No, it is a conventional zoom ring (like all other Canon zoom lenses) and not a push-pull. The tension ring (smooth-tight) is to control the tension of the zoom ring. In other words, you can make it harder or easier to spin, based on your personal preference.
I thought it is obvious because there are many zooms with so easy moving lens tube that engineers had to make special locks And I've seen one or two times how photographers used usual zooms as push-pull. I wonder is it the way to wear down lens faster?
Sounds like a recipe for mechanical failure to me - I wouldn't like to make a habit of it. Simply not engineered that way. Its not a deal breaker that the new lens is a twister. In fact, I'd love one. That push-pull did suit me though. I remember manual focus days when a 'one touch' zoom action was cutting edge technology.
Read this review: Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 USM L IS II - Full Format Review / Test Report I must have this lens! (Although having the reach of the new Sigma 150-600 sport would be nice too. But I think the Canon will win for sharpness and compactness.)
I must have it to and will gladly dispose of my Sigma 150-500 to accommodate it. Later I will decide if I also keep my 70-300L. Of course it's not strictly true to call the 100-400 the perfect zoo lens because there are plenty of shots that you won't be able to take with it because it is too long at the short end, such as larger animals and enclosure shots. I always carry either a second body with an EF-S 15-85 or a compact zoom for these shots.
If you get the 100-400, there would be zero reason whatsoever to also have the 70-300. If the latter were a 2_8 aperture it would make sense, but since it is the same aperture as the other, no reason. Plus the 100-400 will take a tele-extender and the 70-300 will not.
Agreed. If the 100-400 performs well with a 1.4x extender then it will be an even better lens (assuming of course that it is as good as I expect).
Actually, having just read the specs the 100-400L is significantly heavier than the 70-300L (to be expected) by 1lb 4oz so I might just want to keep the 70-300L for when I don't need so much reach / don't want to carry so much extra weight?
Well I can confirm that the 100-400L Mk2 is a fantastic lens, much like the 70-300L but with more reach, although heavier. It is now attached to a Canon 7D Mk2 and sometimes, for extra reach, a Canon 1.4x III extender, a combo which works very well.
I am not jealous, I am not jealous... My cousin just ordered one and I will be meeting him very soon at Fossil Rim, so at least I will get to see one firsthand. I will not be able to get one myself, at least not anytime soon, as I spent that amount on a (much more enjoyable) European trip.
Just to make sure you're not jealous AD. In most zoo situations the 1.4x extender wouldn't be needed although could come in handy at times in somewhere like HWP. The difference between this lens and the original version is absolutely night and day.
Not that huge, the plastic hood is about a third of the length. Although this is at 100mm focal length so a lot longer at 400mm.
