joger
Veteran Member
an other sexy idea would be a super lightweight and compact 100-400 DO L - let's say below 1.3 kg and optically superb - such a lens would find a huge number of interested guys
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
New 100-400 in a few months?
- Thread starter Hank3152
- Start date
-
- Tags
- canon eos 7d
W
Wyville
Guest
That's a pretty exotic idea. I guess it would be interesting for those who want a lot of reach in a small and lightweight package. Looking at the 70-300 DO though I don't know if it would be a success.
Plus, the patents for a new 100-400L suggest a similar design to the current one, with possibly a ring zoom instead of push/pull.
joger
Veteran Member
sure - looking at the 70-300rds is a bit boring - but looking at the 400 f/4.0 DO is much more appealing - we've seen lots of DO patents lately - if Canon is looking for a differentiating factor this could be one option
that said - this idea is rather unrealistic for the time being.
Steve Balcombe
Forum Pro
Actually I think the opposite could be true. The 100-400 has room for improvement in several key areas - image quality (which is good but the latest lenses are better), handling (get rid of the push-pull zoom) and current generation 4-stop IS.
Whereas the 400/5.6 has features which make it perfect for a small group of people, mainly BIF shooters of course, who want a lightweight lens with no IS. I'm not sure the 400/5.6 could be improved without taking away its unique appeal.
Gearóid Ó Laoi Garry Lee
Veteran Member
Why do you persist with this nonsense?
I have both the 400 f4.6 L and the 70-300 L. You drop comments on their respective performance, possessing neither of them. They are indistinguishable in performance, at least my two are. I've never seen ANYONE complain about the performance of either of them on these fora.
A good word never broke a tooth.
crazybadger
Senior Member
Totally agree.
The 70-300L is a fantastic lens and my copy is every bit as sharp as my 400 5.6. All anyone has to do is look at any of the "which lens, the 70-200 f4IS or 70-300L" threads that so often pop up around here to see the overwhelmingly positive reviews. Many who owned the very well regarded 70-200f4IS gave it up after buying the 70-300L.
Pretty much all of canon's new updated L lenses have been excellent of late, I can't see why a new 100-400 (if it ever arrives) would be any different. Just be prepared to pay a premium for the new one, at least when first released.
crazybadger
Senior Member
Actually I am one who loves the push-pull design and would be really sad to see it go. Although I am kind of resigned to the idea that it will happen. Just seems so much more intuitive, if I want to get closer I reach out towards the target. If I want to pull back I...well pull back. Just makes sense really. But maybe more importantly it also means my hand can remain underneath the barrel and out at the end supporting the weight at all times. Not keen on the idea of having to twist my supporting hand around the barrel as a large weight extends out in front of it. But that's me. We don't always get what we want
Jim4496
Leading Member
Canon has shown that it can improve on any of its telephoto lenses when it wants to. I thinlk they could improve the IQ of the 400mm f5.6L. They have 20 years more experience than when they last designed it. As i said the big problem is that a redesigned lense is going to cost at least twice as much as the current lense and the IQ isn't going to be twice good.
What canon needs is a lens that fills the big price gap between the 400mm f5.6L at $1200 and the 300mm f2.8L IS USM II at $6500. Something like a 400mm f4 or a 500mm F5.6
Howard102273
Senior Member
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.
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.
Gearóid Ó Laoi Garry Lee
Veteran Member
Better than this? This is it wide open. Pretty well flawless..
--
Níor bhris focal maith fiacail riamh (Irish Gaelic)
A good word never broke a tooth.
BigBen08
Veteran Member
That's too easy. Try panning a flying aircraft hand held. Updated IS and AF would be welcomed.Gearóid Ó Laoi, Garry Lee wrote:
Better than this? This is it wide open. Pretty well flawless..
--
Níor bhris focal maith fiacail riamh (Irish Gaelic)
A good word never broke a tooth.
W
Wyville
Guest
I didn't mean that it can't be improved at all, but rather if it can be improved to, for consumers, warrant a pricetag almost double that of the current lens.
Say the 100-400L becomes a twist-zoom lens and gets the image quality and IS of the 70-300L. That would make it a great lens. Would I trade in my current 100-400L paying an extra €1,200-1,500? No. Not worth it for me. Would I buy one if I didn't have my 100-400L? Yes.
For BiF. If I had the current 400/5.6L and Canon came out with a 400/5.6L IS for double the price, would I trade in? Yes. IS can be turned off, but it can't be turned on when it's not there.
For me, and that's entirely personal, I see more sense in Canon updating the 400/5.6L that the 100-400L because there are practical improvements to be gained that make the 400/5.6L more versatile. But I would even be tempted to trade in my 100-400L for a new 400 prime and later buy the 70-300L for a zoom.
joger
Veteran Member
yes - there is definitely room for improvement at the 100-400 - Canon has a nice set of "L" zooms to choose from but only one is currently outstanding in terms of price/quality relation - all others have headroom for improvement - either in price and/or in optical quality - an exceptional 100-400 would be a (for me) welcome addition with range
--
__________________________________
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
W
Wyville
Guest
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?
I'd have thought they all have room for improvement - both in quality and particularly price. Admittedly though, the 70-200/2.8 L IS II is very nice and the best of the tele zooms Canon offer ...
Surprised you'd settle for second best actually! ;-)
joger
Veteran Member
if it would be a longer version of the 70-300 L at the price tag of the Nikon pendant it is questionable how many would be sold (there is a proverb: every day a stupid guy wakes up to buy your product).
All recent Canon lenses have been significantly improved versions of their predecessors. So I guess it is a reasonable approach to say that a 100-400 would be an improved version of the current one. The current one is on a similar level as the 70-300L from 200 mm onwards. That's where it counts since people are buying these lenses for the longer reach at or near maximum aperture.
There is room for improvement and yes - this comes normally at a price but if it would get the IS and AF from the type II tele lenses it would be a stunning lens that I would surely buy sooner or later - just because 400 f/5.6 is not a really bad combination and if it would be a lightweight package and optically superb it would be a no-brainer for the days when you decide that the excellent prime you own can have a day off ;-)
--
__________________________________
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
Veteran Member
surprised to see YOU quoting DXOmark ;-)schmegg wrote:
I'd have thought they all have room for improvement - both in quality and particularly price. Admittedly though, the 70-200/2.8 L IS II is very nice and the best of the tele zooms Canon offer ...
Surprised you'd settle for second best actually! ;-)
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 . . .
(in theory a f/4.0 lens can never be as good as a f/2.8 lens - look here)
That said - it would be extremely nice to see a 100-400 on the level of the current 70-200 f/2.8 II
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
--
__________________________________
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
Last edited:
Steve Balcombe
Forum Pro
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. Effectively off while tracking, which removes the problem of optical IS 'tugging' while moving the lens, then on at the moment of taking the shot. I've very little experience shooting aircraft, especially at relatively low shutter speeds, but unless I'm much mistaken that would be ideal.
Gearóid Ó Laoi Garry Lee
Veteran Member
Really?
Gosh it's wonderful to hear that from someone who owns neither...
Here you have the 70-300 L handheld at full length and bore. In what way, pray, can this be improved? Incidentally it's exactly the same in IQ as the 400 f5.6 wide open.
Here's another example from this "mediium quality" lens..
Focus on infinity.
Now I've a friend who's never even tried yoghourt because he "knows" he wouldn't like it..
Does he remind you of you?
p.s. You didn't answer Schmegg's pointing out to you that you settled for a second-best 70-200..
Oh, I see.. If you do this for some self-fabricated reason then that's okay, but on the other hand, if you've gone for your gun, the other chap is a total fool not to have gone for his..
It's what could not be called a level playing pitch then..
Níor bhris focal maith fiacail riamh (Irish Gaelic)
A good word never broke a tooth.
Gearóid Ó Laoi Garry Lee
Veteran Member
Was only commentating on the wide-open performance..BigBen08 wrote:
That's too easy. Try panning a flying aircraft hand held. Updated IS and AF would be welcomed.Gearóid Ó Laoi, Garry Lee wrote:
Better than this? This is it wide open. Pretty well flawless..
--
Níor bhris focal maith fiacail riamh (Irish Gaelic)
A good word never broke a tooth.
--
Níor bhris focal maith fiacail riamh (Irish Gaelic)
A good word never broke a tooth.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum