• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

Canon 100-400 replacement?

KrisCarnmarker

New member
OK, just to get this section of the forum started.

The Canon 100-400 seems to be a love-or-hate lens. Well, maybe not quite that bad, but it seems like even the people who love it for its versatility, would like to have a bit better image quality as well as a regular zoom control (i.e. not push-pull). This lens is also relatively old (7 years or thereabouts right?) with a first generation IS.

I'm currently planning for an African safari trip (sometime in mid 2007 I think), and have been eyeing this lens for quite some time. However, I keep waiting for a replacement to be introduced. I was hoping for something this past PMA.

Apart from the above mentioned reasons, I also have this silly sentimental attachment to my beloved 70-200 f2.8 IS, and would probably prefer a smaller zoom range starting at 200 or maybe something like 200-500.

I know this is 100% speculation, but what are the chances of Canon releasing a replacement anytime soon? Maybe somebody with a lot of experience has an educated guess? Is is only me, or isn't it time for a replacement?
 

Jason Anderson

New member
I've found that the user timeframe is often not necessarily in agreement with the vendor time frame for new gear. What I have noticed in my very limited time around digital photography the larger manufacturers seem to have a recent propensity for applying technologies to bodies and not lenses...or at least not to the same degree. Just my two centavos (which are worht less than pennies!)
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Kris,

I agree with Jason,

As far as Canon is concerned the 100-400L is still quite fresh and new!

Canon makes the glass for lenses in huge batches/melts and the glass is ground and then stocked for the next umpteen years. Ever so often a bunch are assembled. There is a good change all are using the same glass by as the years go by, the latest ones will have a newer version of the IS system.

Now why would you have such an apologetc attitude two the 70-200IS, arguably one of the best ever zooms by Canon. Adding merely a 1.4 multiplier give one a 320mm reach, not 400mm by any means. I don't know what Canon camera you use.

However, mounting that combo on Jason's 350D yields 320+190=510mm!

That is good for game!

I think one needs at least two cameras. One for scenics and large groups of animals. The other for the hunters and their prey.

There's no "Mr Lion, could you take that from the beginning again, and when you rip into Bambi, ask her nicely first".

What you see is real, by chance and unique. If you have time to change lenses, you're in the wrong place!

I would also take a small digicam with real 6x9 format. It could be a trip saver!

For the 100-400, it is a real bargain and unless you hate push-pulls, you'll love it.

You'll find plenty of perfectly good used 10D or level Canon DSLRs available and I certainly would get one for your trip. You must assume that stuff breaks when you go somewhere expensive!

To deal with your worry about a new 100-400 coming out, get a used one.

Asher
 

Jason Anderson

New member
I would agree with Asher to a degree. Yeah, I can get 510 now, but at the expense of image quality. Since the Tamron has a limited range for its sweet spot as it is, that would be limited further by adding the extender. I would like to get the 100-300 IS from Canon and then consider an extender! :D
 
Last edited:

KrisCarnmarker

New member
Asher Kelman said:
As far as Canon is concerned the 100-400L is still quite fresh and new!

I beleive you are right. I do not agree with Canon though :) There have been quite a few improvements in lens technology since the lens was first released.

Asher Kelman said:
Now why would you have such an apologetc attitude two the 70-200IS, arguably one of the best ever zooms by Canon. Adding merely a 1.4 multiplier give one a 320mm reach, not 400mm by any means. I don't know what Canon camera you use.

What I meant is that I want to use the 70-200 as much as possible. If I had a 100-400 then there would hardly be a reason to even bring along the 70-200. Like you said, switching lenses should be kept to a minimum, and switching a lens only for the added quality will probably never happen.

I shoot with a 20D, so the 70-200 gives me the equivalent of 112-320. With a 1.4x multiplier thats 157-448. Thats not bad at all, but from what I've seen the resulting image is not as good as the 100-400 @ 400 (which would give me 160-640!).

I think you are right about having at least two cameras, but I would probably put the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 on the second one. On the other hand, wide angle shots would probably not require the same urgency so the second body could double as my medium telephoto camera.

Oh I just don't know! :)
 

Tom Henkel

New member
I don't have a big complaint with the current 100-400L. If Canon could update the IS -- that would be a very positive improvement. But I'm not sure a whole new replacement lens is necessary.

Now if I wanted to dream: a 100mm-400mm f/2.8 IS with the same quality as the 70mm-200mm f/2.8L IS for under $2k would make me very, very happy.
 

Tim Rucci

Member
RE: 100-400L push-pull

(quote) The Canon 100-400 seems to be a love-or-hate lens. Well, maybe not quite that bad, but it seems like even the people who love it for its versatility, would like to have a bit better image quality as well as a regular zoom control (i.e. not push-pull). This lens is also relatively old (7 years or thereabouts right?) with a first generation IS.

Kris,

I felt just as you do a couple years ago, and I held off for a while hoping that Canon would re-introduce this lens as a non push-pull type. But I finally gave in and purchased the lens about a year ago. What I can tell you is that I only wish I had purchased it sooner.

Truth is that for me the push-pull design is more of a blessing than a curse. After only the first few minutes I used it, I got hooked on this design. It's much quicker to zoom in and out than the typical zoom lens, and I find myself wishing other lenses were made this way as well.

And I've heard people complain that this lens type is a dust sucker, but I haven't experienced that. I don't believe the push-pull design causes any more of a dust problem than the other style zoom. I change lenses often, and I zoom this lens in and out very often when birding, and I've never had a problem. The tension ring also is great, allowing the user to set how tight the lens moves in and out. This feature also allows you to eliminate any lens-creep problems.

While the 'IS' actually is the older type, I have not had any problems with it. The main thing is to remember to turn 'IS' off when shooting from a sturdy tripod.

Reading your post, I know exactly how you feel, and I felt that I wanted to share my experience with you on this. If you know someone who would let you try out this lens you should certainly do that. I think you'll have one ordered before the day's end.

I would love for it to be faster than f5.6 at the long end, but if canon made a 100-400 that was f2.8, I'm afraid it would cost more like $7,000, and would weigh more than 12 pounds. An f4 version would be nice, but I'm afraid even that would be a very expensive item. The answer might be a design that employs diffractive optics, which would add to the price, but not to the weight.

(quote) I'm currently planning for an African safari trip (sometime in mid 2007 I think), and have been eyeing this lens for quite some time. However, I keep waiting for a replacement to be introduced. I was hoping for something this past PMA.

I think the current 100-400 would be a good lens for your trip. While a lot of people take 500 f4's and 600 f4's on safaris, the zoom range on the 100-400 is nice and it would allow you to avoid frequent lens changes. This can be tough while riding around in a cramped vehicle, trying to change lenses while moving, without getting the optics dirty.

I think if you can borrow one for a days, you might really like this lens.

Best regards,
Tim
 
Last edited:

KrisCarnmarker

New member
Thanks for you input Tim, I appreciate it. You're probably right, I would be happy with it...at least until Canon releases the replacement the day after I purchase mine (just kidding:) ).
 

Sid Jervis

pro member
I am a push pull fan, the fact the 100-400 is so versatile makes it a winner for me. I have also heard that there have been problems on the 100-400, but let's face it, happy people don't often post how good something is, they just carry on using it. I am sure we would all like an update for not much more than the original cost; To be honest, using the current lens is a better feeling than waiting for a new one.
 

Dennis Lathem

New member
100-400 good lens

This was the first L glass I ever bought. I used it for several years for a variety of purposes, but mostly on a local road racing track. Since then I purchased a 70-200 f2.8 and a 500mm f4. I found I used the 100-400 less and less and sold it a few months ago.

I never had any problems with my 100-400 and the push pull was not an issue with me. I did have to buy a better tripod kit and I ended up with a Kirk BH-3 ball head and their plate for the 100-400. No more slipping!

CDL
 

Carl Schofield

New member
Bad 100-400 copy

My 100-400 is currently back with Canon for repairs. Images first started looking like they were taken through the bottom of a soda bottle, with very severe distortion. Then started getting err 99 messages and camera lock up. Thought at first it might just be low battery or camera fault, but I got the same behavior on three different bodies.
 

Keith Wong

New member
I have owned a 100-400L, sold it, and then bought a 70-200L IS. The reason I sold it was because I found that I rarely go longer than 200, and that the 70-200L IS was long enough for me.

I would agree with Tim's comments. The 100-400L is plenty sharp and worthy of its L designation. I loved the push-pull zoom - MUCH faster than a normal ring zoom and great for quickly finding your subject (view at 100mm, then zoom to 400mm with a quick push). I had no dust problems whatsoever - it seems to me that it's more of a theoretical complaint than a real one.

The 70-200L IS is sharper between 100-200mm. The other advantage is that it's got a constant aperture, meaning your shutter speed won't drop when you zoom out.

The 100-400L really is a fantastic lens. Don't be too worried by reports that it is not sharp. Sure, it isn't as good as the 400/5.6L prime, but I am sure you would not be disappointed with the results.
 

Will_Perlis

New member
"I've heard people complain that this lens type is a dust sucker, but I haven't experienced that. I don't believe the push-pull design causes any more of a dust problem than the other style zoom."

Agreed. The dust around here isn't the super-sticky kind but there's *lots* of it judging by the window screens and the leading edges of the ceiling fan blades.

IMX, dust gets in mostly during lens changes, not so much during use.
 

Sid Jervis

pro member
I would really like to see factual reports about this mythical dust sucking 100-400 L. I have owned one of these lenses for a while now, I do not have evidence of dust being sucked in whatsoever.

I am not saying the lens is perfect, none are, but it is very versatile and that makes it a good lens for me.
$0.02
 
I was looking at the 100-400 also but ended up with the 400f/5.6. Sometimes I miss the versatility of having that zoom range but I also have the 70-200f/2.8 IS lens. I find I use that lens more than the 400. It was a really tough decision. I also have the 1.4x and 2x if need be for either lens. Price was a big consideration on the choice of the 400. I think it all depends on what you are shooting and the other lens you have. Both lens are really good. Just personal preference for me.

400f/5.6 example shot. 100% crop used monopod also http://www.carringtonsphotography.com/coppermine/cpg145/albums/userpics/10002/Duck_13_copy.jpg
 
Last edited:

Tom Wilk

New member
Count me in as a 100-400 lover. It's a very versatile lens. No, it's not f/4 or f/2.8, but neither is it huge, heavy, and extremely expensive (OK, it isn't cheap either). It's beauty to me is that it gives you a versatile telephoto focal length range in a relatively small, lightweight package. Plus it's light and it has IS - a hand-holder's dream for casual sports shooting and moderate birding.

Canon could upgrade the lens with the latest IS system, and perhaps some minor optic tweaks, but I don't think that they'd be able to make any huge improvements while retaining the compactness and handiness of this lens. It's a favorite of mine. Yes, I'd love an f/4 telezoom like Nikon's 200-400, but even if Canon offered and I bought, I'd still keep the 100-400.
 

Stan Jirman

New member
I have used (borrowed) two different 100-400 lenses and they didn't convince me. Once I realized that my 70-200LIS is too short and "not the right choice" with a 2x TC attached, I bought the 400/4DO lens. I know, it's pricy but it does have IS and is a full stop faster than the 100-400. I've been happy ever since.
 

Sid Jervis

pro member
Stan,
I follow your logic and agree with your purchase for you. I know it is a fine piece of engineering (I rented one in the UK).

I have a question for you, there have been a few reports (UK an US) that the 400 f4 DO is the best lens Canon have made, would you go that far?

The biggest issue as you say is price, and to be fair the 100-400 is aimed at the other end of the price range. With a price difference of nearly $3,900 between the two lenses you have to be deadly serious about this purchase.

The OP's title and post asked about a Canon 100-400 replacement, to be honest I can't really see the 400 f4 DO as a viable option, not at it's current price.

Regards.
 

Stan Jirman

New member
I would definitely not say that it's the best lens Canon ever made. First of all, define "best". But even in general terms, the 300/2.8, 400/2.8 or the 500/4 or 600/4 will surpass it optically. I think the 400DO is the best compromise between size & weight and optical performance. The statement that I remember that described it best was that it was the best supertelephoto PER GRAM. The bigger lenses are better, but far heavier per focal length.

I bought the DO because it's as big a lens as I ever want to carry, period. I used to use the 300/2.8, but it was left behind too often because it was too short and heavy; and then it's of little use, even if it's "better".
 

Sid Jervis

pro member
Stan Jirman said:
I would definitely not say that it's the best lens Canon ever made. First of all, define "best".
Point taken, I will try and be more specific in my questions. Best is an ambiguous term, without further qualification.
 

KrisCarnmarker

New member
Well, its a good thing I have a lot of time left before I need to make a decision, as I'm still have not made up my mind :) I appreciate all the views presented here though.

On the subject of the dust sucking abilities of the 100-400, it obviously depends on your environments. Now I have no empirical evidence of this, but I think the fact that the push-pull zoom allows you to zoom so quickly can have an effect on how much dust gets sucked. Yes, the same volume of air will be sucked in (compared to "normal" zoom operation), but because it happens so much more quickly, air must be taken from further out around the lens. Anyway...

I have been contemplating a prime instead of a zoom. The 300mm f/4 would seem like a good fit, I suppose. But I'm not sure its worth the compromise in versatility. I was also looking at the Tamron 200-500 but at f/5-6.3 I think it would be too slow, if nothing else.
 

Sid Jervis

pro member
KrisCarnmarker said:
On the subject of the dust sucking abilities of the 100-400, it obviously depends on your environments. Now I have no empirical evidence of this, but I think the fact that the push-pull zoom allows you to zoom so quickly can have an effect on how much dust gets sucked. Yes, the same volume of air will be sucked in (compared to "normal" zoom operation), but because it happens so much more quickly, air must be taken from further out around the lens. Anyway...

I agree that irrespective of the speed of zoom the volume of air is the same, I am not so sure air will be "be taken from further out around the lens" that doesn't appear to work in my view. Dust is more likely to have settled on the lens, not further away from the lens. Realistically I doubt that you would be zooming a lens very fast anyway, not if you have paid for it. As I said, personal experience has shown that the 100-400 does not suck dust. My 100-400 lens has been to Australia, North Africa, Arizona and plenty of other dusty places over the last two years. Please don't misunderstand my comments. I'm not trying to convince you to buy the 100-400, just attempting to point out an urban myth.

I have been contemplating a prime instead of a zoom. The 300mm f/4 would seem like a good fit, I suppose. But I'm not sure its worth the compromise in versatility.
If you need versatile, the 100-400 is well known for that, one other point is if you use the 100-400 you are likely to perform less lens changes, limiting dust ingress.

It is a hard decision to make, and it is you that has to make the choice, but waiting is not likely to provide a newer version of the 100-400. Maybe renting lenses on your short list would help. Be warned though, I did the same before a big safari trip, I ended up buying the 100-400, and renting an EF 500 f4 for the trip, which was connected to a 1.4 extender for the whole trip; I took two bodies.
Now I am saving for the 500, it's a slippery slope:)

Regards
 

Erik DeBill

New member
reliability and sharpness

Sid Jervis said:
I agree that irrespective of the speed of zoom the volume of air is the same, I am not so sure air will be "be taken from further out around the lens" that doesn't appear to work in my view. Dust is more likely to have settled on the lens, not further away from the lens. Realistically I doubt that you would be zooming a lens very fast anyway, not if you have paid for it.

You might be surprised. I have one and unless you have the tension set very low, you may have to push moderately hard to get it to start zooming, at which point it will zoom very fast after you break the friction holding it in place. Also, I tend to slam the zoom up against the stops, especially when I want to zoom out quickly to catch an animal doing something special.

Sid Jervis said:
As I said, personal experience has shown that the 100-400 does not suck dust. My 100-400 lens has been to Australia, North Africa, Arizona and plenty of other dusty places over the last two years. Please don't misunderstand my comments. I'm not trying to convince you to buy the 100-400, just attempting to point out an urban myth.

I, too, have had no problems with dust, including some usage in the middle of a dune field. I've had it a little over a year and a half, so there's been plenty of time to get dirty. Then again, I generally don't have a problem with sensor dust, either.

While I've had no problem with dust, I've had mine into the shop twice. The first time because the IS went out, the second time because a baffle came loose inside the lense. The first was under warranty, the second cost $60 or so to fix. I had to pay shipping both times.

I was fairly happy with the sharpness on this lens until I bought a 70-200 F4L and saw just how sharp a zoom could be. Now I'm fairly unhappy and saving for the 400 F5.6L. I use it mostly at the 400mm end, and I stop down to f8 to get a little better sharpness out of it. Still, it's a very fun lens to have. If it was lighter I'd carry it all over. As it is, I can only bring myself to lug it along if I'm expecting to be shooting wildlife.
 
You wanna think of Mrs.Bigma?
One lens, 50-500. Not super wide, not razor-sharp, pertty slow, rather heavy, but it can close the gap between taking a (maybe non-perfect) shot and "darn, I missed it again" sigh...
That is, unless you wanna carry two bodies :)
 

Don Lashier

New member
KrisCarnmarker said:
I have been contemplating a prime instead of a zoom. The 300mm f/4 would seem like a good fit, I suppose. But I'm not sure its worth the compromise in versatility. I was also looking at the Tamron 200-500 but at f/5-6.3 I think it would be too slow, if nothing else.
I'm one of the 100-400 haters. It was superb at 300 or shorter but degraded at 400. I hated the push/pull and did experience more dust problems when using it although I suspect it wasn't so much sucking dust in as blowing around dust already in the mirror box.

I sold mine and replaced it with a 300 f4 and 1.4TC. I don't really miss the zoom ability as at this FL I was usually shooting wildlife or whatever where the reach wasn't quite enough anyway. When shooting closer I use my 70-200 (with or without 1.4) anyway.

- DL
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Don Lashier said:
I'm one of the 100-400 haters. It was superb at 300 or shorter but degraded at 400. I hated the push/pull and did experience more dust problems when using it although I suspect it wasn't so much sucking dust in as blowing around dust already in the mirror box.

I sold mine and replaced it with a 300 f4 and 1.4TC. I don't really miss the zoom ability as at this FL I was usually shooting wildlife or whatever where the reach wasn't quite enough anyway. When shooting closer I use my 70-200 (with or without 1.4) anyway.

- DL
Don,

I wonder how fast the 300 f4 can focus with the 1.4 in place?

Also how would that combination compare, at that same focal length, 4120mm with the 50-500mm Sigma.

I sold my 300mm 2.8L and now I'm missing the reach for animal and bird shots.

Asher
 

Don Lashier

New member
Asher Kelman said:
Don,

I wonder how fast the 300 f4 can focus with the 1.4 in place?

Asher

A lot better/faster than the 100-400! I forgot to mention, that was one of my biggest gripes about the 100-400 - poor autofocus performance.

Even though I'm happy with the 300/1.4 it's still not enough reach for many wildlife shots, but I'd be looking at a 500/f4 and just don't do enough of this type of shooting to justify the cost.

Also how would that combination compare, at that same focal length, 420mm with the 50-500mm Sigma.

That would be interesting. I've heard good reports on this Sigma and it's priced affordably for occasional use.

- DL
 

Randy Brister

New member
As my business grew, and I brought on more photographers, I bought 4 100-400's soon after they were introduced. I've used them primarily for youth baseball and softball, and shoot probably 150,000 images a year with them. So I've personally seen close to a million images from 4 different copies of the lens.

Dust has never been an issue, and we shoot in plenty of dust. I like the push/pull, no issues there. The lens focuses quickly, and is wonderfully sharp, with great contrast, in GOOD contrasty front light. In backlit situations, or low light, it has problems follow focusing, and image quality is degraded. As some have stated, it's sweet spot is 200mm-300mm. Optically, it never was, nor will ever be, in the same class with the 300 f2.8, 400 f2.8, 500 f4, or 600 f4.

The IS works well, although not nearly as well as Canon's newer IS. The big selling points for me was (a) price, compared to a 300 f2.8, and the focal length versatility. 100-400 is a great range for a lot of applications.

I've been on Safari twice; my first trip I took a 300 f2.8, with 1.4x and 2.0 extenders, a 70-200 f2.8, and a 28-70 f2.8. On my second I left the 300 at home, and instead took a 100-400. Although I got some great images with the 100-400, and loved the lighter backpack, I really wished I had brought the 300.

Randy
 
Top