The Canon 100-400mm is the next toy in my list.  I wonder if there is any new version of it being expected soon, so I should wait.  Does anyone have any information?

This happened last year with the 100mm macro.  I opted to get the latest version and it was costing the same I would have paid for the previous model one month before.  Even if I get the current version, I would save if I wait a little bit more (but my Christmas tree would be empty...)

I have a 100-400 also, it can be used for stock photography, but you can be sure in the range of 100-300, at 400mm I consider soft. Of course, reducing the image size sharpens the image, also some super-bright, super high shutter speed photos pass the iStock's standard.
I'm saying the above because I bought mine for hobby purposes. I didn't intended to shot stock, only nature and wild animals. The problem with 100-400 is that the image stabilizer is quite old, at the most usable shutter speeds of 1/160...1/300 it's soft at higher focal lengths. However, I can shot very acceptable images at 1/30 at shorter focal lengths. This is my opinion, please consider your style of shooting as a different kind.
I'm using also for video, handhold IS is ok, but on tripod it's a disaster, with IS on, the image starts so shift away in random directions, so for video purposes turn off the IS.
The general parameters, sharpness, contrast are very ok, except the CA's, but with today's ACR this isn't a problem anymore.
Also a big drawback is the dust-suction "feature" of the lens, zooming a whole day makes full of dust your camera, since there isn't weather sealing in the lens. Videographers end up with a lot of dust on sensor.
My advice is to buy a cheap, used 100-400 and use it until the replacement arrives. Anyway a half year passes from the announce until you can have it in the bag.

ppdd,
Thanks for the link, but it isn't much more than speculation. Is this new 70-300mm really a star? I don't follow new releases.

icefront,
I didn't know about the lens not performing well at 400m and the dust problem. I meant to use it for stock, but not for micros. I wished I had one when I went to Africa.

There is always a lot of debate also between the 100-400mm versus the 300mm + 1.4x extension. Maybe I should start studying this again. I find the flexibility of a zoom lens so wonderful!

Quote from: icefront on November 21, 2010, 16:08

I'm using also for video, handhold IS is ok, but on tripod it's a disaster, with IS on, the image starts so shift away in random directions, so for video purposes turn off the IS.

To be fair, the extensive brochure which comes with the lens says that you must switch IS off when using the camera on a tripod. I keep forgetting that it has an IS mode 2 when panning moving subjects.

Yes, I know the IS-tripod fact, but there are situations when IS may be needed on tripod, especially when shooting HD video. The biggest problem of 5dmkII is that video is started with the set button, there is no other way. Pressing the button will shake the camera, no matter how gentle you do it. I consider saying this when the lens is at 400mm and there is also a little wind that shakes the lens. Another frequent situation is when I need to move the view (panning). No matter how gentle I touch the tripod handle, the result is a hard shake in the movie. (I need to mention, I had good results making the pan with a rubber band)
In the above situations the IS really helps, the problem comes when I release everything, there is no touch- or wind-caused vibration, the image starts to shift very slowly into a direction until the IS reaches it's limit, then stops shifting.
Using the live view and the 10x magnification I discovered a continuous, very fast IS vibration that practically will blur the image. This can be seen handhold and also from tripod.
I have to add, my 100-400 it's one of the oldest, according to the code printed on the back. Regardless of the fact that Canon didn't released the II version, they may upgraded the electronics, glasses or mechanics of the lens during the years, so others may see better results using their newer 100-400.

Yes, I know the IS-tripod fact, but there are situations when IS may be needed on tripod, especially when shooting HD video. The biggest problem of 5dmkII is that video is started with the set button, there is no other way. Pressing the button will shake the camera, no matter how gentle you do it.

Why do you use the set button? I use that Canon remote control that costs about 15 �.
If you are in movie mode pressing the button on the remote will start the recording.

As for 100-400 mm, I love mine. It is razor sharp, though at 400 mm indeed softer.
 

I was running some backups during the latest snow storm. (packed in for the night at the office, I have all the essentials, Diet Coke, Sherbet, Cheese and crackers, mixed nuts...)  

But somewhere here or maybe someplace else, I had mentioned why I don't use the IS for sports and how it's doesn't help for motion anyway, just for low light shake or vibrations and in fact it slows down the focus, because there's a short time where the IS needs to sense the motion and then click into action.

Here's what happens with the IS on, where I learned to leave it off!


free image hosting

Clicked off the shot at the exact moment where the IS was shifting. Double exposure on a digital camera?  

And By The Way, I just can't wait to see the 200-400 with the built in extender (even if I hate extenders) Just because of the new design innovation.

Truly terrible at the 400 range, to the point of being unsharp. At 300 mil, the new 70-300L, is far superior. I traded the 100-400, for the new 70-300L, never regretted it.

Quote from: lagereek on March 03, 2012, 01:10

Truly terrible at the 400 range, to the point of being unsharp. At 300 mil, the new 70-300L, is far superior. I traded the 100-400, for the new 70-300L, never regretted it.

Interesting that the new one has internal focusing, and maybe by moving the range down they avoid the soft at 400 issue.

You can shoot at 400mm (I don't anymore) by using a monopod or tripod and f/8 at least. By the time the lens gets to 350 it's pretty good. So it's realistically a 100-350.

I don't know why the 70-300 IS/USM is lower price, I didn't read all the specs. Seems a pretty good replacement. I picked up a 35-350 and I actually like it better than the 100-400 maybe because of the range, but it's sure fun to be able to go from 35mm to 350mm when I'm walking around, without changing the lens.

Hi!  well this is the new (white)  70-300L  version, not a cheap lens but believe me, superb optics, no CA and extremely sharp att 300, full range.

Quote from: lagereek on March 03, 2012, 04:29

Quote from: RacePhoto on March 03, 2012, 02:48

Quote from: lagereek on March 03, 2012, 01:10

Truly terrible at the 400 range, to the point of being unsharp. At 300 mil, the new 70-300L, is far superior. I traded the 100-400, for the new 70-300L, never regretted it.

Interesting that the new one has internal focusing, and maybe by moving the range down they avoid the soft at 400 issue.

You can shoot at 400mm (I don't anymore) by using a monopod or tripod and f/8 at least. By the time the lens gets to 350 it's pretty good. So it's realistically a 100-350.

I don't know why the 70-300 IS/USM is lower price, I didn't read all the specs. Seems a pretty good replacement. I picked up a 35-350 and I actually like it better than the 100-400 maybe because of the range, but it's sure fun to be able to go from 35mm to 350mm when I'm walking around, without changing the lens.

Hi!  well this is the new (white)  70-300L  version, not a cheap lens but believe me, superb optics, no CA and extremely sharp att 300, full range.

Yes, I went and looked, internal focusing is something I like better than the trombone, push/pull. I finally got used to those, but never really liked them.

The 70-300 is less than the 100-400 if I wasn't clear on what I meant. For the small difference in price, and losing 50mm of distance, another 50mm of soft focus, PLUS adding the 70mm at the lower end. I'd say the 100-400 may be on the way out.

Another thing and I haven't seen the data yet, the 70-300 may be a big brother to the 70-200? So it's a "tweener" LOL

I'll keep the 70-200 just because it's so sharp and I'm waiting for the 200-400 because it matches what I shoot. I'm very happy with the 35-350 as a photojournalist lens. Around $1000 and the 70-300 is list at about $1600. (so I was wrong, looked at original "list" prices. The 100-400mm and the 70-300 are pretty much identical price right now.) Still the 70-300 offers more modern technology inside, which gives it a plus one.

Waiting for the release and price on that 200-400! Then I'm having a lens sale, if it's within affordable. Start going into the over $3500-$4000 range and I'll be doing without. f/4, promised release Nov. 2011 (seems that's been delayed due to weather) add the cost of a built in 1.4 extender. Unless there's something amazing, I don't see why not the price of a 200-400 plus an extender? $2000-$3000 but one of the rumor reviews says - $7500!

So let me review my ramblings. 70-300 good lens, good range, good price. 200-400 f/4 coming out any day now... the 100-400 f/4.5 is going to be overlapped with two other lenses, and I don't see why Canon would continue making it?

there are two versions of 70-300, one cheapo which I have heard is pretty good, then you have the L -version, which ofcourse is the one Im talking about! (white). I dont know your expectations? but if you get a good sample, it will outdo the 100-400 and the 70-200L IS,  mine did anyway and in every respect.

I picked up a 2X Canon converter and after reading reviews wasn't expecting much. Put it on my Canon 70-200mm and was really surprised at how sharp the images were even at f/2.8 (f/5.6). A good combo IMO. 

there are two versions of 70-300, one cheapo which I have heard is pretty good, then you have the L -version, which ofcourse is the one Im talking about! (white). I dont know your expectations? but if you get a good sample, it will outdo the 100-400 and the 70-200L IS,  mine did anyway and in every respect.

I don't know what you're into over there but - I was agreeing with you!

I don't think the 70-300L will outdo the 70-200L but I'll have to own one and see. As for the 100-400L I have no doubt that the 70-300L is better. And the 35-350L is a nice "old" lens, and slow, no way it would compare to any of the above. Never considered the old crummy kit lens in this discussion, even though you keep trying to bring it in. All White?  70-200L is the favorite lens of so many people because it's the best short telephoto zoom made!

I picked up a 2X Canon converter and after reading reviews wasn't expecting much. Put it on my Canon 70-200mm and was really surprised at how sharp the images were even at f/2.8 (f/5.6). A good combo IMO. 

Maybe you have the new one. I have the old 2X and I keep asking myself why I bought it. (OK I know, the 400 prime is an 800... 100-400 is a decent 600mm... and it does work, just not for anything where I'd want auto-focus) I think people miss the "only with L lenses" part and only with the faster lenses. Also it's marginal on the 40D and 20D, or older cameras, works best with the 1D series. All kinds of limitations. It does the job and for pixel peepers, like Micro shooters, it's probably going to be a fail.

For people shooting sports and wildlife, a few hundred for the 2x is much better than $10,000 for a 500mm lens. I'm willing to give up a little quality.

So what lens have you used it on and what camera? That makes a difference. I met up with a guy shooting a 1D Mark III and a 300mm f/2.8 and he says the auto focus doesn't work. It should on that combination, unless he has the older 300mm?

I also think that when you add more glass, it's bought to degrade the image some. Again for the $9500 savings, I'll suffer! 

I might have included this one before, it's with the extender on a 100-400MM (I think? I doubt if I would have used the 35-350?) set for 285mm (I have the pins taped on the extender to fool the camera, it also fools the EXIF data) 320th @ f/5.6 ISO 100 - shot through a hole in the chain link fence.



I'd say it worked just fine. (larger version if anyone cares about seeing more pixels:  http://fineartamerica.com/featured/gt2-race-start-pete-klinger.html)

Back to the beginning. If I could get the 200-400mm with the built in 1.4 extender, it would eliminate my need for carrying the 70-200 - or owning, the 2x Extender, the 100-400, the 400mm. I could have the 35-350 and the 200-400/560 and I'm ready to Rock and Roll. 35-560 should be a suitable range for just about anything outdoors? 

When the great "L" lens and accessory sale comes up on FM Forums I'll post it here. LOL

http://www.adorama.com/CA70300LU.html

Read the first review.

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on March 03, 2012, 13:40

I picked up a 2X Canon converter and after reading reviews wasn't expecting much. Put it on my Canon 70-200mm and was really surprised at how sharp the images were even at f/2.8 (f/5.6). A good combo IMO. 

Maybe you have the new one. I have the old 2X and I keep asking myself why I bought it. (OK I know, the 400 prime is an 800... 100-400 is a decent 600mm... and it does work, just not for anything where I'd want auto-focus) I think people miss the "only with L lenses" part and only with the faster lenses. Also it's marginal on the 40D and 20D, or older cameras, works best with the 1D series. All kinds of limitations. It does the job and for pixel peepers, like Micro shooters, it's probably going to be a fail.

For people shooting sports and wildlife, a few hundred for the 2x is much better than $10,000 for a 500mm lens. I'm willing to give up a little quality.

So what lens have you used it on and what camera? That makes a difference. I met up with a guy shooting a 1D Mark III and a 300mm f/2.8 and he says the auto focus doesn't work. It should on that combination, unless he has the older 300mm?

I also think that when you add more glass, it's bought to degrade the image some. Again for the $9500 savings, I'll suffer! 

I might have included this one before, it's with the extender on a 100-400MM (I think? I doubt if I would have used the 35-350?) set for 285mm (I have the pins taped on the extender to fool the camera, it also fools the EXIF data) 320th @ f/5.6 ISO 100 - shot through a hole in the chain link fence.

I'd say it worked just fine. (larger version if anyone cares about seeing more pixels:  http://fineartamerica.com/featured/gt2-race-start-pete-klinger.html)

Back to the beginning. If I could get the 200-400mm with the built in 1.4 extender, it would eliminate my need for carrying the 70-200 - or owning, the 2x Extender, the 100-400, the 400mm. I could have the 35-350 and the 200-400/560 and I'm ready to Rock and Roll. 35-560 should be a suitable range for just about anything outdoors? 

When the great "L" lens and accessory sale comes up on FM Forums I'll post it here. LOL

Good point. I guess the version and camera it's on makes a big difference. I have the 2x vII on a 5DMII. I had the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS I which was great but f/2.8 and 200mm were weak spots. I was really surprised when I got good results with the 2x converter. I picked up the newer 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II lens and it is exceptional at every f-stop and focal length. Works great with the 2X converter.

I looked at reviews for the newer 2x vIII and seems the improvements are barely noticeable so I skipped it. Improvements between vI and vII are supposed to be pretty noticeable. I believe that autofocus works on f/2.8 lenses but not f/4 or above.