Comments on: EF 400 f/4.5L IS [CR1]

By: Glass Man

Glass Man — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 00:06:41 +0000

Check out the Minolta 400 f4.5, if Canon’s rumored lens is similar in profile with Canon’s legendary optics count me in (Google > Images > Minolta 400 f4.5 = jaw hitting floor).

By: Lars Olav

Lars Olav — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 09:29:58 +0000

I have been trying to get a hold of 400/5.6 from B&H, but been sold out for a while. Hate it when rumour about new lenses come when you are about to buy a lens in the same range :-)

By: Dustin Harris

Dustin Harris — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 02:01:46 +0000

If you look at all Canon primes, there is a big price jump on any lens that needs more than a 77mm front element. I don’t know if it’s the size of the front element that makes it more expensive or other lens elements, but it does seem to be the case. If I’m right, that means that a 500/5.6 would still be in the upper echelons of the Great Whites, price wise (just look at the price difference between the 200/2 vs 200/2.8)

As for the 400s, 3 in the lineup is a lot, but I believe canon still offers all four 70-200 options (4/2.8/IS/non-IS) so it’s possible that canon would introduce a 400/5.6L IS along side the current and wonderful 400/5.6L. I’m not sure how much market the 400DO has appealed to, the specs are great but the cost prohibitive… birders would rather get the real deal 500/f4 for the extra $400 and skip buying the 1.4XTC that they would have bought for the 400 anyway… and gain a stop and IQ. I would love a 400DO, don’t get me wrong, but I think most wildlife photogs agree that the money it better spent on other options.

A 400/5.6L IS, I’d love one. I got rid of my 400L for many reasons, and one of them was the amount of light needed for sharp shots.

By: David

David — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 03:23:04 +0000

That’s what I thought too Zac, I just looked up some reviews and the ones I found claim it is weather sealed. The site the-digital-picture.com says “Like many of the newer L-Zooms, the 28-300 IS is weather sealed” and juzaphoto.com writes in his review of it “The built quality is impressive – it is solid as a rock, and it is weather sealed. I won’t hesitate to use this lens even in unfriendly environments and under the rain…” and lensplay.com has it on their “highest level of weather sealing” list.

Maybe they’re all assuming it is because it’s an L lens? Maybe it has some better sealing than the 100-400 but not fully DW-R? It’d be interesting to know.

Either way though, an updated 100-400 is overdue IMO.

By: Zac

Zac — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 21:05:40 +0000

according to EOS systems manual 2008 pdf the 28-300 is not DW-R, and I can
t see a gasket on the mount….

By: David

David — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 16:24:24 +0000

Yeah should have said ISN’T weather sealed. I use the 100-400 for a compact travel 400, the 2.8 is not something I want to tote around with the rest of my gear it’s just huge, but the push-pull design is a pain, especially with the tightener/lock feature you have to use finger gymnastics to work while shooting. They could have made the lens telescope out from a rotating zoom ring design it would have been MUCH better. ALSO, the push-pull design shoots air into the mirror box if you dont loosen the tightener ring all the way before pulling – not good in a dusty environment – not sure if the 28-300 has that problem or not. IMO the 100-400 really needs an update for the weather sealing at a minimum.

By: test

test — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 11:44:58 +0000

+10000000000000000000001

By: Zac

Zac — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 04:33:39 +0000

fair enough. personally the standard zoom range is not useful enough to me to warrant that much cash.

to each his own

By: frankchn

frankchn — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 04:06:59 +0000

Sliders can be weather sealed – see 28-300L

By: aslan noorghasemi

aslan noorghasemi — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 21:51:39 +0000

200-500 can be a nice neighbor for those canon nice 70-200 lenses… awesome!… +10000000000000000000000

By: David

David — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 20:20:17 +0000

Well, I don’t think that is the case. Canon already makes a 24-105 4.0 and I doubt that is stopping anyone from buying a 70-200. I’d certainly not give up the 70-200 if they made a 24-105 2.8, I’d just be selling my 24-70. Like you, I do doubt Canon will make one though. You’d think they would be coming out with new lenses left and right to stay on top but they just sit back and let everyone else come out with lenses I’d like to use. It’s not to the point where I’ll switch, yet! But geeze…friggin Pentax makes a $1400 body with weather sealing that probably bests the 1Ds3, and inexpensive weather sealed 2.8 lenses to match…wish Canon would at least keep up.

By: bug

bug — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 19:39:18 +0000

and just for that reason Canon will not make it.
Of course we would all love that perfect lens, but Canon isnt gonna make it when they can sell you 2 lenses instead of 1.

plus for me, id prefer get the lens even wider, maybe about 20 and keep the 70mm :D

By: David

David — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 18:06:59 +0000

I’d rather keep it 2.8 and extend the tele range out to around 90-105. 70 is a bit short at times and the extra reach would mean not having to switch to the 70-200 as often.

By: Ossme

Ossme — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 15:05:59 +0000

If this is true then 1d mark iv must be a full frame and canon is trying to compensate for the loss in cropping.
Since it appears that 1d mark iv is a cropped sensor cam, I believe that this rumor is fake.