April 23, 2014, 11:58:46 AM

Author Topic: 2013 - The Year for 400mm Lenses? [CR1]  (Read 14973 times)

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • *******
  • Posts: 12824
    • View Profile
Re: 2013 - The Year for 400mm Lenses? [CR1]
« Reply #30 on: December 16, 2012, 08:36:47 PM »
...a twist zoom instead of the push/pull that sucks dirt and moisture in everytime you slide it.

Is that Internet wisdom speaking, or do you have that problem with your copy of the lens?  If the latter, your copy is likely defective and should be sent for service.  If the former, did that 'expert' mention the fact that the 100-400L has dust/moisture seals under the switches and zoom/focus ring, and lacks only the mount gasket to be a 'weather sealed' lens like its push-pull cousin, the 28-300L? 

I trust you're aware that lenses aren't hermetically sealed - any extending zoom design, whether push-pull or twist, 'sucks air' with every extension and expels it with every retraction.  If you have a 'sealed' extending zoom like a 24-105L, etc., extend the barrel, then hold the lens up and look into the lens mount while retracting the barrel - the eye-blow will make you blink!  The 100-400 moves more air, because of the larger internal volume, but making it a twist zoom won't change that. Making it an internal zoom, like the 70-200L lenses, would change that...at the cost of making it an >11" long lens, all the time.  I say, "No, thanks," to that.
No it is not internet wisdom. I do have the 100-400. So far I have not had a problem big enough to send it in for service. There is some dust visible but does not effect image quality yet. I know others that have sold theirs for this reason before it got too bad so it is not just my copy. Ironically I have have had more dust problems with the camera it is used on. Obviously something that moves that much air is going to move dust and moisture. I am far more cautious with this lens than with my other setups because of this risk. Unless they install a filter system the seal will not stop small dust and moisture particals. If the seal is tight enough to stop this without a filter then the lens wouldn't slide very well because the air couldn't pass through.

Now on the second part,(sorry I didn't make it clear enough) I was refering to the internal zoom like the 70-200 f2.8 where the air exchange is all inside because nothing externally extends. I'm smart enough to know that there is no difference simply because of the method used to extend it.

 As the length goes, I feel it would not need to be >11". It should be doable by adding only a little more length than say the 70-200 2.8 IS II with a 2x tele installed. Yes I know there would be more to it than just add 2x optics. That is why I said a "little more" length. That should put it just under 11" which isn't a problem for me on a lens with that much range. A fixed length lens is a lot easier to keep balanced on a gimbal tripod at all focal lengths. Interesting thing is the 70-200 2.8 IS II I had with a 2x tele was just as sharp as the 100-400 in the center which is about all I'm concerned with at that focal length. Only time will tell what Canon will decide is best if any change comes.
Fair enough...  Perhaps I've been lucky, no dust in my 100-400mm to date (had it nearly 3 years).  Used mostly on a 7D, no dust on the sensor, either (5DII was a different story).  I find my copy to be a little sharper (even in the center) compared to my 70-200 II + 2x, but the difference isn't much.

Generally speaking, a new design can be lighter, but only slightly shorter.  As for the 70-200 II + 2x, the combo measures just over 10" anyway, so 'a little more length' than that is getting pretty close to 11" anyway. For me, the 8" length of the current (retracted) lens is as long as is convenient for me - fits in a Lowepro Toploader 75 AW with a 1D X and 1.4xIII mounted, fits upright in my Storm im2720 hard case, and any longer would nix both.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 2013 - The Year for 400mm Lenses? [CR1]
« Reply #30 on: December 16, 2012, 08:36:47 PM »

max

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 56
    • View Profile
Re: 2013 - The Year for 400mm Lenses? [CR1]
« Reply #31 on: December 16, 2012, 08:41:27 PM »
The only lens I would buy would be a 100-400mm right now... Or a 400mm f/4 below 3 grand.

DWM

  • PowerShot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 10
    • View Profile
Re: 2013 - The Year for 400mm Lenses? [CR1]
« Reply #32 on: December 16, 2012, 09:13:01 PM »
Or a 400mm f/4 below 3 grand.
If they build one under 3 grand you better stay clear of it for quality purposes. Keep in mind that the reason the current 400 f4 is a DO is because it is cheaper to build that way. A non DO will positively be higher than the current DO f4 which is right around $5900

tnargs

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 138
    • View Profile
Re: 2013 - The Year for 400mm Lenses? [CR1]
« Reply #33 on: December 17, 2012, 10:55:08 PM »

<li>EF 400 f/5.6L IS (Highly desired)</li>

<li>EF 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS (Not push-pull & patents exists)</li>

How about some product differentiation, make one of these an EF-S and reward the 90% of Canon DSLR owners with the first ever high quality telephoto Canon lens that is smaller, lighter, and optimized for their sensors.

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • *******
  • Posts: 12824
    • View Profile
Re: 2013 - The Year for 400mm Lenses? [CR1]
« Reply #34 on: December 17, 2012, 11:16:34 PM »

<li>EF 400 f/5.6L IS (Highly desired)</li>

<li>EF 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS (Not push-pull & patents exists)</li>

How about some product differentiation, make one of these an EF-S and reward the 90% of Canon DSLR owners with the first ever high quality telephoto Canon lens that is smaller, lighter, and optimized for their sensors.

Telephoto lens designs have the entrance pupil essentially at or very near the front element. As a result, there's really nothing to be gained by a smaller image circle for a telephoto lens - a 400/5.6 with an EF-S image circle will need most of the same sized elements as an EF lens.  Thus, there's no point in an EF-S version, as it would not be significantly smaller or lighter, nor cheaper.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

discojuggernaut

  • PowerShot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 25
    • View Profile
Re: 2013 - The Year for 400mm Lenses? [CR1]
« Reply #35 on: December 18, 2012, 10:18:18 PM »
All the people wanting a cheap 400mm f/4, isn't it somewhat like asking for a cheap 200mm f/2 or a cheap 300mm f/2.8?  I don't have my calculator out, but i assume the math is somewhat close.  Seeing as both those lenses are in the $6K and up level, how would one assume that a 400mm f/4 wouldn't be at least as much?

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • *******
  • Posts: 12824
    • View Profile
Re: 2013 - The Year for 400mm Lenses? [CR1]
« Reply #36 on: December 19, 2012, 07:56:09 AM »
All the people wanting a cheap 400mm f/4, isn't it somewhat like asking for a cheap 200mm f/2 or a cheap 300mm f/2.8?  I don't have my calculator out, but i assume the math is somewhat close.  Seeing as both those lenses are in the $6K and up level, how would one assume that a 400mm f/4 wouldn't be at least as much?

...one could be delusional.   :P
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 2013 - The Year for 400mm Lenses? [CR1]
« Reply #36 on: December 19, 2012, 07:56:09 AM »

JonAustin

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 139
  • Telecom/IT consultant / periodic pro photog
    • View Profile
    • Austin & Austin Professional Services
Re: 2013 - The Year for 400mm Lenses? [CR1]
« Reply #37 on: January 04, 2013, 12:50:47 AM »
Once the 200-400mm F/4L IS + 1.4x proves itself in the market, I'd love to see Canon come out with a version sans the built-in teleconverter. While I see the utility of this feature, and I appreciate the engineering accomplishment it represents, I already have a 1.4x II, and I'd rather mount it the old-fashioned way when needed, and save the $$$ and ### instead.
Photographic equipment

LDS

  • PowerShot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 48
    • View Profile
Re: 2013 - The Year for 400mm Lenses? [CR1]
« Reply #38 on: January 17, 2013, 09:55:19 AM »
You might, just might, be able to find a beat-up old EF 400mm f/4.5L for $3K.  If you honestly think a new 400/4L IS will be under $5K, you should see a psychiatrist for a diagnosis, or possibly a rehab clinic to flush out some illicit narcotics...    ;)

Did ever Canon made an EF 400/4.5L? I can't find it anywhere, Canon Camera Museum has no references.

In the '80s the FD 400/4.5 costed slightly less than a third of the FD 400/2.8. Thereby I guess it could be possibile today to deliver an EF 400/4.5 in the $3000-4000 range, which would make it cheaper than the DO. If it could have enough sales it's another matter.

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • *******
  • Posts: 12824
    • View Profile
Re: 2013 - The Year for 400mm Lenses? [CR1]
« Reply #39 on: January 17, 2013, 10:21:13 AM »
You might, just might, be able to find a beat-up old EF 400mm f/4.5L for $3K.  If you honestly think a new 400/4L IS will be under $5K, you should see a psychiatrist for a diagnosis, or possibly a rehab clinic to flush out some illicit narcotics...    ;)

Did ever Canon made an EF 400/4.5L? I can't find it anywhere, Canon Camera Museum has no references.

In the '80s the FD 400/4.5 costed slightly less than a third of the FD 400/2.8. Thereby I guess it could be possibile today to deliver an EF 400/4.5 in the $3000-4000 range, which would make it cheaper than the DO. If it could have enough sales it's another matter.

You're right - I was thinking of the EF 500mm f/4.5L.  Thanks for the correction!  I doubt Canon would release an f/4.5 supertele lens at this point, given the reasonable assumption that most would want the option to use a TC, and that would require an f/4 lens for AF to work on most bodies.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2013, 10:23:02 AM by neuroanatomist »
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

Malte_P

  • Guest
Re: 2013 - The Year for 400mm Lenses? [CR1]
« Reply #40 on: January 17, 2013, 11:32:29 AM »
i would buy a new 100-400mm or 400mm f5.6 in a second when it is not double the actuall price.

but im not buying the old models.
i donĀ“t need a 400mm desperately and i know the second i buy one the new models will be released.

but if canon releases a new 400mm i can afford i would be very interested.

RLPhoto

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 3121
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Re: 2013 - The Year for 400mm Lenses? [CR1]
« Reply #41 on: January 17, 2013, 12:04:05 PM »
I hope this is canons year for overdue primes as well.

35L II

50mm 1.4 II or 50L II would be nice.

135mm F/1.8L IS USM would be extremely nice.
24LII - 50L - 135L
---------------------------------
www.RamonLperez.com

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • *******
  • Posts: 12824
    • View Profile
Re: 2013 - The Year for 400mm Lenses? [CR1]
« Reply #42 on: January 17, 2013, 12:13:39 PM »
135mm F/1.8L IS USM would be extremely nice.

I had no idea you were interested in such a lens.  You should tell people!   ::)
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 2013 - The Year for 400mm Lenses? [CR1]
« Reply #42 on: January 17, 2013, 12:13:39 PM »

Sashi

  • Guest
Re: 2013 - The Year for 400mm Lenses? [CR1]
« Reply #43 on: January 17, 2013, 12:43:51 PM »
So many for the push/pull and here I was thinking everyone was for an enclosed twisty action. Dust aside(my lens too), has no one else had a premature push/thud that scared the wildlife away on safari?

KyleSTL

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 400
    • View Profile
Re: 2013 - The Year for 400mm Lenses? [CR1]
« Reply #44 on: January 17, 2013, 12:56:36 PM »
Neuro's in rare form today, sarcastic and mistaken.  Somebody mark that on the CR calendar.  ;)

If Canon were to release a new 400 f/5.6L with all the latest features (v. 4 IS, weathersealing, modern build quality and materials, better MFD, etc) what do you think the cost would be?  I think it would have to remain below the price of a 70-200 IS II, but I could definitely see it coming close to $1800 or so given Canon's recent price structure.
Canon EOS 5D | Tamron 19-35mm f/3.5-4.5 | 24-105mm f/4L IS USM | 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 USM | 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM
15mm f/2.8 Fisheye | 28mm f/1.8 USM | 50mm f/1.4 USM | 85mm f/1.8 USM | 3x 420EX | ST-E2 | Canon S90 | SD600 w/ WP-DC4

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 2013 - The Year for 400mm Lenses? [CR1]
« Reply #44 on: January 17, 2013, 12:56:36 PM »