Canon EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM and EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM Replacements in the Works?

by on May 7, 2013

in Canon

Canon 100-400mm

Canon has been feeling out certain users’ thoughts for replacements to the EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM and EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM lenses. One of the common complaints of the two lenses is the push-pull zoom design, which leads them to be regarded as “dust suckers.” Additionally, the lenses are rather slow at the long end of the zoom at f/5.6; however, that allows them to remain compact in spite of their long zoom range.

These lenses do have some die hard fans, regardless of their problematic zoom design.

Of course, asking users what they think about replacements for these lenses could mean a number things: (1) Canon could be soliciting thoughts on demand for replacements for product design feedback (i.e., they wouldn’t be coming soon), (2) Canon could be gauging marketing feedback for an upcoming launch of the redesigned lenses, or (3) some other reason. Whatever the case may be, these lenses are quite old and could either be on the chopping block to be discontinued, or they could be right around the corner.

What are your thoughts on replacing these two lenses? Are they useful to you? What features and prices would you want to see on replacements?

Are there anymore Canon users out their who have been solicited for a response about these lenses? (If you don’t want to comment, feel free to reach out via the contact form.)

email

 

{ 7 comments }

1 Rob Brookes May 7, 2013 at 7:14 am

The lens are just too slow. I would never buy one as it is to jack of all trades for me and and you would be better buying two cheaper non canon lenses that would be better at both ends of the scale. I like the idea of the 28-300 for weddings but it would need to be 2.8 – 3.5/4 at the most.

2 Tim L May 7, 2013 at 3:09 pm

In my perfect world, the 100-400 Mark II emphasizes improved optics and reduced weight. The 100-400 is the one lens I own that never quite wows me with its images. The focal range is great. With better and better noise performance at high ISO’s, I don’t consider it too slow either. (It’s heavy enough for hand holding that I wouldn’t trade increased weight for increased speed.) I wouldn’t mind seeing the push-pull zoom eliminated though if the optics and weight were addressed I’d buy a Mk II with a push-pull.

3 Radek May 10, 2013 at 1:46 am

some time ago I considered buying both those lenses and decided against it. I hate push-pull design. They are too slow for me and most of all they are very old and should have been replaced years ago.
I am desperate for something like 100-400. I need a long affordable lens, but right now I would rather go for Sigma 120-300 because it is so fast (2.8). With teleconverters it is better solution, as Canon 100-400 can’t take any due to its slowness.
Yeah, keep thinking Canon, keep checking market. Meantime others are doing better and better lenses. Let’s see where this strategy will take Canon.

4 Shixing Wen May 10, 2013 at 9:47 am

I love my 100-400 mm lens. This is the lens I use most. See some shots at:

http://white-clouds.com/shixing/photos/Birds/Osprey/Osprey-11.jpg

http://white-clouds.com/shixing/photos/Birds/American_White_Pelican/American_White_Pelican-6.jpg

http://white-clouds.com/shixing/photos/Birds/American_Goldfinch/American_Goldfinch-10.jpg

http://white-clouds.com/shixing/photos/Birds/American_White_Ibis/American_White_Ibis-2.jpg

Actually, I love the push-pull zoom design. It is faster to zoom to the far end than the twist design. That said, I do want to see some improvement of this lens, for example, bigger aperture so that I can use a 2.o extender and will still be able to use auto focus. At the same time, not to increase too much of its weight as I’d like to hold this lens by hand, not using a tripod.

Shixing

5 k.t. May 10, 2013 at 8:43 pm

Owning both the EF 28-300L (original version, NOT II) & the 100-400, I would like to see a vastly reduced weight version of the 28-300. I also use a TAMRON 28-300 for casual use simply because it is so much lighter, especially when attached to a 5D Mk II w/ Batt Grip, or the 7D w/ Batt. Grip. The 100-400 could use a weight reduction also. I don’t mind the push-pull zoom, IF they can seal the barrel better to eliminate the dust entainment. The one lens I’d like to see CANON refurbish is the EF35-350! That was a stop faster than the 100-400. It’s biggest drawback… NO “IS” feature…. It’s a handy lens with either full frame OR APS-C.

6 Gary July 19, 2013 at 1:25 am

I would like to see a vastly reduced weight version of the 28-300.

7 Radek July 19, 2013 at 1:43 am

I don’t think reducing weight is possible without sacrificing optical and built quality. Those lenses will have to be heavy, period.
I personally, would rather carry additional kilo or two if it would mean faster, sharper lens. Better to have a heavy tool that does the job than easy to carry thing that only takes acceptable pictures in the middle of a sunny day. After all we want good pictures most of all, aren’t we? If quality is not that important and you just can’t carry L lens, why not to buy 70-300 from non-pro series? Canon makes lots of light lenses of all optical lenghts.

Comments are closed on this post, but you can carry on the conversation in the Photography Bay Forum.

Previous post:

Next post: