EF 400mm f4 L

[contrastny]

Does anyone think Canon will ever make a EF 400mm f4 L with or without IS? They have a 300mm f2.8 and 300mm f4. I would love to have a 400mm f4; easier to travel with, smaller and probably a decent amount cheaper than the 400mm 2.8. You can add a 1.4 TC and have a 560mm f 5.6.

 I have the EF 300mm f/4.0 L IS, but at times I can really use a longer lens.

I read the other thread about a EF-S 400mm f4 and don't think they'll make it for the reasons stated in that thread, especially lack of compatibility with a T.C.

[Bob Howland]

I own the 300 f/2.8. With the 1.4x TC, it makes a very nice 420 f/4. Is that close enough to 400 f/4 for you? (FWIW, the 300 f/2.8 with a 2x TC makes a usable if not excellent 600 f/5.6.)

[Fjellklatrer]

What about the Canon EF 400mm f/4.0 DO IS USM lens?  It is smaller than the 300 2.8 and is compatible with the 1.4 extender.

[Batman57]

I recently sold my 300/4 L IS and bought a second hand 400/4 DO, because 300mm was sometime short and I have now also the new 70-300/4-5.6 L. I find the 400DO very useful, sharp enough, very fast and portable. I was skeptic before buying this lens, some people are saying it has poor contrast, but some others are believe it is a great lens. In my opinion the main problem is the list price, around 5000$ or € here in Europe. But used is affordable and I am happy of my purchase. Especially now that Canon is increasing the prices of all their new tele-lens, better look at what is available now!

[contrastny]

I'll look into the 300 2.8 and the 400 DO. My main concern with the size of the 400 f/2.8 is traveling with it. How can I get that, along with several other lenses and a body into a carry on bag? I wonder how the other guys get it on a plane or maybe they don't bring many other lenses.

[rbr]

I'll look into the 300 2.8 and the 400 DO. My main concern with the size of the 400 f/2.8 is traveling with it. How can I get that, along with several other lenses and a body into a carry on bag? I wonder how the other guys get it on a plane or maybe they don't bring many other lenses.

I travel with both a 600 f4 and a 300 2.8 all the time. I put them in a backpack along with 2 camera bodies, several smaller lenses, teleconverters, and binoculars. I use the Tamrac 787 backpack :

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/149860-REG/Tamrac_78701.html

With the back straps pushed away it fits in even the small overhead compartments of commuter flights. My small laptop fits in the front pocket. I usually remove the lens hoods for the big lenses and put them in my suitcase to save room. I wouldn't worry about a 400 2.8, especially if you're not taking a 300 2.8 also.

[kubelik]

Does anyone think Canon will ever make a EF 400mm f4 L with or without IS? They have a 300mm f2.8 and 300mm f4. I would love to have a 400mm f4; easier to travel with, smaller and probably a decent amount cheaper than the 400mm 2.8. You can add a 1.4 TC and have a 560mm f 5.6.

 I have the EF 300mm f/4.0 L IS, but at times I can really use a longer lens.

I read the other thread about a EF-S 400mm f4 and don't think they'll make it for the reasons stated in that thread, especially lack of compatibility with a T.C.

fjellklatrer is correct in that a 400 f/4 already exists from canon.  yes, it's a DO lens, but other than that it meets all your requirements, being smaller, lighter, and cheaper than the 400 f/2.8.

given that canon just announced a new 400 f/2.8 ... makes me doubtful a revision of the 400 f/4 will be happening anytime soon.  those DO lenses clearly took a major investment to produce and I'd be surprised if they've really given Canon the expected return on investment at this point.

[neuroanatomist]

I'll look into the 300 2.8 and the 400 DO. My main concern with the size of the 400 f/2.8 is traveling with it. How can I get that, along with several other lenses and a body into a carry on bag? I wonder how the other guys get it on a plane or maybe they don't bring many other lenses.

Also consider the 500mm f/4L IS. It's heck of a lot bigger than the 300/2.8 or the 400/4 DO, but it's lighter than the 400/2.8 and 100mm longer, too.  Most who use the 500/4 consider it a handholdable lens, which the 400/2.8 is not.

[conurus]

There is always the Carl Zeiss Tele-Apotessar 400mm f/4 which can be converted to Canon mount (with autofocus). As a non-DO lens, it is bigger and heavier than Canon's 400/4 DO, and it won't autofocus as quickly and quietly as a USM lens, but it is very reasonably priced, a bargain when you take into consideration its superlative optical quality.