Comments on: EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS Done?

By: WileeCoyote

WileeCoyote — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 05:59:01 +0000

My popcorn’s almost all gone; looks like I’ll have to get some more.

The thing I find somewhat amusing about this is that rumors about a replacement for this lens have been flying around for years. What reason does Canon have now that they didn’t earlier to replace it? Maybe Canon’s just not replaced it yet so that they can get all the speculating and ridiculous(ly amusing) commentary they can out of it.

On a different note though, that same sort of behavior on Canon’s part also sort of bothers me. Admittedly, I’ve found some of Nikon’s recent products to be quite tempting. The only reason I haven’t migrated over to the dark side though (all their lenses are black) is because I have been threatened with death from several befriended photographers who also use Canon gear.

…and to think that I’ve been dreaming of one day owning a Canon EF 70-300mm lens for three years now. Oh what fun it is to be an amateur railway photographer of fairly meager means in a cave (no, Osama bin Ladin isn’t my neighbor).

By: ms

ms — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 00:12:28 +0000

500/5.6 L IS…. don’t care if its a zoom or a prime as long as its razor sharp at 500…. 600/5.6 would be even better but that would be getting to expensive… I think they can do a top notch 500/5.6 L IS for around 2k

By: Heavybarrel

Heavybarrel — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 18:29:53 +0000

whoa take it easy man, we don’t want michal to have an aneurysm!

By: Lawliet

Lawliet — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 00:31:31 +0000

That focal range is/was available for quite some time, but it only got more or less popular with cropped sensors where it works like a tele to supertele.
If it takes the TCs without quality loss it would be a sensible choice, but I’m afraid they learned from the past.

By: Lawliet

Lawliet — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 00:25:15 +0000

“have to shift more to correct for the vibration”
Only if you want to archive the same time for different focal lengths. But thats already factored in via the “focallength=1/shutterspeed”- rule of thumb.

Things only get different at very long shutter speeds because other types of shake take their toll, and you’d need hybrid IS and a rotatable sensor to compensate.

“As I said I have no personal experiences with such set up”
I have. :)
I’m quite comfortable with using a stop shorter exposure with the TC2 added, getting the same benefit from IS, regardless of using the lens as a 300/2,8 or 600/5,6, or the Nikkor 70-200/2,8 either native or as a 100-400IS-substitute.

By: Michal

Michal — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 22:03:46 +0000

“4 stops are 4 stops, independent of focal length, at least in terms of displacement”.

Not sure if you are correct, if a physically longer lens needs to be corrected for vibration the correcting optical elements (depending on their placement in the lens) have to shift more to correct for the vibration. I’m sure there is some latitude built into the system but it does not extend into infinity.

“Or just think of the 70-200/4IS, in conjunction with a TC2 you’ll get a 400mm with 4stop-IS! :)”

I only have 1.4x extender that I rarely use with my 70-200 2.8 but I really doubt you would get four stop-IS with your set up. Such system would be physically longer with the additional length of the TC and that surely would have to be taken into account when correcting for IS. As I said I have no personal experiences with such set up but I don’t think it would work as well as you think so.

By: theskunk

theskunk — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 23:10:03 +0000

I have a +6 goblin

By: theskunk

theskunk — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 23:08:21 +0000

push-pull can be quick
it’s awesome!

By: spam

spam — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 09:17:25 +0000

I can’t imagine that Canon would reduce max tele on an update to the 100-400. They could however make an 70 or 80 to 400 like Sony do without increasing cost, size or weight. What I’d like to see is a 100-500 F4-F5.6, combined with improved IS.

Going for F4.0 at full tele would make it much bigger and heavier, and not a replacement for the curren 100-400. Just look at Nikon’s 200-400 F4.0 which cost around US$ 6000 and weigh 7.2 lb

By: Lindsay

Lindsay — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 06:02:34 +0000

It would cost around as much as the 200/2 or 300/2.8

By: Michal

Michal — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 05:56:37 +0000

I don’t think it would be a practical focal length, it mixes shortish telephoto with long telephoto and obviously sacrifices quality of the lens. I’d rather have two lenses such as 70-200 and say 200-400/500 or so.

By: Michal

Michal — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 05:52:32 +0000

“Canon lenses zoom counter-intuitively for me too – that’s one thing that Nikon got right. By convention most things that turn in our culture do so clockwise from lower to higher.”

Hogwash. Such “convention” applies to clocks and clock-like indicators but not to other apparatuses. When a screw is turned clockwise it actually gets smaller…

In case of zoom lens it’s an arbitrary decision which way it should work and there is no right or wrong way about it.

By: Q

Sat, 16 Jan 2010 05:09:14 +0000

This has turned into speculation about a replacement. How about a 100-350 f4 IS? With a 1.4 teleconverter that would be 140-(almost)500 f5.6 — nearly 800 efl on a crop body.

That could be a rather handy configuration.

By: Anthony

Anthony — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 04:44:11 +0000

||“Sometimes when getting a new twist lens
||I twist it the opposite way of what I want.”
|You are not buying Canon lenses.

Canon lenses zoom counter-intuitively for me too – that’s one thing that Nikon got right. By convention most things that turn in our culture do so clockwise from lower to higher.