Canon 400 f/5.6L IS in April? [CR1]

[Canon Rumors]

Share

A wanted lens to a lot of people was mentioned on a Swedish forum. A 400 f/5.6L IS.

Announcement coming in April?

Read More: Google translated link

CR’s Take It’s a wishlist lens for sure with a lot of people. With the things going on with Canon’s ability to make the new lenses, I have doubts about any announcement in April for glass.

thanks jimmy

cr

[Justin]

I don't see it. In the same year as the other real super tele upgrades? No way.

Prove me wrong please.

[kubelik]

I don't think so, not with the 400 f/2.8 II coming out.  however, maybe in a couple of years once everyone who can shell out for the 400 f/2.8 II has bought theirs, canon will get around to upgrading the 400 f/5.6 with IS.  that would be a killer lens.

what would be even better would be to do it as a 500 f/5.6 L IS.  the 400 f/5.6 range is already cluttered with possibilities, from the 100-400 and 70-200+2x.  a 500 f/5.6 L IS would be a major seller and snag some real devotees.  I know I'd buy one at the drop of a hat

[traveller]

I can't see that a replacement for the 400L is a priority for Canon, its main users seem to be birders on a budget as it is nowhere near as flexible as the 100-400L.   A replacement for the latter would have far broader appeal and a modern zoom design could narrow the image quality gap between the prime and the zoom.  A 500mm f/5.6L would be a different matter. 

[Isurus]

Like others, I'm not buying this rumor.  I don't see it as being a priority.  Canon probably feels that, if a person wants a budget 400mm with IS they can buy the 100-400mm L.  Plus adding IS to the lens would probably also bring a decent price hike, which would make the lens less attractive.

[Hillsilly]

Would be great if true.  This has been on my wishlist for ages.  Go Canon!  The 400/2.8 is a big heavy lens.  It's also expensive.  As an occassional use lens, it is not on my radar and I suspect a lot of people feel the same.  Plus, I've already got a 70-200 IS, which I use a lot and is arguable better over it's range than the 100-400mm. 

I currently use an older Sigma 400/5.6 APO which is a great lens when mounted on a tripod or monopod and film SLRs.   Unfortunately the Sigma doesn't mate happily with recent DSLRs - Another reason to buy genuine Canon lenses.  But it is small enough to hand hold in good light.  I've always thought that a similar lens with IS would mean more keepers. 

In short, this is a lens that would appeal greatly to amateur sports / wildlife / backpapcker photographers.  Great image quality in a smaller lens at a (hopefully) reasonable price.

That being said, I'd love a 500/5.6.  But I could imaging there would be a big price and size premium compared with a 400/5.6. 

[J-Man]

With lens delays, i can only see it happening is if they are produced in different facility.
True, 400 is well covered, esp. if their is a new 100-400, then a 500/5.6 could gain market share.
A 400/5.6LIS would be a sweet lens if they can shave some weight too.

[Flake]

Can someone please explain to me what the attraction of this lens is?  I look at the 70 - 200mm f/2.8 IS L (£1750) and the 200mm f/2.8 L (£615) and I can see why someone would buy but when that is upscaled to 400mm we have the 100 - 400mm f/4.5 - 5.6 IS L  (£1100) compared to the current 400mm f/5.6 L (£1065) there's no saving at all and no IS, there's no gain in speed and you lose the zoom option, even if IS is added and an optical upgrade the price will rise far above its current level probably closer to £1500, what is the attraction in that?

[Hillsilly]

You would expect the prime lens would produce sharper pictures when compared with the 100-400mm at 400mm at f5.6.  In addition, it should have faster focus and better IQ.  This is pretty important when tracking subjects.  Admittedly, the 100-400 isn't considered slack in these areas, but most reviews suggest that you need to stop down to f8 or f11 to achieve really sharp results.  The current 400/2.8 is considered one of the stars in the canon line up.  If a 400/5.6 exists, it would be good to think the image quality would be comparable, but in a slower package.  It may not appeal to everyone, but I think there would be buyers out there.

[dilbert]

If they're just announcing it, why not?

They already have a non-IS version at just under $1300, why not add IS?

Is it a big seller? well, if the number of reviews at B&H are anything to go by, for every five 100-400's, they sell one 400/5.6L.

The announcements last year were 300/2.8L IS USM, 400/2.8L IS USM, 500/4L IS II USM, 600/4L IS II USM.

Notice that all four lenses have IS.

The *ONLY* white zoom lens that does not have IS is the EF-400/5.6L USM.

If it didn't sell, Canon would have axed it. Canon hasn't. Therefore I think it is ripe for updating.

[dilbert]

You would expect the prime lens would produce sharper pictures when compared with the 100-400mm at 400mm at f5.6.  In addition, it should have faster focus and better IQ.  This is pretty important when tracking subjects.  Admittedly, the 100-400 isn't considered slack in these areas, but most reviews suggest that you need to stop down to f8 or f11 to achieve really sharp results.  The current 400/2.8 is considered one of the stars in the canon line up.  If a 400/5.6 exists, it would be good to think the image quality would be comparable, but in a slower package.  It may not appeal to everyone, but I think there would be buyers out there.

The 400/5.6L already exists, just not in IS:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12129-USA/Canon_2526A004_400mm_f_5_6L_USM_Autofocus.html

[J-Man]

The *ONLY* white zoom lens that does not have IS is the EF-400/5.6L USM.

It's not a zoom.
Some photographers prefer twist zooms vs. push pull, and others prefer primes.

[ronderick]

Can someone please explain to me what the attraction of this lens is?  I look at the 70 - 200mm f/2.8 IS L (£1750) and the 200mm f/2.8 L (£615) and I can see why someone would buy but when that is upscaled to 400mm we have the 100 - 400mm f/4.5 - 5.6 IS L  (£1100) compared to the current 400mm f/5.6 L (£1065) there's no saving at all and no IS, there's no gain in speed and you lose the zoom option, even if IS is added and an optical upgrade the price will rise far above its current level probably closer to £1500, what is the attraction in that?

Well, I think this is one of lens with the highest Cost/performance value among Canon's lineup. While it lacks the flexibility of the 100-400 and the IS, in exchange you get the advantages of prime over zooms - faster focus and sharper images. Another big issue for people is price (in Taiwan, the price of 100-400 [roughly 46,000~56,000 NT] is a bit higher than 400 [roughly 38,000~41,000 NT]).

Adding the IS to the 400 prime would be cool, but if the price sees a significant increase, I'd wager there's going to be a rush to pick up the old generation 400mm.

Of couse, a 500mm would be nice, but that's a totally different field (and probably bigger and more expensive)

[Canon 14-24]

If they can get a 500mm f/5.6 IS under 5lbs and 3K, I would consider that a winner.

[kubelik]

If they can get a 500mm f/5.6 IS under 5lbs and 3K, I would consider that a winner.

Honestly, I don't see why canon couldn't.  Take a look at the size and weight of the sigma zooms that go into the 500mm range.  They're roughly in the 2 kilo range.  As for price, yeah, 3K would hit the spot fine.  I think they could actually put it out for $2500 and turn major numbers with it