August 23, 2014, 05:47:54 AM

Author Topic: Why no 400mm f/4L IS exists?  (Read 8993 times)

J.R.

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1469
  • A Speedlight Junkie!
    • View Profile
Why no 400mm f/4L IS exists?
« on: January 05, 2014, 08:05:43 AM »
The most obvious reason would be that Canon doesn't make it  :P

but could this just be a marketing thing? Or maybe such a lens would sit close to the 300 f/2.8 II in price which if combined with a 1.4x TC makes an excellent 420mm f/4?

Thoughts ...
Light is language!

surapon

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2216
  • 80% BY HEART, 15% BY LENSES AND ONLY 5% BY CAMERA
    • View Profile
Re: Why no 400mm f/4L IS exists?
« Reply #1 on: January 05, 2014, 08:34:03 AM »
Dear JR.
That is a great question---
May be too many EF 400 mm by Canon in the Market  already ???
EF 400 mm. F/ 2.8 L IS MK II = $ 11,490
EF 400 F/ 4.0 DO. IS = $ 6469
EF 400 mm. F/ 5.6 L  = $ 1339.
May be  one day, Canon  may have 400 mm. F/ 4.0 L IS in $ 6000 US Dollars Range----That is my my dream too.
Happy Sunday.
Surapon
« Last Edit: January 05, 2014, 08:36:07 PM by surapon »

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 13864
    • View Profile
Re: Why no 400mm f/4L IS exists?
« Reply #2 on: January 05, 2014, 10:09:15 AM »
Canon developed a prototype 400/4 (bottom lens) in 2000, alongside the 400/4 DO, although only the latter was brought to market. 

EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

Mt Spokane Photography

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 8419
    • View Profile
Re: Why no 400mm f/4L IS exists?
« Reply #3 on: January 05, 2014, 01:38:37 PM »
I found a little used Nikon 200-400mm f/4 VR on my local craigslist.  A local doctor had bought it and used it twice.  I even bought a used D300s to use playing with it, and a gimbal head, and was still below $3300.  Considering how over priced Nikon lenses usually are, I'll have no problem selling for a lot more if I ever do it. 

9VIII

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 547
    • View Profile
Re: Why no 400mm f/4L IS exists?
« Reply #4 on: January 05, 2014, 07:41:17 PM »
From what I can see it's just a matter of the 500f4 being an overall better choice for anyone who thinks they want a 400f4. If 400mm is actually the focal length you need then the 400f2.8 is probably the correct choice, and if you're on a budget then nothing will ever beat the 400f5.6. If you're using the lens in an application where a 600mm or 800mm lens would be ideal, but just don't want the additional size and weight, then the 500f4 is probably a much better compromise than a 400f4 would have been given that you're only losing 100mm in focal length while I doubt a 400f4 would give any better IQ. The 500f4 is also lighter than either of the 200-400f4 zoom lenses out there.
I really think the 500f4 is the ultimate "middle class" big white.
-100% RAW-

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 13864
    • View Profile
Re: Why no 400mm f/4L IS exists?
« Reply #5 on: January 05, 2014, 08:33:47 PM »
From what I can see it's just a matter of the 500f4 being an overall better choice for anyone who thinks they want a 400f4. If 400mm is actually the focal length you need then the 400f2.8 is probably the correct choice, and if you're on a budget then nothing will ever beat the 400f5.6. If you're using the lens in an application where a 600mm or 800mm lens would be ideal, but just don't want the additional size and weight, then the 500f4 is probably a much better compromise than a 400f4 would have been given that you're only losing 100mm in focal length while I doubt a 400f4 would give any better IQ. The 500f4 is also lighter than either of the 200-400f4 zoom lenses out there.
I really think the 500f4 is the ultimate "middle class" big white.

Except that the 500/4 II is $10K, and a 400/4 would likely be $2-2.5K cheaper. 
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

takesome1

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 247
    • View Profile
Re: Why no 400mm f/4L IS exists?
« Reply #6 on: January 05, 2014, 08:42:10 PM »
Canon developed a prototype 400/4 (bottom lens) in 2000, alongside the 400/4 DO, although only the latter was brought to market. 



Kind of makes the thread pointless. Canon does offer a 400mm f/4 IS.
No red ring, but I see this at the local NBA games all the time so it must be ok.

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 13864
    • View Profile
Re: Why no 400mm f/4L IS exists?
« Reply #7 on: January 05, 2014, 09:09:08 PM »
Kind of makes the thread pointless. Canon does offer a 400mm f/4 IS.
No red ring, but I see this at the local NBA games all the time so it must be ok.

It was a common discussion point before the MkII supertele lenses came out, when people felt the 'DO premium' means a non-DO 400/4 would be substantially cheaper.  At this point, a 400/4 non-DO would have the built/optical qualities of the MkII lenses, and cost more than the current DO.

Worth noting that Canon has patented DO teleconverters, and IIRC several new DO supertele designs.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

9VIII

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 547
    • View Profile
Re: Why no 400mm f/4L IS exists?
« Reply #8 on: January 06, 2014, 01:03:53 AM »
From what I can see it's just a matter of the 500f4 being an overall better choice for anyone who thinks they want a 400f4. If 400mm is actually the focal length you need then the 400f2.8 is probably the correct choice, and if you're on a budget then nothing will ever beat the 400f5.6. If you're using the lens in an application where a 600mm or 800mm lens would be ideal, but just don't want the additional size and weight, then the 500f4 is probably a much better compromise than a 400f4 would have been given that you're only losing 100mm in focal length while I doubt a 400f4 would give any better IQ. The 500f4 is also lighter than either of the 200-400f4 zoom lenses out there.
I really think the 500f4 is the ultimate "middle class" big white.

Except that the 500/4 II is $10K, and a 400/4 would likely be $2-2.5K cheaper.

Shop around a bit, you can do at least $1K better.
-100% RAW-

Old Swede

  • SX50 HS
  • **
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Re: Why no 400mm f/4L IS exists?
« Reply #9 on: January 23, 2014, 05:21:19 PM »
Wish you were correct about being able to get a 500 f4L IS II for less than $10K.  Lowest price listed on current canon price watch is $10,187.  There are probably some grey market deals for less from non-authorized dealers out there, but I won't go that route.

I agree that I would probably prefer a 500 f4L IS over a 400 f4L IS if the prices were close.  The factor that would sway me towards the 400 f4L IS would be a marked weight reduction.

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 13864
    • View Profile
Re: Why no 400mm f/4L IS exists?
« Reply #10 on: January 23, 2014, 05:40:34 PM »
Wish you were correct about being able to get a 500 f4L IS II for less than $10K.  Lowest price listed on current canon price watch is $10,187.

Try visiting our friendly neighbors to the north…. Camera Canada has it for $9730, and with the current exchange rate that works out to US $8740. 
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

Imagination_landB

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 100
    • View Profile
Re: Why no 400mm f/4L IS exists?
« Reply #11 on: January 23, 2014, 06:15:13 PM »
Wish you were correct about being able to get a 500 f4L IS II for less than $10K.  Lowest price listed on current canon price watch is $10,187.

Try visiting our friendly neighbors to the north…. Camera Canada has it for $9730, and with the current exchange rate that works out to US $8740.
And I still don,t get why here the Superteles are way cheaper than in US, but you get all the good discounts on camera bodies, refurbished etc..
6D, Gripped 60D. 120-300 2.8 OS, 50 1.8, 8-16, 24-70 VC.

BoneDoc

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 119
    • View Profile
Re: Why no 400mm f/4L IS exists?
« Reply #12 on: January 24, 2014, 12:12:48 AM »
It's called Tax.  You see, nothing is ever free :)

Rienzphotoz

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3322
  • Peace unto all ye Canon, Nikon & Sony shooters
    • View Profile
Re: Why no 400mm f/4L IS exists?
« Reply #13 on: January 24, 2014, 02:40:59 AM »
I found a little used Nikon 200-400mm f/4 VR on my local craigslist.  A local doctor had bought it and used it twice.  I even bought a used D300s to use playing with it, and a gimbal head, and was still below $3300.  Considering how over priced Nikon lenses usually are, I'll have no problem selling for a lot more if I ever do it.
WOW! That is one hell of a sweet deal!
Canon 5DMK3 70D | Nikon D610 | Sony a7 a6000 | RX100M3 | 16-35/2.8LII | 70-200/2.8LISII | 100/2.8LIS | 100-400LIS | 40/2.8 | 50/1.4 | 85/1.8 | 600EX-RTx2 | ST-E3-RT | 24/3.5 T-S | 10-18/4 OSS 16-50 | 24-70/4OSS | 55/1.8 | 55-210 OSS | 70-200/4 OSS | 28-300VR | HVL-F43M | GoPro Black 3+ & DJI Phantom

Sella174

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 672
  • So there!
    • View Profile
Re: Why no 400mm f/4L IS exists?
« Reply #14 on: January 24, 2014, 06:06:33 AM »
... because there is no need for such a lens.
Happily ignoring the laws of physics and the rules of photography to create better pictures.