100-400L successor thoughts

Started Feb 7, 2011 | Discussions
Tapani Tarvainen Regular Member • Posts: 188
100-400L successor thoughts

Looking at the specs of the new 200-400L, it's clear it won't replace the 100-400: it's just too big and heavy. The 100-400L is an easily handholdable, nice walkabout lens, which the 200-400L won't be.

But if Canon made a 100-300/4L with built-in 1.4x TC with size and weight comparable to the 100-400L, I for one would be very interested.

 Tapani Tarvainen's gear list:Tapani Tarvainen's gear list
Canon PowerShot G11 Canon PowerShot SX50 HS Ricoh GR Canon EOS 7D Canon EOS 5D Mark III +1 more
sparkling elk
sparkling elk Contributing Member • Posts: 829
Re: 100-400L successor thoughts

= 70-300L ...

Tapani Tarvainen wrote:

Looking at the specs of the new 200-400L, it's clear it won't replace the 100-400: it's just too big and heavy. The 100-400L is an easily handholdable, nice walkabout lens, which the 200-400L won't be.

But if Canon made a 100-300/4L with built-in 1.4x TC with size and weight comparable to the 100-400L, I for one would be very interested.

 sparkling elk's gear list:sparkling elk's gear list
Ricoh GR Canon EOS 6D Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EF 135mm F2L USM Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM +12 more
OP Tapani Tarvainen Regular Member • Posts: 188
Re: 100-400L successor thoughts

sparkling elk wrote:

= 70-300L ...

I don't see it competing with the 100-400L at all, certainly not replacing it. I might get the 70-300L to replace the 70-300DO with, but I'd definitely hold on to the 100-400L.

 Tapani Tarvainen's gear list:Tapani Tarvainen's gear list
Canon PowerShot G11 Canon PowerShot SX50 HS Ricoh GR Canon EOS 7D Canon EOS 5D Mark III +1 more
Howard
Howard Senior Member • Posts: 1,856
Re: 100-400L successor thoughts

That's a brilliant idea, and quite plausible too
--
-----
cameras: 5D, 50D, D60, R2K
lenses: 17-40 f/4, 24-105 f/4, 100-400 f/4.5-5.6
24 f/3.5 TSE, 35 f/2, 50 f/1.4, Tamron 90 f/2.8 Macro
http://www.imagereservoir.com

 Howard's gear list:Howard's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Sony a6000 Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM +7 more
MikeMiami Regular Member • Posts: 113
Re: 100-400L successor thoughts

I can already see it..........now people will complain everytime a new lens is announced without a built in TC.

 MikeMiami's gear list:MikeMiami's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-TX30 Olympus E-M5 II Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 R Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-50mm 1:3.5-6.3 EZ Canon Pixma MX340 +11 more
sparkling elk
sparkling elk Contributing Member • Posts: 829
Re: 100-400L successor thoughts

it was a provocation.
of course 300mm is not 400mm.

maybe canon is making a light 150-400 (similar design than the 70-300).
or something like that, short enough, fast enough, light enough.

i am trying the 70300 BTW, its pure fun to shoot with, because of it's compact build.

Tapani Tarvainen wrote:

sparkling elk wrote:

= 70-300L ...

I don't see it competing with the 100-400L at all, certainly not replacing it. I might get the 70-300L to replace the 70-300DO with, but I'd definitely hold on to the 100-400L.

 sparkling elk's gear list:sparkling elk's gear list
Ricoh GR Canon EOS 6D Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EF 135mm F2L USM Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM +12 more
Bohdan Senior Member • Posts: 1,122
Re: 100-400L successor thoughts

It will probably cost 3 times what the 100-400 does so I would not consider it a replacement.

-- hide signature --

I may be, and probably am, completely wrong.

http://www.bwkphotography.com

Mark B. Forum Pro • Posts: 24,364
Re: 100-400L successor thoughts

Tapani Tarvainen wrote:

Looking at the specs of the new 200-400L, it's clear it won't replace the 100-400: it's just too big and heavy. The 100-400L is an easily handholdable, nice walkabout lens, which the 200-400L won't be.

But if Canon made a 100-300/4L with built-in 1.4x TC with size and weight comparable to the 100-400L, I for one would be very interested.

Such a lens would still be larger, heavier, and certainly more expensive than the 100-400.

Lee Jay Forum Pro • Posts: 52,959
I've proposed this before

Get rid of:

100-400L
400/5.6L
300/4L IS

Replace with:

100-400L II - f/3.5 at 100mm, f/4.5 at 300mm, f/5.6 at 400mm
Sharper and faster focusing than 400/5.6L
Best available IS performance
Better handling
Weather sealing
$2,000

Bonus: Design to be used really well with 1.4x TC, and release in combination with 1.6-crop high-pixel-density camera that can AF reliably and quickly at f/8.

-- hide signature --

Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 Lee Jay's gear list:Lee Jay's gear list
Canon IXUS 310 HS Canon PowerShot SX50 HS Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM Canon EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM +23 more
OP Tapani Tarvainen Regular Member • Posts: 188
Re: I've proposed this before

ljfinger wrote:

100-400L II - f/3.5 at 100mm, f/4.5 at 300mm, f/5.6 at 400mm
Sharper and faster focusing than 400/5.6L
Best available IS performance
Better handling
Weather sealing
$2,000

Sounds good, as long as it isn't significantly bigger or heavier
than the 100-400L. I would like f/4 at 300mm though...

Anyway, it's an easy prediction that if the 200-400L sells well,
Canon will make more lenses with built-in TC.
Indeed I'm pretty sure they already have plans for a few.

 Tapani Tarvainen's gear list:Tapani Tarvainen's gear list
Canon PowerShot G11 Canon PowerShot SX50 HS Ricoh GR Canon EOS 7D Canon EOS 5D Mark III +1 more
KWEnz Regular Member • Posts: 378
Re: 100-400L successor thoughts

Tapani Tarvainen wrote:

Looking at the specs of the new 200-400L , it's clear it won't replace the 100-400: it's just too big and heavy . The 100-400L is an easily handholdable, nice walkabout lens, which the 200-400L won't be.

Where did you see the specifications of the new 200-400? I saw nothing in the press release and a Google search hasn't helped. Canon have been reducing the weight and sizes of their recent replacement lenses so I think it is premature to speculate that the new lens will be too big or heavy to replace the 100-400. I think that it is more likely that it will be just too expensive as a replacement.

-- hide signature --

Cheers,
Ken

 KWEnz's gear list:KWEnz's gear list
Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM Canon Extender EF 1.4x II Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM +14 more
Timmie Regular Member • Posts: 170
Re: 100-400L successor thoughts

Doesn't the fact that it is f4 at 400mm mean that the front element has to be quite a bit bigger (and thus heavier)?

The Canon extender isn't exactly lightweight either and even though integration into the lens will save some weight for the combo, it will certainly add weight compared to a 100-400 without extender.

I really like the look of this new lens but i also really love my 100-400L (got a great copy) and can't justify spending the amount of money mentioned here (€ 6000+) to upgrade.

 Timmie's gear list:Timmie's gear list
Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EF 35mm F1.4L USM Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM +3 more
cdryall Regular Member • Posts: 184
Re: 100-400L successor thoughts

Actually what would do it for me would be a 400 F5.6 IS - this together with my new 70-200 2.8 IS Mk11 (which I could use with 1.4 or 2.0 TC's at a stretch) would give me what I need as after all its the quality of 400 end that I really, really want - ooohh and this may be reachable within the budget - eventually - yes dear,,,,

CR
--

Treat the Earth well,it was not inherited from your parents,its on loan from your children, (Traditional Kenyan saying)

OP Tapani Tarvainen Regular Member • Posts: 188
Re: 100-400L successor thoughts

KWEnz wrote:

Tapani Tarvainen wrote:

Looking at the specs of the new 200-400L , it's clear it won't replace the 100-400: it's just too big and heavy . The 100-400L is an easily handholdable, nice walkabout lens, which the 200-400L won't be.

Where did you see the specifications of the new 200-400? I saw nothing in the press release and a Google search hasn't helped. Canon have been reducing the weight and sizes of their recent replacement lenses so I think it is premature to speculate that the new lens will be too big or heavy to replace the 100-400. I think that it is more likely that it will be just too expensive as a replacement.

It is f/4 at 400mm, which means among other things its front element will be twice as big as with f/5.6. I can't see any way it could be lighter than the 300/2.8 or 400/4DO are - almost certainly heavier than either of them, in fact. If it weighs anything less than 3kg I'll be very surprised.

But if they can make it as light as the 100-400L is, I'll buy one at (almost) any cost.

 Tapani Tarvainen's gear list:Tapani Tarvainen's gear list
Canon PowerShot G11 Canon PowerShot SX50 HS Ricoh GR Canon EOS 7D Canon EOS 5D Mark III +1 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads