Canon 100-400mm price drop.

Martyarty

Martyarty

Messages
955
Name
Martin
Edit My Images
No
Hi all,

Does anyone have any insider information on why the Canon 100-400mm has dropped in price so much.

Amazon now have it for £999.97

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00005QF6O/letscook/ref=nosim

I ask because there have been lots of rumors that a new model is due out.
I have a Sigma 150-500mm which I am considering changing for the Canon, but I don't want to waste my money if a new version is on the horizon.

Thanks for any info.

Martin
 
Cracking price, lets hope if there is a MKII it comes with a twist zoom not push pull and does not suck in dust as much as my Dyson.
 
GRECIAN said:
Cracking price, lets hope if there is a MKII it comes with a twist zoom not push pull and does not suck in dust as much as my Dyson.
Click to expand...

Push/Pull vs twist will make zero difference to the amount of dust - as long as the lens extends when zooming. If air couldn't get in you'd never be able to zoom out.
 
Ive heard that a new F4 version is due, cant substantiate this but would explain the reduction.
 
hollis_f said:
Push/Pull vs twist will make zero difference to the amount of dust - as long as the lens extends when zooming. If air couldn't get in you'd never be able to zoom out.
Click to expand...

Not what i was saying, i just meant i would prefer a twist zoom and i would like a newer model to be more dust proof than the current model.
 
It is about time too (not that I am after one mind you). UK prices are much higher than US prices, I know they sell more in the US, but there just isn't any competition here in the UK.

:plusone: to Amazon for taking what is hopefully the 1st step.

Of course next year will bring in 20% VAT which will again screw us over.
 
Martyarty said:
Thanks Tina. Interesting reading that thread, but still no info about a 100-400 replacement from canon.:shrug:

Does anyone else have any insider info.
Click to expand...

I don't, but it is an obvious candidate for an overhaul with a fixed aperture throughout the zoom range and more modern IS. f/4 would allow it to take a 1.4x extender (itself recently upgraded, again) and retain AF on non-1-Series bodies.

The current model is a good seller, but beginning to show its age.

Considering what Canon have done with their 70-200s over the last two or three years, I'd have high expectations of a 100-400 f/4L.
 
You could say that the new 70-300L is a replacement for the venerable 100-400L. You could argue that the new 70-200L Mk2 with extender is a substitute for it. You might also say that all the 100-400L needs is new IS and AF mechanisms and some weather proofing to bring it right up to date (and hopefully remain affordable).

On the other hand, a 100-400L f/4-constant would be less of a replacement and more of a rival to Nikon's acclaimed 200-400 f/4. It is said that lens alone has been enough to switch some photographers over to Nikon. It's certainly one of the few areas where Nikon has an excellent product where Canon has nothing similar.

What is also equally certain is that such a lens would need twice the amount of glass, would weigh twice as much and cost four times the price of the current 100-400L - like the Nikon :eek:

I also think the long expected 24-70L replacement might at last be around the corner, with stunning sharpness to match the 40mp sensor of the anticipated 1Ds4, and IS of course.
 
There has been talk of a 100-400mm replacement for quite a time this may well be why
Regards
Richard
 
It's a great price and a great lens. If you want one, buy it now, because you can bet any replacement [even if it's just to AF etc] will come in at full retail, and that'll be more expensive by a great margin.

There's really nothing wrong with the current model, and the 70-300 [good as though that may be] is still 100mm shorter. If you want reach, only reach will do.
 
An f/4 version would be a completely different class of lens.

Canon should do a 100-400 f/5.6 MKII and a 100-400 or 200-400 f/4.

Look at the nikkor 200-400. It's a fabulous lens, but most canon 100-400 users simply couldn't afford a lens like that. If you look at it's direct nikon competition (the 80-400VR), the 100-400 compares very well, having roughly equal IQ and a USM motor.

If nikon bring out a 80-400VRII and canon bring out a 200-400 f/4L, everyone is happy.


I'm probably going to purchase this lens soon. A replacement has been rumoured for a long time, without much basis apart from the apparent drawbacks of the current 100-400.
 
Martyarty said:
.....but I don't want to waste my money if a new version is on the horizon.
....
Click to expand...

£999 for a very underrated lens with excellent image quality doesn't sound like a waste to me :cuckoo:
As pointed out, the Nikon 200-400 cost more than 4 times the price, so this lens now looks like a bargain! It's almost worth me buying a Canon body just to have this focal length, it looks like seriously good value to me.

I understand why people like to have the latest and greatest versions of gear, but you should realize that the new version (especially if it is f/4) will be significantly more expensive (maybe £2k+ starting price?) and you'll then think you might as well hang onto your Sigma, and you'll be kicking yourself for missing out on this low £999 price.
 
SLRUser said:
It is about time too (not that I am after one mind you). UK prices are much higher than US prices, I know they sell more in the US, but there just isn't any competition here in the UK.
Click to expand...

Not this garbage again!

OK, let's use the 100-400 as an example and big-store prices (not grey-market, back of a lorry stuff). In the US B&H sell this for $1600. Add in sales tax (which is variable in the US, but 7.5% is a rough average) gets you up to $1720. That equates to around £1150. WEx sell it for £1100.

Or the 70-200 f4 IS. B&H price with tax is $1300 = £860. WEx is £800.

Or the 24-105. B&H is $1130 = £750. WEx is £785

There is virtually no difference. Indeed, if you're a pro and can claim back the VAT then the UK is quite a bit cheaper.
 
hollis_f said:
There is virtually no difference. Indeed, if you're a pro and can claim back the VAT then the UK is quite a bit cheaper.
Click to expand...

+1. I was in the US earlier this year when the exchange rate was in the crapper. There was only one lens which was working out a few hundred cheaper, all the others (on my list of potential purchases) were more expensive in the US or only a few ££ in it. Sales tax is the one most people forget to add when comparing US vs UK, it's around 10% in a lot of states.
 
Thanks for all the advice guys.:thumbs:

I am swaying towards making a purchase, although I think I will give it a week or 2 and see if the price moves any further.
I have had some very good results from my Sigma (see below) and the main reason to swap for the canon would be to get a faster lens which is sharp wide open.
I take a lot of shots in fairly low light and the sigma struggles big time at f8 which I have to use to get sharp shots.
The Sigma 150-500 seems to be going for between £550-£600 on the Bay so I really need decide is the extra light gained worth the £400-500 the swap will cost.

Decisions decisions.:bang::bang::bang:

1/30 sec f8 ISO1600
4997096938_2a2cf7db18_b.jpg
 
Martyarty said:
Thanks for all the advice guys.:thumbs:

I am swaying towards making a purchase, although I think I will give it a week or 2 and see if the price moves any further.
I have had some very good results from my Sigma (see below) and the main reason to swap for the canon would be to get a faster lens which is sharp wide open.
I take a lot of shots in fairly low light and the sigma struggles big time at f8 which I have to use to get sharp shots.
The Sigma 150-500 seems to be going for between £550-£600 on the Bay so I really need decide is the extra light gained worth the £400-500 the swap will cost.

Decisions decisions.:bang::bang::bang:
Click to expand...

I would look at the new 50-500 OS. Sharp wide open with better stabilization than the 100-400 and only costs £100 more. Lovely lens :thumbs:
 
hollis_f said:
Not this garbage again!
<snip>
Click to expand...

d3Karen said:
+1. I was in the US earlier this year when the exchange rate was in the crapper.
<snip>
Click to expand...

Exactly what I am saying, aren't you listening? The prices NOW are cheaper than they were 18 months ago, have a look at camerapricebuster for history. The US prices have been a lot lower up until NOW. When I was looking at a 100-400mm about 12 months ago, the lowest was ~£1200 and the US price was a whole lot lower, well under £1k.

Lets take another example shall we?

US Canon 500mm f/4 = $6,140.00 + 10% = $6754 = £4,223.63
UK Canon 500mm f/4 = £5199.00
UK Canon 500mm f/4 ~12 months ago = £5400

US Canon 60D = $1099.00 + 10% = $1208.9 = £755.98
UK Canon 60D = £899.00

Not much difference is there?
 
micloi said:
I would look at the new 50-500 OS. Sharp wide open with better stabilization than the 100-400 and only costs £100 more. Lovely lens :thumbs:
Click to expand...

I wouldn't pay more for the sigma.

If it was a hundred pounds CHEAPER it would be a nice option, but I wouldn't pay an extra hundred for it.

The canon is:
Lighter
1/3rd of a stop faster
slightly sharper (than most copies, some copies of the sigma seem to be as sharp, but not reliably)
More accurate focus
Has less quality control issues. There are a few bad copies around, but not as many as the sigmas.
 
squishy said:
I wouldn't pay more for the sigma.

If it was a hundred pounds CHEAPER it would be a nice option, but I wouldn't pay an extra hundred for it.

The canon is:
Lighter
1/3rd of a stop faster
slightly sharper (than most copies, some copies of the sigma seem to be as sharp, but not reliably)
More accurate focus
Has less quality control issues. There are a few bad copies around, but not as many as the sigmas.
Click to expand...

So you have owned and tested both the canon and the sigma or are you just implying that the sharpness and focus comments you make are correct based on what you have read (most of which were I am sure for other Sigma models)?

I have owned and tested these lenses and many more and talk from experience.
 
micloi said:
So you have owned and tested both the canon and the sigma or are you just implying that the sharpness and focus comments you make are correct based on what you have read (most of which were I am sure for other Sigma models)?

I have owned and tested these lenses and many more and talk from experience.
Click to expand...

I make the comments based on the large amount of review reading I have done prior to soon purchasing one of these lenses.

The general consensus is that the sigma is a good lens, but not worth more over the canon, unless you dislike the push pull zoom.

And the reviews I read were for the new OS version 50-500 not the old 50-500 or 150-500 OS.


Here are a couple of review that do a fairly direct comparison to the 100-400
http://www.lenstip.com/244.1-Lens_review-Sigma_50-500_mm_f_4.5-6.3_APO_DG_OS_HSM_Introduction.html
http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/sigma_50-500_os_hsm_vs_canon_100-400.htm
 
Last edited:
I have read the reviews. The first is a quite nice one. The 2nd one is not very scientific especially when measuring the stabilization!

Quote from the first review:
The Sigma’s 50-500 mm OS stabilization is the most efficient in this group and it gives it undoubtedly an advantage.

From the 2nd one:
but the Sigma has a really poor image stabilization - I'd say it gives about 1 stop advantage, while the Canon is about 2 stops

Also all the conclusions in favour of the Canon (faster AF, faster zoom(just because it is push/pull :shrug: If that was the case there would be more like it) seem to be conclusions drawn without any testing, just the feeling of the reviewer.

Not saying that the Sigma is much better than the Canon. Just that, at approx the same price, I would (and did) go with the Sigma for the longer reach, better stabilization and non-push/pull zoom). Also sample variation for the 100-400 has been even worse than many Sigma models so, especially for the 100-400, I would buy from somewhere I could easily return it as many are unacceptably soft.

That's my opinion, drawn from extensive testing of more than 10 different telephotos :) People can now buy whatever they feel is best for them :thumbs:
 
Fair enough!

If you've found a sharp copy, that 10x zoom range must be pretty useful!
 
Amazon have put the price bacxk up to £1230. Not such a great bargain now.
 
I'm glad I managed to snap it up at that price now!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top