New Lenses in January [CR1]

[neuroanatomist]

A 400mm f4 will likely be about $7000.  It will be similar in diameter and cost to a 300mm f2.8 II

I doubt that many owners of the 400 mm f5.6 will be rushing out to buy a 400mm f4.

Really!? I would think this would be the ideal wildlife lens for us 7D owners. The ability to increase focal length to 560mm and to have autofocus (yey!), still very handholdable, an extra stop and the latest IS would be just what I want. Thinking of what i can sell to fund it already...

Remember, you need at least one kidney to support life.

For most people, there's a big difference between a $1300 lens and $7000 lens.  For ~$7K, right now, you could get a 300mm f/2.8L IS II and put a 2x III behind it, and have AF at 600mm f/5.6.  So...start selling!

[Pieces Of E]

If the new 400 f4 is $7,000, they won't sell any. It's just too much money and people aren't gonna buy it. I'm really turned off by the mere proposal of it being that much. I was thinking more in the $2,000-$2,500 range, because I want one!   

[neuroanatomist]

If the new 400 f4 is $7,000, they won't sell any. It's just too much money and people aren't gonna buy it. I'm really turned off by the mere proposal of it being that much. I was thinking more in the $2,000-$2,500 range

...and then you woke up.

As correctly pointed out above, a 400/4 is going to be approximately the same size as a 300/2.8.  400/4 = 100mm front element diameter, 300/2.8 = 107mm front element diameter; compare that to the 400/5.6 = 71mm front element diameter.  Sorry, but if you think Canon will price a lens that's similar to the 300/2.8 II at somewhere south of $6000, think again...

FWIW, there was a prototype, or at least a mockup, of a 400mm f/4 (non-DO) over 11 years ago!  Here's the image:



400/4 DO on top, non-DO version on bottom, no colored rings on them...

[tron]

I agree (unfortunately) with the above reasoning. However, in that case a 10K$ 500/4L IS II seems better value for money although a more expensive one...

[vlim]

A new weather sealed and razor sharp 300 f/4 L IS II with a price under 2K would become my imediate target !

I really hope it's true

[tron]

A new weather sealed and razor sharp 300 f/4 L IS II with a price under 2K would become my imediate target !

I really hope it's true

Sounds nice! However, I already have a razor sharp Canon EF300mm f/4L. This thing is razor sharp fully open. In addition this lens with my 1.4X II produced a little sharper images than my 100-400 at 400mm. The only ommision is the IS! I know it seems important at such focal lengths but have you heard of many who can part with their 300 f/4L non-IS lens ?  So I would end up with 2 lenses 

[neuroanatomist]

I already have a razor sharp Canon EF300mm f/4L. This thing is razor sharp fully open. In addition this lens with my 1.4X II produced a little sharper images than my 100-400 at 400mm.

Interesting.  I found just the opposite - my 100-400 @400mm beat the 300/4 IS + 1.4x II (and that seems to be a common theme from testers).  That was with AFMA dialed in on both - without AMFA, the 100-400 would miss a bit at 400mm leading to reduced sharpness. 

It's funny - you think something is razor sharp, then you see what razor sharp really is, say going from a 100-400 or 300/4 IS to a supertele prime.

Regardless, I expect a new 300/4 IS II would be noticeably better than the current 300/4 or the 100-400.  I'd also expect a revised 100-400 to noticeably sharper, and I'd take that over the 300/4 II.

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I already have a razor sharp Canon EF300mm f/4L. This thing is razor sharp fully open. In addition this lens with my 1.4X II produced a little sharper images than my 100-400 at 400mm.

Interesting.  I found just the opposite - my 100-400 @400mm beat the 300/4 IS + 1.4x II (and that seems to be a common theme from testers).  That was with AFMA dialed in on both - without AMFA, the 100-400 would miss a bit at 400mm leading to reduced sharpness. 

It's funny - you think something is razor sharp, then you see what razor sharp really is, say going from a 100-400 or 300/4 IS to a supertele prime.

Regardless, I expect a new 300/4 IS II would be noticeably better than the current 300/4 or the 100-400.  I'd also expect a revised 100-400 to noticeably sharper, and I'd take that over the 300/4 II.

The good thing about both the 300mm f/4 and the 100-400mm L is the relatively short minimum focus distance.  I hope they do not screw that up by trying to make the lens smaller and lighter.  A 11+ foot mfd like the 400mm f/5.6 is why I sold mine.

[tron]

I already have a razor sharp Canon EF300mm f/4L. This thing is razor sharp fully open. In addition this lens with my 1.4X II produced a little sharper images than my 100-400 at 400mm.

Interesting.  I found just the opposite - my 100-400 @400mm beat the 300/4 IS + 1.4x II (and that seems to be a common theme from testers).  That was with AFMA dialed in on both - without AMFA, the 100-400 would miss a bit at 400mm leading to reduced sharpness. 

It's funny - you think something is razor sharp, then you see what razor sharp really is, say going from a 100-400 or 300/4 IS to a supertele prime.

Regardless, I expect a new 300/4 IS II would be noticeably better than the current 300/4 or the 100-400.  I'd also expect a revised 100-400 to noticeably sharper, and I'd take that over the 300/4 II.

If you read again you will see I did not mention EF300 f/4L IS. I mentioned EF300mm f/4L (non-IS)

[neuroanatomist]

If you read again you will see I did not mention EF300 f/4L IS. I mentioned EF300mm f/4L (non-IS)

Ahhhh...sorry!

[Pieces Of E]

Oh well, unless I win the lottery, my 300 f4L IS will have to do. Not that I have any complaints about it, mind you......but a new, lighter(?) 400 f4L with IS sure would be fun to sport around the wilds with. 

[DigitalDivide]

A new 400 f/4 would seem to me to be a replacement for the largely unloved 400 f/4 DO, which sells for a little over $6K in the US.  It would make sense to price it at somewhat more than the 300 f/2.8 IS II, but not too much more or they might lose sales to the 200-400 f/4 1.4xTC.

The 400 would likely appeal to those who need the reach, don't like the IQ of the old DO model, and can't afford the 400 f/2.8.  Those who need the flexibility of a zoom and built in TC would go for the 200-400, but for ultimate IQ the 400 f/4 will most likely deliver in the way that the other recent big white updates have.

This would mean there is still a need for a 400 f/5.6 replacement, finally with IS.  If they could deliver that for under $2K I would think it would be a big seller.  Currently there is a huge gap between relatively affordable prosumer teles like the 300 f/4 and the cheapest serious pro models.  The aging 100-400L and 400 f/5.6 are the only options if you need more than 300mm, unless you slap a 1.4xTC on the 300 (as I do).  A 400 f/5.6 with the latet IS and high IQ would be a nice option, especially if used on APS-C for more reach.

[kubelik]

so a 400 f/4 probably won't be small or cheap ... but can't we get a 500 f/5.6 IS?  the sigma superzooms that hit this focal length (150-500) aren't huge or hugely expensive.  I'm sick of stuff that only goes out to 400mm.  for your average consumer, you can get there with a 70-200 f/2.8 + 2x, a native 100-400, a 300 f/4 + 1.4x, the venerable 400 f/5.6 ... all of which puts you at roughly 400mm f/5.6.  why can't we get something a little longer than that without having to spend $7k?

[westr70]

so a 400 f/4 probably won't be small or cheap ... but can't we get a 500 f/5.6 IS?  the sigma superzooms that hit this focal length (150-500) aren't huge or hugely expensive.  I'm sick of stuff that only goes out to 400mm.  for your average consumer, you can get there with a 70-200 f/2.8 + 2x, a native 100-400, a 300 f/4 + 1.4x, the venerable 400 f/5.6 ... all of which puts you at roughly 400mm f/5.6.  why can't we get something a little longer than that without having to spend $7k?

+1.  right behind you on that. 

[Razor2012]

Well at least I can buy a $500 2x III and have a 400 5.6.