcome addition to new lens designs at Canon. I guess it is going to be implemented in all premium lenses from Canon with IS.

<snip>.

That said a 100-400 with improved optical design on the level of the 70-200 f/4.0 would be a very welcome addition to the Canon line up - the more I think of it the more I get attracted by the idea as a lightweight travel lens with real more reach.

<snip>

Thank to you both for sharing your views. Very interesting.

I think a mode 3 would be great, but would Canon put such a feature on a lens like the 100-400L?

why not - if the 100-400 will get a premium price tag Canon has to justify that - and I am almost convinced that with the presence of mid range quality 70-300 L a high quality 100-400 L would get some extra features - otherwise the motivation to buy it might be very limited.

Walking in the shoes of the Canon marketing people it makes no sense to add some 100 mm and keep the optical quality and feature set of the 70-300 L. Who would buy it for double the price?

But if Canon would make a really good 100-400 mm f/4.x - f/5.6 IS lens the 400 f/5.6 might become obsolete and Canon could charge some 3.x k USD or so for the lens. Mode 3 IS would be one of the features that could justify such a price tag.

<snip>

As an actual 70-300 L owner, I would immediately be in the market for a 100-400l that would match the performance of my 70-300l. This would be awesome! I'm sure I'm not the only one.

on a personal note: I think you are a great photographer, and understand your love for the 300 f/2.8 L IS. I don't get though why you keep hurting your credibility by this BS. I have not seen any credible evidence on your claimes... Keep shooting and stop your crusade.

 amd's gear list:amd's gear list
Canon EOS 7D Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EOS M Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM +9 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
qianp2k
Forum ProPosts: 10,350Gear list
Like?
Re: Just curious
In reply to amd, Apr 4, 2013

amd wrote:

joger wrote:

Wyville wrote:

joger wrote:

birdbrain wrote:

I would love an upgraded 100-400 with tha latest version of the IS perhaps even Mode 3. Even if the optical performance wasn't that much better the improvement in IS would be the thing I want.

Panning prop planes at 1/250 or even slower shutter speeds you need all the help you can get. So I would definitely buy one.

Mode 3 is definitely THE most attractive single offering of the new II tele lenses to date beside the optical performance. I use it now exclusively and I can see this function as a welcome addition to new lens designs at Canon. I guess it is going to be implemented in all premium lenses from Canon with IS.

<snip>.

That said a 100-400 with improved optical design on the level of the 70-200 f/4.0 would be a very welcome addition to the Canon line up - the more I think of it the more I get attracted by the idea as a lightweight travel lens with real more reach.

<snip>

Thank to you both for sharing your views. Very interesting.

I think a mode 3 would be great, but would Canon put such a feature on a lens like the 100-400L?

why not - if the 100-400 will get a premium price tag Canon has to justify that - and I am almost convinced that with the presence of mid range quality 70-300 L a high quality 100-400 L would get some extra features - otherwise the motivation to buy it might be very limited.

Walking in the shoes of the Canon marketing people it makes no sense to add some 100 mm and keep the optical quality and feature set of the 70-300 L. Who would buy it for double the price?

But if Canon would make a really good 100-400 mm f/4.x - f/5.6 IS lens the 400 f/5.6 might become obsolete and Canon could charge some 3.x k USD or so for the lens. Mode 3 IS would be one of the features that could justify such a price tag.

<snip>

As an actual 70-300 L owner, I would immediately be in the market for a 100-400l that would match the performance of my 70-300l. This would be awesome! I'm sure I'm not the only one.

on a personal note: I think you are a great photographer, and understand your love for the 300 f/2.8 L IS. I don't get though why you keep hurting your credibility by this BS. I have not seen any credible evidence on your claimes... Keep shooting and stop your crusade.

I am thinking about what my next move should be - currently I own 70-200L/4.0 IS (as well 70-200L/2.8 IS II), 100-400L.   My choices are,

1) Sell 70-200L/4.0 IS (around $800 after eBay fee), and buy 70-300L at $1400 (bit less sometime) as latter is more useful for extra 100mm reach while I already have 70-200L/2.8 IS;

2) Sell 70-200L/4.0 IS, and exclusively use 70-200L/2.8 IS II (with 1.4x TC III if necessary).  I have not used F4.0 IS version much since I got F2.8 II version.  However if I need to walk around in cities entire day such as in Italy trip last year, F4.0 IS or 70-300L is a much practical choice;

3) Wait and see the new 100-400L.  If it's as sharp as 70-300L and noticeably lighter, then sell both 70-200L/4.0 IS and 100-400L and bite the bullet to get the new 100-400L around $3K.

Maybe I should sell 70-200L/4.0 IS first as at least in this year I don't have a plan to tour European cities and I will carry 70-200L/2.8 IS II in my Sept Africa trip (as I did in recent Cancun trip).  F2.8 IS version is lots more versatile and useful (with or without TCs) except weight/size.

-- hide signature --
 qianp2k's gear list:qianp2k's gear list
Sony RX100 Canon EOS-1D Mark III Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 5D Mark III Sony Alpha 7R +20 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
BigBen08
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,594
Like?
Re: "nothing wrong"
In reply to Steve Balcombe, Apr 4, 2013

Steve Balcombe wrote:

Steve Balcombe wrote:

BigBen08 wrote:

Try panning a flying aircraft hand held. Updated IS and AF would be welcomed.

Yes, I was wondering whether a new 100-400L might be the first in its class to get the new Mode 3 IS which so far only features on the MkII big whites.

Just realised birdbrain had already made the same point - sorry, missed that until now.

I guess that makes you a birdbrain, too. (just kidding, just kidding )

Steve, those new 300, 400, 500 II lenses are said to have 2 more stops of IS. If that's included in the new 100-400, it woud be great. I shoot aircraft at slow shutter speeds to capture prop blur. The extra stops of IS would be a nice benefit.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
BigBen08
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,594
Like?
Re: "nothing wrong"
In reply to Gearóid Ó Laoi, Garry Lee, Apr 4, 2013

Gearóid Ó Laoi, Garry Lee wrote:

BigBen08 wrote:

Gearóid Ó Laoi, Garry Lee wrote:

Howard wrote:

You can certainly say that, but to think that it cannot be improved upon would be short-sighted. I love this lens, but it could use an updated AF, IS and better wide-open IQ.

Better than this? This is it wide open. Pretty well flawless..

-- hide signature --

Níor bhris focal maith fiacail riamh (Irish Gaelic)
A good word never broke a tooth.

That's too easy. Try panning a flying aircraft hand held. Updated IS and AF would be welcomed.

Was only commentating on the wide-open performance.

Right on. I agree, it's optically a very good lens.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Wyville
Senior MemberPosts: 3,362Gear list
Like?
Re: "nothing wrong"
In reply to joger, Apr 4, 2013

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).

 Wyville's gear list:Wyville's gear list
Canon PowerShot S95 Canon EOS 7D Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Steve Balcombe
Forum ProPosts: 10,788
Like?
Re: "nothing wrong"
In reply to BigBen08, Apr 4, 2013

BigBen08 wrote:

Steve Balcombe wrote:

Steve Balcombe wrote:

BigBen08 wrote:

Try panning a flying aircraft hand held. Updated IS and AF would be welcomed.

Yes, I was wondering whether a new 100-400L might be the first in its class to get the new Mode 3 IS which so far only features on the MkII big whites.

Just realised birdbrain had already made the same point - sorry, missed that until now.

I guess that makes you a birdbrain, too. (just kidding, just kidding )

har har

Steve, those new 300, 400, 500 II lenses are said to have 2 more stops of IS. If that's included in the new 100-400, it woud be great. I shoot aircraft at slow shutter speeds to capture prop blur. The extra stops of IS would be a nice benefit.

All the MkII's have 4-stop IS but that's not new - the 70-200/4L IS has had it for years, maybe that was the first I'm not sure. The 200/2L IS has 5-stop IS.

What's new though is Mode 3. I realise you can often use Mode 2 for aircraft because panning mode works fine for straight, level flight. But Mode 3 works for erratic flight so I'm guessing it could be very valuable to you.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
joger
Senior MemberPosts: 2,690Gear 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
Wyville
Senior MemberPosts: 3,362Gear list
Like?
Re: "nothing wrong"
In reply to joger, Apr 4, 2013

joger wrote:

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.

I understand what you mean. The way I see it is that the Nikkor 80-400 is essentially a longer version of the Canon 70-300L and that is what I expect any updated version of the 100-400L will be. Any better and the price will have to go up. Considering Canon has the 200-400L in the works and that, that lens (as disastrous as it has been to get it to the market) is their professional quality zoom, I see no reason for Canon to push the 100-400L up a segment.

I still understand what you would like to have, but it would push it passed $3k. They consider the 70-300L their high end compact travel zoom, the 100-400L their wildlife zoom and they have a professional one with the 200-400L. Perfect line-up.

 Wyville's gear list:Wyville's gear list
Canon PowerShot S95 Canon EOS 7D Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads