New 100-400 (2 Viewers)

[Roy C]

Pre-order price at WEX is £1999 - that's more than I expected although it will drop in price after the intial rush I expect. I wonder what the 'grey' price will be?

 

[JPAC]

Very true Steve but they do reach more than 400. If canon were to produce a 150-600 L to compete what would the price be? Surely a fair bit more than £1599.99

Canon used to do a 150-600mm in New FD mount. I had one for a while, very heavy to lug around. :eek!:

This lens is £1,999, £760 more than the old one. 3 The price should drop over time.

 

[Telephoto Paul]

Canon used to do a 150-600mm in New FD mount. I had one for a while, very heavy to lug around. :eek!:.

If you ever pay attention to the behind the scenes stuff that tends to accompany BBC nature documentaries, it's not unusual to see their camera still using that lens.

As for the 100-400 II, an article with some samples by Danny Green, a nature photographer I happen to pay a lot of attention to.

 

[gandytron]

“It works with an EF1.4x converter too"

I'll be interested to see how it performs at 400mm compared with the 400mm f5.6 prime, and the Sony 70-400mm, plus of course the weight-comparable new third party 150-600mm zooms.

Whilst all Nikon can offer is a more expensive lens with a plastic body, the release of the 7Dii and this lens has me seriously thinking about ditching Nikon and moving to Canon in due course.

 

[Roy C]

“It works with an EF1.4x converter too"
.

The old one also worked with a EF 1.4x converter, but with both models you obviously need a Camera that AF's at f8.

 

[njlarsen]

As for the 100-400 II, an article with some samples by Danny Green, a nature photographer I happen to pay a lot of attention to.

I suspect that this statement is going to raise some eyebrows:

When you work with primes you miss the flexibility you get with a zoom, but the trade-off is you accept that with the prime you’re going to get a sharper result. That’s not the case with this lens.”

Niels

 

[Paul Jarvis]

The lens looks like a challenge for camp covers, but I do love its compact size for walking round.

 

[Telephoto Paul]

I suspect that this statement is going to raise some eyebrows:

Not sure it should. The 400mm f/5.6 is sharper than the 100-400 mk I, but the 200-400 is sharper than both.

 

[graham catley]

If you ever pay attention to the behind the scenes stuff that tends to accompany BBC nature documentaries, it's not unusual to see their camera still using that lens.

As for the 100-400 II, an article with some samples by Danny Green, a nature photographer I happen to pay a lot of attention to.

If it is all internal zoom and focus why does that image apparently show an extending front end of the lens, the narrower white bit? Or have I missed something?

 

[redeyedvideo]

The lens looks like a challenge for camp covers.

Nikon made a pink telescope. Oh, you mean camo? :-O

 

[Telephoto Paul]

If it is all internal zoom and focus why does that image apparently show an extending front end of the lens, the narrower white bit? Or have I missed something?

It's not an internal zoom. They have replaced the push-pull style with a rotate-to-zoom style, but it's not internal zoom. It still needs to be something approaching 400mm long at it's maximum.

 

[Hor Kee]

I hope it lives up to its touted 4-stops of stabilization at the long end.

 

[Paul Jarvis]

Yes I meant camo typo error sorry.

 

[graham catley]

It's not an internal zoom. They have replaced the push-pull style with a rotate-to-zoom style, but it's not internal zoom. It still needs to be something approaching 400mm long at it's maximum.

So still the chance of dust being dragged in by the slide action: a major problem with the old model:
Nothing external on the 70-200

 

[BodyResults]

So still the chance of dust being dragged in by the slide action: a major problem with the old model:
Nothing external on the 70-200

There really wasn't an issue with the original sucking in dust. That's just a myth that has been repeated over and over. In fact on the forums I see more people wishing the version 2 lens was a push pull than those that are happy about the twist.

 

[Paul Jarvis]

I agree all lenses collect small particles of dust inside over time even primes that have no moving parts, I think the biggest problem with the mk1 was the tighten collar lots of people used it with half tightened and weared the sponge out inside until it no longer worked.

 

[HokkaidoStu]

Mine is full of dust and little bits of god-knows-what and the tightening ring went years ago...................it doesn't really affect IQ but if I decide to sell it in the future it'll need a trip to a Canon Service Centre.

 

[lewis20126]

There really wasn't an issue with the original sucking in dust. That's just a myth that has been repeated over and over. In fact on the forums I see more people wishing the version 2 lens was a push pull than those that are happy about the twist.

Not a myth. Just go to a dusty country! My Ethiopia photos, pre sensor-cleaning are covered in dust pumped in via this lens. If you don't travel in such conditions you wouldn't necessarily be aware of it.

Cheers,a

 

[stevo]

The lens is commonly known as the dyson in the uk ,with good cause.

Steve.

 

[jascha777]

The new Nikon 80-400, though optically superb is an awful dust sucker-it is also
of the twist rather than push pull type, so don't see that as helpful in preventing
dust. Bizarrely, no problem with consumer 70-300,or old 80-400, and Nikon want
to charge me £150 to clean a lens this FULL of dust(over 100 specs) ,that is only a year old and I
paid £2100 for! If there is a similar problem with this new lens I hope Canon are a little
more understanding! Mark