2013 - The Year for 400mm Lenses? [CR1]

[Canon Rumors]

Tweet

400mm Everywhere!
I have received various bits of info over the last few months about Canon’s plans in the 400mm range. There is lots of desire for a new 400 f/5.6L and 100-400, and both may finally be getting an update. It feels like the 100-400 has been in the update cycle forever, but judging by how many of these things Canon sells, I can see why they’ve been in no rush to have it replaced.

Below are lenses that are apparently in prototype form and are on tap to be announced in 2013.

• EF 400 f/5.6L IS (Highly desired)
• EF 400 f/4L IS (Not DO)
• EF 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS (Not push-pull & patents exists)
• EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x (Long known about)

There seems to be a theme developing with Canon offering more options in the same focal length range. Best guess pricing will also have a pretty wide range, from a $2000 400 f/5.6L IS up to the $11,000 EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x.

cr

[dolina]

The EF 400 f/5.6L IS is at the top of my want list tied with a EF 135mm f/1.8L IS.

After that no more lens purchases unless Canon offers a lens longer than 800mm with IS

[neuroanatomist]

• EF 400 f/5.6L IS (Highly desired)
• EF 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS (Not push-pull & patents exists)

This will be a tough choice, if both lenses actually appear.  I'd expect the prime to have better IQ, but how much better?  It's no faster, they'd have the same rated IS system, and the 100-400m range is very convenient. 

I really hope the 100-400mm is an extending design - I like the push-pull, but I could live with a rotating extending design.  One of the big advantages (for me) of the current 100-400mm is the relatively short retracted size (compared to the 400/5.6). 

Given a choice between an internally zooming 100-400 (which would be slightly longer than a 400/5.6 prime) vs. a 400/5.6 IS, I'd definitely take the prime.  An extending zoom would make the choice a lot harder - it would come down to the differential in IQ, especially with the 1.4xIII.

[candyman]

I am interested in 100-400
If as easy to handle (weight, no push pull and IS) as my 70-300 plus IQ is better, then it is  a no-brainer to trade my 70-300 for the 100-400

[Canon Rumors]

I'm a big fan of the 400 DO, I'd be really interested how small and light they could get a non DO 400 f/4.

[dariusz]

I went quickly over internet and I couldn't find any 400mm f4 lens except DO model from canon.
Is it not strange that this focal length is abandoned (400mm F4 prime models) for lower budget photographers
Definitely 400mm f5.6 IS or 400mm f4 non DO would be most welcome

[Lee Jay]

If they build the 100-400L correctly, there might well be no need for a 400/5.6L.  By "correctly" I mean light weight, great optics, fast focusing.  I suppose there could be a cost reason but I somewhat doubt they'd charge enough less for the 400/5.6 compared with the 100-400 to make the cost difference worth a new lens development.

[matukas]

EF 400 F4 or F5.6 are on my dice.
Preferably F4 + throwing in EF 1.4x extender.

[neuroanatomist]

I went quickly over internet and I couldn't find any 400mm f4 lens except DO model from canon.
Is it not strange that this focal length is abandoned (400mm F4 prime models) for lower budget photographers
Definitely 400mm f5.6 IS or 400mm f4 non DO would be most welcome

A 400/4 IS non-DO would certainly not be a 'lower budget' lens, even in a relative sense.  It would certainly cost more than the 200mm f/2L IS; similar sized-elements, longer focal length, new design - probably a 400/4 would be at least $7500. 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

• EF 400 f/5.6L IS (Highly desired)
• EF 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS (Not push-pull & patents exists)

This will be a tough choice, if both lenses actually appear.  I'd expect the prime to have better IQ, but how much better?  It's no faster, they'd have the same rated IS system, and the 100-400m range is very convenient. 

I really hope the 100-400mm is an extending design - I like the push-pull, but I could live with a rotating extending design.  One of the big advantages (for me) of the current 100-400mm is the relatively short retracted size (compared to the 400/5.6). 

Given a choice between an internally zooming 100-400 (which would be slightly longer than a 400/5.6 prime) vs. a 400/5.6 IS, I'd definitely take the prime.  An extending zoom would make the choice a lot harder - it would come down to the differential in IQ, especially with the 1.4xIII.

I'm expecting a rotating 100-400mm L with similar technology to the 70-300L which should make it lighter and shorter. That could also mean that it wouldn't take Canon TC's.
I'd prefer the zoom, but I'd want the one with the most magnification and close focusing distance.  Thats what I do not like about the current 400mm f/5.6.
 
Canon is not under pressure to come up with improved lenses until Nikon steps up with a greatly improved 80-400mm zoom.  The current one is no competition at all, and badly overpriced.

[LDS]

EF 400 f/5.6L IS (Highly desired)
EF 400 f/4L IS (Not DO)
EF 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS (Not push-pull & patents exists)
EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x (Long known about)

I would prefer a 400/4 or /4.5, even without IS to keep it a little cheaper. It would allow to be used with an extender and easily keep AF working. The FD line had a 400/4.5 (I own one), I wonder why there's nothing between the $1300 400/5.6 and the $6500 400/4 DO.

[revup67]

That current 400mm 5.6 L is truly razor sharp however in doing some tests yesterday to see how I low I can adjust shutter speed before a blur was noticeable I found 1/500 (referring to hand held) was the absolute lowest but to be safe, 1/800 was a sure fire razor sharp on a stationary object. Of course the ISO goes up a notch to compensate if in Manual Mode.  That IS would sure be a welcome as I have missed a few shots due to lack of lighting.  Luckily the 5D Mark III's high ISO holds up very well along with good PP to offset the current 400mm.

[Dylan777]

Would be nice to see what Canon has to offer on the new 100-400.

[AlanF]

I also like the push-pull of the 100-400 L, it retracts neatly to fit a camera bag.  I never understand why the 400 L is described as razor sharp.  Canon's MTFs show it not to be in the top league as do slrgear's blur test - it is no sharper in the centre than the 100-400 L. Photozone agrees and its MTF tests have the old 400mm tele macro from Sigma significantly sharper.  I can testify to those results having traded a 400mm L for an equally centre sharp 100-400 mm L, and having the Sigma 400mm, which blows both away.  I'd buy an upgraded 100-400 if it is really sharp at 400mm as the range is so good for nature photos.  For primes, I like the 300mm f/2.8 II with 1.4x and 2x TCs, which give a very good telephoto range for not too much weight. 

[Gino]

I would most definitely purchase the EF 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS (Not push-pull) if it has fast AF, and hopefully it is no larger or heavier than the current model.