New Lenses in January [CR1]

[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. 

[xps]

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.

+1 +1 +1

If they would do something like that, they would damage their cash cows. So, we all have to save a alot of money to get such long lenses.
But, maybe other companies will produce such a lens.
One of our cardiotechnicans owns an 70-200 Tamron 2.8 with an lot of letters behind. A lens of about 700 Euros. The lens makes wonderful pictures. My 70-200 2.8 LII too. But I paid nearly 2500€ for it.
So maybe tamron or another company will produce such a lens for us.
Maybe not as sharp as the original 7k Canons. But maybe a buyable 3,5k one...