« on: January 03, 2014, 11:39:52 AM »
Please don't feed the trolls...
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
In general I have always believed Canon (and most other manufacturers) have a hole in their lineup in terms of high quality telephotos. On the one side you have their 'budget' telephotos like the 400/5.6 and the 100-400 and on the other side you have their high end telephotos beginning with the 300/2.8 II. The problem is there's really nothing in between unless you buy used. So you either pay ~$1700 for the current 100-400 or you save up $7k for the 300/2.8 II (or more likely $10k and up for the 200-400 or 500/4).
I agree there's a gap, but it's been there long enough for Canon to have filled it, if they wanted to.
A better and more interesting option would be a f5.6 500mm IS prime. It could still be affordable and would compete nicely against the new Tamron 150-600. Yeah, it would probably be at least twice the cost of the current 400mm 5.6 prime, but would still be a lot cheaper than the fast super telephotos.
You would probably be looking at 1.5 to 1.8 Kilograms, a 92mm filter size and 100-105mm maximum diameter on a lens like that. That would be a big heavy expensive lens... until you compare it to the 500F4 which is 3.2Kilos and 146mm across and probably more than twice the price.
I think that there is a market for f5.6 versions of some of the big whites. The 500F4 would seem like the next logical contender for a mini "big white".
And the 400F5.6 II will be sharper and lighter.... And will sell a lot more copies than any of the big whites.... There is a market for both.... It is not a one or the other scenario.The current 400/5.6 prime is already optically better than the 70-200/2.8L IS II + 2x TC, and the bare zoom is better than the bare 200/2.8 prime.
Which is why there's no need for a 400/5.6L IS if the 100-400L is replaced. The version II will very likely be better optically than the current 400/5.6L, have IS, focus just as well if not better, have better MFD and be able to zoom out as a bonus. Sure it will be expensive but who thinks a 400/5.6L II will come in under $2,500? The zoom will sell more and therefore benefit more from the cost reduction you get from volume production.
I have used several of the Sigma zoom lenses before - my first telephoto zoom was a Sigma (the 80-400) - but when I moved to the Canon telephotos (100-400) there was a world of difference. Although Sigma is very innovative with their lenses - having interesting focal lengths like 120-300/2.8 - 300-800/5.6, and 200-500/2.8 they are not a company to look at for high quality telephotos. While I do give them marked improvement in their shorter focal length lenses, you get what you pay for with their telephotos (and maybe less so with their high end ones).
Personally I only use FF cameras. I own a 5D3 now and started with the original 5D.
Ask anyone who truly cares about image quality and they will all say that TC's are really a last resort option. I own both a 1.4x and a 2x III and only resort to them when I absolutely must. The drop in image quality is simply too great. For that reason I almost never use my 2x - it is almost always my 1.4x on a 70-200/2.8 II. Perhaps some optical engineer will stun us, but right now any lens based off of multiple TCs will be junk.
In terms of justifying $2k for a good 400/5.6 that is easy. I recently justified $11k for an improvement over this lens. Given that I sell large prints of my works, this expense was justified. A few successful images can easily pay for it. I can see amateurs having difficulties with such a price, but anyone who makes money from their work can definitely justify it.
Well, thanks for putting me in my place. How about you show me a full size image that would highlight where you needed more detail from it? And show me an image that you've made more than $1000 on. I want to see what a brilliant photographer you are.
And when the 100-400 and the 400F5.6 get updated, the 400F5.6 will have the lighter weight and higher IQ...
Right now, you have to spend $10,000 to get more resolving power than the 400F5.6, so a better version at $2000 or so will sell.
Oh give me a break..."resolving power"?? Just how much into your image are you cropping? If you're cropping that much you just need more focal length.
My Sigma 120-400 is more than close enough to the sharpness of the Canon 400 f/5.6 prime, especially on my 6D. On a crop sensor the difference is a lot greater. But I have no serious interest in crop sensors anymore. And my Sigma costs less than half of $2000, it zooms, it has IS...and at the wider half of its zoom range it's as good or better than anything Canon makes. The long end really suffers more from a lack of contrast than a lack of resolution, but this is easily corrected in post, or even in camera if you just shoot jpegs. As for the AF speed, it's quite close to the AF speed of my new Canon 70-300L, if not matching it. So your "facts" differ from my facts.
If one needs the sharpest glass for a 70D or a new 1 series with 35+ MP, then I agree with you, $2000 is ok to pay. But for those of us who don't need any more than what 20MP on a full frame resolves, then $2000 for an f/5.6 prime is a waste.
If all you want is the best prime money can buy, but lighter weight and smaller size than the big superteles...in another thread I already suggested that they make something like a 330mm f/3.5 IS with at least one, if not 2 built in TC's. They could sell that for $5k to $6k US, and THAT would be worth it. But a $2000 400mm f/5.6 prime, or a new 100-400 for $3k, is definitely NOT worth the money to me.
I have no interest in this lens. Who else has no interest in this lens? Is it just me? F/5.6 is only useful when you're already compromising because it's a zoom. I've tried the current 400 f/5.6. It's a fine lens for what it is, and considering its age.
But I have no interest in an approx. $2000 fixed focal length 400mm f/5.6 lens. If it were f/5, maybe...but not f/5.6. If it were no more than $1450 at introduction? Perhaps, but I doubt it will be.
Before I spent $2000 on a lens like this, I would rather use other less costly lenses and save up to buy a used or refurb 400mm f/4L DO. It's entirely possible prices for those will dip into the low $4000's at some point, especially if a new f/4 model is never announced. If Canon ever get around to bringing out a new 400mm f/4 (whether DO or not), it will cost $9000, thus prices on used 400 DO's will go up, rather than down.
Just my opinion and my thought process, no doubt others will differ.
Try zenfolios metal print partner, Ivoke.
I'm just starting with aluminum prints. I sent an image to Bay Photo, was happy w/the print but too much $$$ for me to make a profit. Good service, but I don't like the way they charge a la carte..eg extra for round corners.
I sent exact same file through Zenfolio. less $$$. exact same IQ. I admit the mounting material on the back was not as good, but that's ok w/me. Both these co's had good customer service and resp. to questions so I'm not knocking Bay Photo, but the O.P. was concerned with price and anyone who resells must try to get the best price w/o losing IQ.