Canon EF 100-400 F4L IS Looks a certainty.

Kamlan 28mm F1.4 MF for APS-C

02/20/2007 05:50:36 AM · #1

Seems lots of talk on the forums about the shop that started taking pre-orders for this un-announced lens. Obviously adverts all taken down now, but we are looking at an RRP of about Â£1699.

Very tempting. Might even contemplate selling the 70-200 F2.8 IS to raise the funds.

Manic

DJI Mini 3 Pro

02/20/2007 05:58:41 AM · #2

My real question is whether it'll be a pump-action like the f4-5.6 or an internal zoom like the 70-200...

MattO

Nikon D4

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II

02/20/2007 07:47:44 AM · #3

Originally posted by Manic:

My real question is whether it'll be a pump-action like the f4-5.6 or an internal zoom like the 70-200...

Lets hope its an internal zoom. If so I think that will be a purchase I make.

MattO

nova

Canon EOS-6D

Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM

02/20/2007 08:03:00 AM · #4

I'll make room in my bag for such a lens if it's an internal zoom too. Thanks for the head's up.

Canon RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1 L IS USM

02/20/2007 08:11:37 AM · #5

Interesting, why would the `pump action` (love the term) not be as attractive to you as the internal focus? Granted, keeping the lens a constant size is convinient. I was always under the impression that a push-pull zoom would suck in dirt nto your sensor, but as Mr_pants pointed out at the GTG, there is no suction caused as the whole lens is a sealed unit anyway so no air, other than whats in the lens, actually gets shifted.

I think a twist zoom, fully internal zoom for this focal lenght/speed would be one HUGE lens.

cloudsme

Canon EOS R5

02/20/2007 08:14:17 AM · #6

That would be an awesome lens. You would be able to use a telextender with it. I wonder how heavy it would be.

robs

Canon EOS R6 Mk II

02/20/2007 08:15:06 AM · #7

I love the pump action lenses - My first lens was an old 35-105 that that had the push-pull and the twist still feel wrong sometimes (I used the 35-105 for years before getting another lens).

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

02/20/2007 08:17:21 AM · #8

Originally posted by cloudsme:

That would be an awesome lens. You would be able to use a telextender with it. I wonder how heavy it would be.

didnt think of that, with the 2x TC it would become a 200-800 F8. sweet wildlife setup on a decent `pod.

One would expect they have the 4th gen IS on it as well. Defintely not your standard `walkabout` lens.

nova

Canon EOS-6D

Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM

02/20/2007 09:16:10 AM · #9

Originally posted by robs:

... My first lens was an old 35-105 that that had the push-pull and the twist still feel wrong sometimes (I used the 35-105 for years before getting another lens).

That's the key, I think. It's just what you are used to. I've not owned a push-pull lens but have read reviewers who weren't too keen on it. Back when I was shopping for a long lens, that fact alone made me hesitant.

cpanaioti

Canon EOS-40D

02/20/2007 09:41:42 AM · #10

Originally posted by marksimms:

Originally posted by cloudsme:
That would be an awesome lens. You would be able to use a telextender with it. I wonder how heavy it would be.

didnt think of that, with the 2x TC it would become a 200-800 F8. sweet wildlife setup on a decent `pod.

One would expect they have the 4th gen IS on it as well. Defintely not your standard `walkabout` lens.

With no auto focus and very soft wide open. The 1.4x TC is a better choice than the 2x.

Also, f8 is very slow and in most situations require a tripod. For some big wildlife this may be ok but try shooting birds with manual focus anchored to a tripod.

Message edited by author 2007-02-20 09:42:50.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

02/20/2007 11:17:42 AM · #11

Wow, sign me up as interested. I'll be curious as to how sharp it will be compared to, say, the 70-200 2.8 with a 2x extender on it.

I'm not against the push/pull design, although I've never used one. However, I doubt the lens is sealed enough not to suck in air from somewhere. If you truly had a vaccuum created in the chamber, what would keep the lens from pulling back as soon as you let go of it?

02/20/2007 01:20:05 PM · #12

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

what would keep the lens from pulling back as soon as you let go of it?

DUH! The Flux Capacitors. Obviously.

kawana

Sony Alpha a7R

Samyang 135mm f/2 ED UMC

02/20/2007 02:16:34 PM · #13

Originally posted by marksimms:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
what would keep the lens from pulling back as soon as you let go of it?

DUH! The Flux Capacitors. Obviously.

nonono your thinking of the Flux Inhibitors, not Capacitors.. haha.. flux capacitors, thats rich...

02/20/2007 02:55:37 PM · #14

Originally posted by marksimms:

I think that perhaps I didn't explain myself properly. What I meant to say was that I see no difference between push-pull and twist zoom, where the lens changes length. Both would entail air being drawn into the lens. My issue was with the perception that push-pull designs are worse than twist per se

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

02/20/2007 02:57:22 PM · #15

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Wow, sign me up as interested. I'll be curious as to how sharp it will be compared to, say, the 70-200 2.8 with a 2x extender on it.

If one is talking about the 70-200 with 2x TC wide open, I fail to see how the 100-400 could not be sharper.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

02/20/2007 03:08:14 PM · #16

Originally posted by Mr_Pants:

What I meant to say was that I see no difference between push-pull and twist zoom, where the lens changes length. Both would entail air being drawn into the lens. My issue was with the perception that push-pull designs are worse than twist per se

The 100-400 push-pull certainly draws air in - you can feel it getting pushed in and out.

where it differs from a lens that doesn't change length is that parts that were previously 'outside' (and can pick up dust) move 'inside' acting as a way to move dust into and through the lens.

But you are right, zooms in general seem to be crappier for moving air and dust around inside the camera. Primes have maybe some potential advantage in general for keeping the dust down.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

02/20/2007 03:19:00 PM · #17

Originally posted by Mr_Pants:

If one is talking about the 70-200 with 2x TC wide open, I fail to see how the 100-400 could not be sharper.

ROFL! Truer words were never spoken.

02/20/2007 03:30:05 PM · #18

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by Mr_Pants:
What I meant to say was that I see no difference between push-pull and twist zoom, where the lens changes length. Both would entail air being drawn into the lens. My issue was with the perception that push-pull designs are worse than twist per se

The 100-400 push-pull certainly draws air in - you can feel it getting pushed in and out.

where it differs from a lens that doesn't change length is that parts that were previously 'outside' (and can pick up dust) move 'inside' acting as a way to move dust into and through the lens.

Please note that I did not intend to compare it directly with a lens that doesn't change length. One comparison I was thinking of was the Sigma 80-400, which changes length significantly, too, and would be expected to suck in air.

Thinking about it, though, the front half (if you will) of the lens (of the 100-400) moves backwards and forwards, while the rear element stays in situ. I imagine that this latter portion will help prevent dust from making it into the camera body, so long as the elements are relatively well sealed against the inner surfaces of the barrel.

02/20/2007 03:31:28 PM · #19

Originally posted by kirbic:

Originally posted by Mr_Pants:
If one is talking about the 70-200 with 2x TC wide open, I fail to see how the 100-400 could not be sharper.

ROFL! Truer words were never spoken.

Yes, seriously considering, now, picking up a 100-400 for shooting rugby, as the wide-open performance is at least acceptable.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

02/20/2007 03:32:12 PM · #20

Originally posted by Mr_Pants:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Wow, sign me up as interested. I'll be curious as to how sharp it will be compared to, say, the 70-200 2.8 with a 2x extender on it.

If one is talking about the 70-200 with 2x TC wide open, I fail to see how the 100-400 could not be sharper.

Well, it isn't as obvious as you would think. The 70-200mm f/2.8 is likely Canon's best zoom available as far as sharpness is concerned. It's clearly sharper than the 100-400. It's partly a product of it having a 3x range vs. a 4x range. The more the range, the more compromises have to be made overall. As an aside, I'd love to see a 200-400mm zoom because of this.

That being said, you turn out to be correct. Luminous Landscape compares 70-200 2x vs. 100-400 Wide open (f/5.6) the 100-400 is superior. Two stops lower (f/11) they are identical. This was done with the old version of the 2x TC, but their comparison of the old TC vs. new 2x TC was basically a wash.

02/20/2007 03:35:27 PM · #21

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Mr_Pants:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Wow, sign me up as interested. I'll be curious as to how sharp it will be compared to, say, the 70-200 2.8 with a 2x extender on it.

If one is talking about the 70-200 with 2x TC wide open, I fail to see how the 100-400 could not be sharper.

Well, it isn't as obvious as you would think. The 70-200mm f/2.8 is likely Canon's best zoom available as far as sharpness is concerned. It's clearly sharper than the 100-400. It's partly a product of it having a 3x range vs. a 4x range. The more the range, the more compromises have to be made overall. As an aside, I'd love to see a 200-400mm zoom because of this.

That being said, you turn out to be correct. Luminous Landscape compares 70-200 2x vs. 100-400 Wide open (f/5.6) the 100-400 is superior. Two stops lower (f/11) they are identical. This was done with the old version of the 2x TC, but their comparison of the old TC vs. new 2x TC was basically a wash.

Trust me, the 70-200 used wide-open with the 2x TC is poor with a capital P. By f/8 it's getting better. At f/10 it's really quite sharp indeed, but f/10 is not practicable in very many situations.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5