Topic: Canon EF 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS Update [CR2] (Read 15352 times)
Actually, since the 200-400 f/4 from Canon costs $12k, I'd venture a guess that a 100-400 f/4L would probably cost even moreBe cool if it was a straight f4...
Such a lens would cost at least $6,000. A straight f/5.6 would be much more affordable.
Logged
Logged
This is cool!!!
If its at least as sharp as the 400 f/5.6 from 100mm all the way to AND INCLUDING 400mm, this may become another iconic Canon lens!
I would be prepared to sell my excellent copy of the 400 f/5.6 I have for this
There is very little to chose between the 100-400mm L and the 400mm f/5.6 L in the centres - see http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=14296.msg259688#msg259688
If the new zoom lens is only as good as the 20 year old 400mm f/5.6, then I'll give it a miss as it won't be much better than the current - we want something better.
Hi Alan. Some fair comment there. I can tell from personal experience that the 400 f/5.6 handily outperforms the current 100-400.
Read the review at Luminous Landscapes. Pretty much echoes what I've seen.
Not for me. They are very similar, and the actual lens tests show it. Luminous Landscapes is a good site, but they do not have lens testing facilities, its merely the perception of the evaluator.
Logged
Logged
But isn't perception what everyone here argues in favour of because measured metrics using testing in a controlled environment on websites like DxO don't favour Canon?
Logged
This is cool!!!
If its at least as sharp as the 400 f/5.6 from 100mm all the way to AND INCLUDING 400mm, this may become another iconic Canon lens!
I would be prepared to sell my excellent copy of the 400 f/5.6 I have for this
There is very little to chose between the 100-400mm L and the 400mm f/5.6 L in the centres - see http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=14296.msg259688#msg259688
If the new zoom lens is only as good as the 20 year old 400mm f/5.6, then I'll give it a miss as it won't be much better than the current - we want something better.
Hi Alan. Some fair comment there. I can tell from personal experience that the 400 f/5.6 handily outperforms the current 100-400.
Read the review at Luminous Landscapes. Pretty much echoes what I've seen.
Not for me. They are very similar, and the actual lens tests show it. Luminous Landscapes is a good site, but they do not have lens testing facilities, its merely the perception of the evaluator.
But isn't perception what everyone here argues in favour of because measured metrics using testing in a controlled environment on websites like DxO don't favour Canon?
Logged
I've got the old 100-400 and love it but my IS recently went buggy. It'd gone out in January but came back to life and then died again about a month ago.
Does anyone know about or have experience with getting a lens repaired near end of life? I'd send it in now if I had the cash available, but just finishing grad school and so it hasn't been a priority. I figure they'll have some spare parts around still once the new lens is released. But for the sake of hassle and cost, should I save up and send my copy in as soon as I can?
Logged
But isn't perception what everyone here argues in favour of because measured metrics using testing in a controlled environment on websites like DxO don't favour Canon?
I don't see many people arguing that here. DxOMark's 'measured metrics using testing in a controlled environment' are just fine (usually, although they have gotten bad copies of lenses, refused to admit it, and then later quietly re-done the measurements on another lens). They don't seem to favor any one brand.
But when they take those 'measured metrics using testing in a controlled environment', put them in a bias blender and whirl them around at several thousand rpm, then take the goo that pours out and feed it to scum-digesting bacteria, then take the bacteria excrement and bake it in an oversimplifying oven at several thousand degrees, then take the steaming pile of baked crap and call it a Score...that's the problem, right there.
Logged
