PMA - real dissapointment for Canon Pro's

[ShaunOBoyle]

I'm with Bart on the lackluster wide angle lens offerings, I have been testing many of the existing Canon wide lenses over the last couple weeks trying to find something worth buying. So far the 17-40 zoom is the best of the bunch, beating the 16-35 pretty squarely. The non L primes are not having a good showing on the samples I have tested. I was really hoping to see a nice new wide prime offered, something like a killer 21 2.8.

[ QUOTE ]
So what's wrong with the 100-400L IS? Too Big? Too Heavy? I have one and really love it..

[/ QUOTE ]

There's nothing WRONG with the 100-400; in fact, I just sold mine to a friend and he loves it for what he does. In well-lit situations, it's done just fine for me in the past while shooting races. But when it's cloudy and you're forced to use it at 400 and wide open (f5.6), I think it's a bit on the soft side. I'd just like to have a zoom that goes out to 400 that is a stop faster and isn't a push/pull design. The push/pull thing is perhaps what I liked least about the 100-400. Not overlapping more that half of my 70-200's range would be OK with me as well. I expect a 200-400f4L IS would be considerably bigger/heavier/more expensive than the 100-400...probably a monopod lens, at least for me.

Of course, now that I shoot digital instead of film, I can always use a faster ISO to stay off the bump stop in overcast weather, but when I was shooting film that wasn't so easy.

I don't NEED this lens as much as I WANT this lens, so I am not required to be completely logical about it. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] And there is certainly no checkbook logic associated with what I expect it would cost compared to the 100-400.

I guess if Canon decided to do a 200-500f4L IS instead, I could live with that as well. I just think there's a hole in their lineup into which such a zoom lens would fit nicely, and I can think of some things for which I could use it constructively.

[Jeff_TenHave]

[ QUOTE ]

I guess if Canon decided to do a 200-500f4L IS instead, I could live with that as well. I just think there's a hole in their lineup into which such a zoom lens would fit nicely, and I can think of some things for which I could use it constructively.

[/ QUOTE ]

I will agree with you there BoB.. A tight "L" Pro line-up such as 12-24L, 24-70L, 70-200 2.8L, 200-500 4L would be awesome.....but having the over split of the 70-200 and the 100-400 is a waste of money unless you use two camera bodies with these two lenses at the same time.

As for the 100-400L in low light, all I can say is that digital cams such as the 10D 20D and 1DMk2 really make this a worthwhile lens for events where it was useless with film cameras, even at ISO3200 the images are acceptable...

[Edmond_Terakopian]

I'd say over tha past year or so, we haven't had any dissappointments! The new cameras are great.
I heard that Canon had infact been tweaking the lenses on the quite to work with digital better.
Having switched over from Nikon I ended up buying new lenses and all of them are tack sharp - even my 16-35!
Personally I'd love to see more DO lenses. It would be great to have a 70-200 DO f2.8, or a 70-300 DO f2.8. Mostly though, my main wish is for a 500mm DO f4! I would then be totally happy!!

Edmond