Close Menu

    Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS III one of two “Big White Lenses” coming ahead of Photokina [CR3]

    By Updated:99 Comments1 Min Read Canon Lens Rumors
    canon400big 728x462 - Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS III one of two "Big White Lenses" coming ahead of Photokina [CR3]

    We were told a while back that two big white lenses would be announced ahead of Photokina in September. We were also told that the lenses would both be version 3's, which means they'll be replacing two current Big White Lenses.

    A different source than the original is telling us that one of the lenses to be announced will be an EF 400mm f/2.8L IS III.

    The second big white to be replaced is still unknown at this time

    Upgrades for these lenses will likely focus on weight reduction and updated coatings. We expect the optical formulas to remain about the same.

    When Canon updated the “Big White Lenses” to version II, they announced the EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II and EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II at the same time and a few months later announced the EF 500mm f/4L IS II and EF 600mm f/4L IS II. We wouldn't be shocked to see things happen the same way for the version 3 lenses.

    Update: We've upgraded the rumor rating on the EF 400mm f/2.8L IS III to [CR3]

    Some of our articles may include affiliate links. If you purchase through these links, we may earn an affiliate commission at no extra cost to you.

    Go to discussion...

    Share.

    Related Posts

    99 comments

    1. Does anyone know if Canon will ever be inclined to provide non-L super-telephoto primes? Since the new 100-400mm F/4.5-5.6L IS II has effectively consolidated the 300mm F/4L and the 400mm F/5.6L, I'd like to see OIS USM versions of those lenses without the great white bodies and price tags. A 600mm F/8 IS USM would be pretty nice too.
    2. This seems to me like a check the box release. Perhaps automated manufacturing, slightly better AF, a few grams lighter; but really not coveted like some other lenses. The 400mm DO II now rules this category with the 100-400 a good all-rounder alternative. Those who want the niche 2.8 already have it for the most part.
    3. "Upgrades for these lenses will likely focus on weight reduction and updated coatings. We expect the optical formulas to remain about the same."

      Sounds like lipstick on a pig.

      The positive here is maybe the used version II's go down in price.
    4. Does anyone know if Canon will ever be inclined to provide non-L super-telephoto primes? Since the new 100-400mm F/4.5-5.6L IS II has effectively consolidated the 300mm F/4L and the 400mm F/5.6L, I'd like to see OIS USM versions of those lenses without the great white bodies and price tags. A 600mm F/8 IS USM would be pretty nice too.

      Make it a 400mm f/5 and I promise that I will pre-order it.
    5. "Upgrades for these lenses will likely focus on weight reduction and updated coatings. We expect the optical formulas to remain about the same."

      Sounds like lipstick on a pig.

      The positive here is maybe the used version II's go down in price.
      Please don't forget that with the announcement of the Sony FE 2.8/400 mm the limits of weight have been shiftet quite a lot.
      The Sony lens is amost 1 kg (!) lighter than the Canon.
      Togehter with the A9 you gain about 1.8 kg over the Canon combo.
      (1DX II + EF2.8/400 II; disclaimer: this is a pure weight comparison, not about features or IQ)
      Maybe Canon sees the need here to put that lens on a diet.

      Of course, production costs are always an important factor, as well.
    6. "Upgrades for these lenses will likely focus on weight reduction and updated coatings. We expect the optical formulas to remain about the same."

      Sounds like lipstick on a pig.

      The positive here is maybe the used version II's go down in price.

      Erm, I don't think you understand that phrase. The pig is ugly even if you put lipstick on it. How is the 400L 2.8, one of the best-regarded Canon lenses, a pig? It's big, heavy, and expensive, but that goes with the territory. Improving any aspect of it is hardly a crude means of hiding deficiencies. Maybe you mean 'gilding the lily'?
    7. until I see specs I will withhold judgement as to how significant improvement this is.

      Could be improved coatings and a slight weight reduction, or could be major change with drop extender.
    9. This seems to me like a check the box release. Perhaps automated manufacturing,

      I believe the big whites are manufactured by hand by "master" lens makers. I'm not sure if Canon would choose to automate that.
    10. I predict that the new versions will have the 1) "Air-sphere" coatings, 2) reduced weight (not by a large amount, as Canon needs to keep these lenses robust from a "must perform well and keep performing well under adverse and long use (= wear & tear of a busy working professional)", 3) Improved IS, 4) "Improved" price tags (although not by much), 5) automatic lifetime enrollment in CPS ( ;-) ), and 6) a new set of Extenders within 6 months of release of the first 2 'Bigs'.

      I wonder if Canon will ever update the 800mm f5.6L IS, the 400mm f5.6L, and introduce a "bargain" zoom (say a 150-600mm or 200-600mm f5.6 USM IS)?
    12. Imagine the second white would be a cheaper little brother - a 400 5.6 IS or 500 5.6 / 6.3 IS.

      The original rumour was that both would be 'mark III' lenses. A new 400 f/5.6 with added IS wouldn't get a number (if they updated with without adding IS it would be a mark II), and a new lens like a 500 5.6 would also not have a numerical designation, so if that rumour was accurate, it can only be an update to an existing mark II lens (and also can't include an added extender, as some have requested).
    16. Well it better be as light as Sony's 400mm 2.8 then.
      If lighter means a thinner lens barrel, more plastics inside, then the big whites would lose one of their main advantages.
      Should Canon at any cost imitate Sony just to satisfy some forum members, or should they rather keep the discriminating professionals satisfied with proven durability?
      Since when is Sony THE reference???
    17. Does anyone know if Canon will ever be inclined to provide non-L super-telephoto primes? Since the new 100-400mm F/4.5-5.6L IS II has effectively consolidated the 300mm F/4L and the 400mm F/5.6L, I'd like to see OIS USM versions of those lenses without the great white bodies and price tags. A 600mm F/8 IS USM would be pretty nice too.

      A cheap 600mm f/8 will be unlikely to be competitive with the current cheap 150-600mm f/6.3s from Sigma and Tamron.
    18. Erm, I don't think you understand that phrase. The pig is ugly even if you put lipstick on it. How is the 400L 2.8, one of the best-regarded Canon lenses, a pig? It's big, heavy, and expensive, but that goes with the territory. Improving any aspect of it is hardly a crude means of hiding deficiencies. Maybe you mean 'gilding the lily'?

      Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Miss Piggy would take exception to your comments.

      Besides that if you put lipstick on a pig it is still a pig.
      If the lenses looses an ounce or two and adds a coating it really isn't much of a change.

      If they drop a few pounds of weight it will be significant and I retract my comment.

    Leave a comment

    Please log in to your forum account to comment