New Canon 100-400L

[Bennymiata]

I just read about a new 100-400L on www.canonrumors.com

No more push-pull and now with a mfd of just 31 cm, it will be great for bugs, crawlies and birds.
It also has a new IS system promising 4 stops.
US pricing will be around US $2200, so not too bad for an all new L lens.

I love my older version, but if the newer version is noticeably better, my old one will be on the market.

[dolina]

Under the assumption CR's rumor is true


Difference of v2 as compared to v1
- More lens elements and groups
- Differing Focus adjustment
- Shorter focusing distance by 0.82m/2.7ft
- Zoom system possible twist-type rather than push-pull
- Larger Diameter x Length, Weight 2mm x 4mm; 190g
- 2 more stops of IS
- 16 year gap between the introduction of the v1 & v2
- $500 more
- Inclusion of IS Mode 3 http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/standard_display/Lens_Advantage_IS


Version 1 vs 2


v1
Focal Length & Maximum Aperture 100-400mm 1:4.5-5.6
Lens Construction 17 elements in 14 groups
Diagonal Angle of View 24° - 6° 10'
Focus Adjustment Rear focusing system with USM
Closest Focusing Distance 1.8m/ 5.9 ft.
Zoom System Linear extension Type
Filter Size 77mm
Max. Diameter x Length, Weight 3.6" x 7.4", 3.1 lbs. / 92mm x 189mm, 1,380g
2-stops of IS
Introduced 1998
Price $1,699


v2
Focal Length & Maximum Aperture: 100-400mm 1:4.5-5.6
Lens Construction: 21 elements in 16 groups
Diagonal Angle of View: 24º-6’10’
Focus Adjustment: Inner focus system / USM
Closest Focusing Distance: 3.2 ft. / 0.98m
Filter Size: 77mm
Max Diameter x Length, Weight: 3.7 in. x 7.6 in. / 94mm x 193mm; 3.46 lbs. / 1,570g
4-stops of IS
Introduced 2014
Price $2,199


Edit: Added more "complete" specs

[bricat]

At last. My wife is in NY at the moment . I told her to pop into B&H and place an order. I wonder what the price will be in good old Aussie?

[dolina]

It's official...


http://usa.canon.com/cusa/professional/products/lenses/ef_lens_lineup/lens_telezoom_pro/ef_100_400mm_f_4_5_5_6l_is_ii_usm



Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM Lens (https://flic.kr/p/pYLyyA) in shelves by December 2014 @ $2,199


As compared to Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR Lens that sells for $2,696.95


http://www.flickr.com/groups/ef_100-400mm_f45_56l_is_ii_usm/

- - - Updated - - -

Works with 1.4x & 2.0x Extenders / TCs

(Edit by ameerat42: MTF Charts are in the following links.)
http://usa.canon.com/CUSA/assets/app/images/cameras/lenses/EF100-400_4.5-5.6L_IS_II_USM/mtf/ef100_400_45_56l_isii_usm_tele_mtf.gif
http://usa.canon.com/CUSA/assets/app/images/cameras/lenses/EF100-400_4.5-5.6L_IS_II_USM/mtf/ef100_400_45_56l_isii_usm_wide_mtf.gif
http://usa.canon.com/CUSA/assets/app/images/cameras/lenses/EF100-400_4.5-5.6L_IS_II_USM/mtf/ef100_400_45_56l_isii_usm_ext14_t_mtf.gif
http://usa.canon.com/CUSA/assets/app/images/cameras/lenses/EF100-400_4.5-5.6L_IS_II_USM/mtf/ef100_400_45_56l_isii_usm_ext14_w_mtf.gif
http://usa.canon.com/CUSA/assets/app/images/cameras/lenses/EF100-400_4.5-5.6L_IS_II_USM/mtf/ef100_400_45_56l_isii_usm_ext2_t_mtf.gif
http://usa.canon.com/CUSA/assets/app/images/cameras/lenses/EF100-400_4.5-5.6L_IS_II_USM/mtf/ef100_400_45_56l_isii_usm_ext2_w_mtf.gif


Official Tech Specs


Focal Length & Maximum Aperture 100-400mm 1:4.5-5.6
Lens Construction 21 elements in 16 groups
Diagonal Angle of View 24°-6°10'
Focus Adjustment Inner focus system / USM
Closest Focusing Distance 3.2 ft. / 0.98m
Zoom System Rotation Type
Filter Size 77mm
Max. Diameter x Length, Weight Approx: 3.7" x 7.6" / 94 x 193mm
Approx: 3.46 lbs. / 1570g (lens only, including removable tripod mount)
3.62 lbs. / 1640g (lens + tripod mount)

Edited to remove image that was not copyright to member Dolina. Please read the site rules (http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/misc.php?do=vsarules), in particular #20

[dolina]

Canon Hon Kong's video comparison between the v1 & v2


http://youtu.be/phutXDbmkyw

[William W]

Of all the "improvements" I think that the 'push pull' to 'turret' zoom, will win a lot of applause.

WW

[Tannin]

Against: A slight increase in weight and a quite noticeable increase in girth.

Neutral: Push-pull vs twist zoom. Doesn't matter either way. I rather like the push-pull, but so long as it's a decently high-geared twist arrangement, that will be fine too.

For: much better IS; (I hope) significantly faster focus (though that is very difficult to achieve given the limitations of an f/5.6 design); much closer MFD (the old one is great, this one promises to be awesome!); given the wonderful optics of all recent Canon lenses, we can confidently assume wonderful prime-like IQ; very nifty arrangement to allow the use of a CPL without removing the lens hood; remarkably reasonable price for a new 400mm class L Series lens.

Summary: lots for, very little against. It's a winner and I want one.

[jev]

Of all the "improvements" I think that the 'push pull' to 'turret' zoom, will win a lot of applause.
Nah, I think this just means my old 100-400 won't decrease too much in resell-value now. Push-pull is quick, ideal for shooting socker and similar sports ;)

[Fruengalli]

Waiting for more reviews/tests of the Siggy 150-600s...more range & perhaps as good or better???

[William W]

Nah, I think this just means my old 100-400 won't decrease too much in resell-value now. Push-pull is quick, ideal for shooting socker and similar sports ;)

That's an interesting and alternative perspective.

But, on the other hand, I don't think there will be a lot of NEW SALES ORDERS for the original 100 to 400 now that the Version II has been officially published.

WW

[Tannin]

I agree, William; very few new sales for the old 100-400 now, if for no other reason then because there will be a ton of them for sale swamping the second-hand market as lots of the many current 100-400 owners upgrade to the new one. I know I'll be doing so. This will be a wonderful opportunity for the many photographers who've always wanted a real birding/long sport lens but are making do with a mid-range 70-300 or a superzoom or a cheap 55-250 a to pick up a good near-new 100-400 Mark 1 for a very reasonable price. Although superseeded now, as you know the Mark 1 is still a wonderful lens with build and optical quality superior to nearly all alternatives, so the hundreds of second-hand ones which will hit the market over then next year or so will be a fantastic opportunity to upgrade.

[Mark L]

I agree, William; very few new sales for the old 100-400 now, if for no other reason then because there will be a ton of them for sale swamping the second-hand market as lots of the many current 100-400 owners upgrade to the new one. I know I'll be doing so.

Indeed. I watch and wait.

[William W]

^ I also think that there are several who might not have bought the original 100 to 400 that will have a very serious look at the MkII version - even if for example they have a 300/2.8 or a 400/2.8 Prime.

WW

[Tannin]

Yes William. It makes a perfect companion to a big white. 100-400 plus (say) a 600/4 or a 400/2.8 makes a whole lot of sense. If you can't get the shot with one lens or the other, you're probably not doing wildlife or sport.

[Laosie]

Hmmmmm....things are starting to get more interesting in the zoom lens market. One of these is what has been missing from my kit but I've put off buying one for a long time.

Out of interest I checked the website of the shop in Bangkok where I buy my gear. They have the 100-400 VI still listed at $2096 new and $1534 used (AUD). No mention on their website on the appearance of the V2. Only 1 used lens listed. It will be interesting to see if a lot more start appearing and what the price will come down to.

Generally speaking the prices for Canon gear here are no better than in Australia though at least you can claim the 7% Vat back at the airport on the way out.

[graham68ktm]

ive been waiting for the new 100-400 but im thinking maybe a 70-200 2.8 with a 2x converter for wildlife and without the converter for portraits on my 7d might be more practical , some wisdom from AP members would be appreciated !

[William W]

ive been waiting for the new 100-400 but im thinking maybe a 70-200 2.8 with a 2x converter for wildlife and without the converter for portraits on my 7d might be more practical , some wisdom from AP members would be appreciated !

There are three - which model 70 to 200 F/2.8L?

The EF70 to 200F/2.8L IS USM MkII is the superior of the three when used wide open, followed by the EF70 to 200F/2.8L USM, then the EF70 to 200F/2.8L IS USM. The same applies to all those lenses used with both Canon EF MkII Tele-extenders. The IS MkII lens with the MkIII EF Tele-extender being superior in all accounts.

I use the EF70 to 200F/2.8L USM and the x1.4 MkII EF Tele-extender reasonably often and with the x2.0 MkII EF Tele-extender less so often and that was my choice instead of buying the original 100 to 400 L (three copies of which I also have used). But I also have access to a 400/2.8L. But yes a 70 to 200 and extenders is very practical. But the new 100 to 400L appears to have much improvement over the original. I can’t compare any of those tele extender combinations with the 100 to 400 MkII.

If you need 400mm for wildlife, the EF 400/5.6L is stellar and you should consider that lens.

70 to 200 would not be my general choice for portraiture using an APS-C Format Camera.

WW

[graham68ktm]

Thanks for the reply William W , I was considering the 70-200 f2.8 is usm mk2 and mk3 extender and your comment about suitability for portraiture shots gives me a lot to think about ! the 400 f5.6 sounds great but I would like a lens that is a bit more versatile for different applications , so im guessing theirs no such thing as an all round lens ! I already own a 100 f2.8 macro and tokina 11-16 f 2.8 and was hoping the 70-200 f2.8 would fill the void for some portraiture and wildlife ! thanks for the reply and I have a bit to think about !

[William W]

Concerning your lenses:
That’s a very large Focal Length “gap” between 16mm and 70mm. I would expect most Photographers with an APS-C Camera would be using the FL compass of 17 to 69 more often than not – that’s why Camera Manufacturers have Kit Zoom Lenses across that particular Zoom Compass.

*
Concerning Canon Extenders EF:
The Canon EF Extenders are best suited to L Series PRIME LENSES, but all (five) of the 70 to 200 L Series ZOOM LENSES perform admirably with the Canon MkII and MkIII Extenders – some better than others – in the F/4 pair of Lenses the IS Lens is better than the Non IS Lens.

*

Concerning the 70 to 200/2.8 IS MkII and the 100 to 400 MkII:
I think that if you choose to but a 70 to 200 then the “best” choice for “the most flexibility” is the F/2.8 IS MkII. It is not worth it to me to sell my 70 to 200 to buy the MkII IS version, but if I were buying a 70 to 200 today, I would buy the MkII IS Version.

I am in a similar situation concerning this new 100 to 400 – as previously mentioned the original version did not appeal to me, but the MkII version seems to have many improvements and I am seriously thinking about it.

Whether to buy a 100 to 400 MkII – OR – a 70 to 200/2.8 plus extender:
Remember that the “flexibility” that you mentioned in having a 70 to 200 is primarily about the flexibility of APERTURE; and not so much about FOCAL LENGTH. The difference between 70mm and 100mm is not that great: so I think that you need to think about and if you can quantify how often you’d be using F/2.8 to F/4.5~F/5.6 in the FL range of 100mm to 200mm.

The combination of the EF 70 to 200F/2.8L IS MkII USM and the x2.0 EF Extender MkIII can give slightly better results than this:
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/10291553-lg.jpg
EF 70 to 200F/2.8L USM + 2.0 Extender EF MkII
Equiv. FL = 400mm
F/6.3 @ 1/1600s @ ISO250 Head-On Motion; Hand Held

REF: more samples here (http://photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=971685).


WW
All Images © AJ GROUP Pty Ltd (Aust) (WMW) 1996~2014

[twix]

Indeed. I watch and wait.

I guess not only you! If they come down to a good price that would be good, at first I thought I will try the 150-600 tammy, but maybe it would be better I wait until the price for a 100-400 L lens comes down to a good price range!

[graham68ktm]

those swimming photos look really good William and anything sharper than that would be amazing depending if I have the skill to use the gear , I should have mentioned that I do own a 18-270 tamron lens and was thinking a purchase of a 70-200 f2.8 would be a better quality unit and f2.8 would allow more low light flexability and with the addition of the 2x extender would give me some more reach for wildlife and sport ! a lot to think about but I think the 70-200 might be a better choice over the 100-400 just for the 70-100 FL usage !

[dolina]

A little bit of trivia. This lens is the top selling L lens since pre-ordering was announced online. It is outdone by the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III Lens and Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Lens.

[acko]

This is interesting. I have the 70-200 2.8 and like it a lot. It covers most of what I do, but like everything we always want more. I will wait to see who stocks this new lens and what deals they can offer.

[Speedway]

I have the 70-200 F2.8 ii is and the 2xiii extender + the Sigma 17-50 F2.8 OS and use these 3 90% of the time on both my 7D and 400D for landscapes, buildings, old cars and machinery, motor sports, football, wildlife and birds. I am hoping to get my 150-500 sigma repaired (OS problem) while in Melbourne over Christmas, the extra reach is handy.
Cheers
Keith.

[acko]

I have the 70-200 F2.8 ii is and the 2xiii extender + the Sigma 17-50 F2.8 OS and use these 3 90% of the time on both my 7D and 400D for landscapes, buildings, old cars and machinery, motor sports, football, wildlife and birds. I am hoping to get my 150-500 sigma repaired (OS problem) while in Melbourne over Christmas, the extra reach is handy.
Cheers
Keith.
Well, going down the path of the extender is certainly a cheaper option than a new lens. It would be interesting to see how the quality compares.

[Speedway]

Well, going down the path of the extender is certainly a cheaper option than a new lens. It would be interesting to see how the quality compares.

Here are a couple of shots with the 2x extender on the 70-200 both shots taken hand held in misty early morning low light. Minimal processing.
Cheers
Keith.

1. Uncropped, ISO400, 1/250th, F8, 400mm.
113439

2. Small crop, ISO400, 1/200th, F8, 400mm.
113440

[William W]

Well, going down the path of the extender is certainly a cheaper option than a new lens. . .

It is if one already has the original lens and is just buying the Extender EF, (i.e. in this case already owning the 70 to 200/2.8 MkII), then just buyig the extender is a less expensive option - but I don't think it is cheaper in absolute dollar terms to buy a 70 to 200/2,8MkII and a x2.0EF MkIII, compared to the new 100 to 400 MkII.

Ball-park AUS$ Discount Prices / today are (I beleive)

70 to 200/2.8L MkII plus x2.0MkIII = $3140
100 to 400L MkII = circa $2560

WW

- - - Updated - - -


Here are a couple of shots with the 2x extender on the 70-200 both shots taken hand held in misty early morning low light. Minimal processing.


Thanks,

I’d be interested to see samples at F/5.6 and in harder light – from my experience (as per my comments above) I expect they’d be very sharp.

WW

[in2fx]

If I did not already own the old version, I would get the new one for sure

- - - Updated - - -


Well, going down the path of the extender is certainly a cheaper option than a new lens. It would be interesting to see how the quality compares.

My original plan was to put the 2x on the 70-200 f/2.8 because I thought it would be just as good and faster, but I was disappointed at the quality of that combination compared to the 100-400 by itself, so after being in possession of one for about 1½ years (not mine), so ended up buying one.
I would love to try out the new version

[red2thebones]

those swimming photos look really good William and anything sharper than that would be amazing depending if I have the skill to use the gear , I should have mentioned that I do own a 18-270 tamron lens and was thinking a purchase of a 70-200 f2.8 would be a better quality unit and f2.8 would allow more low light flexability and with the addition of the 2x extender would give me some more reach for wildlife and sport ! a lot to think about but I think the 70-200 might be a better choice over the 100-400 just for the 70-100 FL usage !

Funnily enough, I own pretty much the same gear - Tokina 11-16 2.8 mk2, Canon 100m F2.8L Macro, Canon EF-S 18-200 - and was thinking the same thing when looking for ideas on upgrade paths.
If you do take the plunge, would love to hear about your experience (and hopefully samples :))

[nardes]

Picked up one of these yesterday and then popped into the Roma Street parklands for a test in the afternoon. Here is a sample of the test shots. Initial thoughts are that this is an excellent lens, is as sharp as my 400mm F5.6L prime, has the blessing of IS and a much closer min focus distance.:)

Cheers

Dennis

[Filter]

Nice range of pic's to show off the lens, this is proof that my new lens should get the same results, hopefully.

[acko]

Wow, if those shots in the park lands are any indication, this lens will be a cracker!

[nardes]

These were all taken with the 5D Mk III (Raw frames) and I have attached the following files to show the effects of cropping and processing to separate the native abilities of the lens and what has been "added" or "achieved" in post capture processing:


Full Raw frame SOC resampled down to 1024x768.
1024x768 crop from Raw file saved as jpg (no processing at all).
1024x768 processed in CS6 and then saved as a jpg to illustrate how CS6 has pumped the data.


Cheers

Dennis