Replacement or Addition?
Received a cryptic email saying that a 400 f/4.5L IS is in development. The lens would fit between the 400 DO and 400 f/5.6. Neither of those lenses would be discontinued.
I’m not sure Canon needs four 400mm lenses. Nor do I have a clue what such a lens would cost.
Interesting concept anyway.
Nikon Roadmap Leak
Everyone has been pretty enamored by the apparent Nikon Roadmap leak.
I’m not a big believer, that is A LOT of lenses to launch in the span of 18 months.
We’ll see though.
The link in case you missed it:
http://nikonrumors.com/2009/07/08/nikon-roadmap-2009-2010-leaked-part-2.aspx
cr
|
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here's how it works. |
The leak about Nikon’s roadmap it quite impressive. It is one of the most detailed leaks I’ve ever seen.
There are some lenses like the 65-90 f/2.0 that are kind of… “peculiar”. I really don’t know what to think about this leak’s reliability…
D4 specs are quite formidable.. haha if it’s real that is
I would love a canon f/2 zoom lens not in the ef-s mount though like Nikon (DX mount). Something like a 35-85 f/2.0 would be really cool and cover many common portrait lengths. It would be heavy as rocks, but who cares.
I hope Nikon does it. They are being pretty agressive and, Canon may well soon find themselves in 2nd place and fading if they don’t step up. Canon certainly has the resources to step up their game, I kind of expect the stodgy old management syndrome is firmly entrenched at Canon.
Nikon, on the other hand appears to be pushing slow moving managers to the side and are serious about becoming a more agile and fast responding company.
In the end, we users will benefit from strong competetion.
what nikon f/2 zooms? the 60-95? fake.
This lens strikes me as too much of a replacement for the aging 400mm f/5.6L USM, I find it believeable, but not that the 400/5.6 would stay in production
Can you use a f/4.5 lens with an 1.4x converter on an xxD body and maintain AF?. I would certainly be interested if this is true.
Given the DO version is such low contrast I suspect a II or replacement of some sort could be in order.
I can’t remember where I read it, but one of the best explanations I’ve read about Nikon’s resurgence since 2007 or so is that younger management got tired of finishing behind Canon and felt they were “losing face,” a terrible thing in the Asian culture.
Perhaps Canon did the same thing in the late 1980s when they abandoned the FD mount and went to the EOS.
Assuming this roadmap “leak” is intentional, it is some fine FUD. Looks like if I want a current-generation 300 f4 lens it may have to be VR, not IS. (I’ve lost track of how long I’ve been waiting for a 300 f4L IS mkII). Some of these lenses look to fill the “prosumer” gap in the Nikkor line, which is a major Canon advantage as of now. The 70-240 mm f/3.5-4.5G VR would match well with the 70-200 f4L IS. And how long have Canonites been waiting for a 400 5.6L IS? Man, at least Nikon appears to have been listening!
Could “Výklopný” on the LCD refer to tilt and rotate? I tried out the D5000 in the shop and found the LCD quite spiffy — given improvement in liveview AF (also in the roadmap) I would definitely want such a feature on my next dslr (should be higher res than D5k LCD though).
Which brings us back to the FUD — I don’t have a pressing need to upgrade my gear, but if this roadmap plays largely true, and if Canon does not respond in a significant way, (two big ifs) there may be a system switch in my future.
I had not seen this before because my attention is on Canon but this is very interesting. Fun stuff, wait and see… But what a great rumor!
As long as the price is kept within a decent range, a 4,5/400mm L IS (non-DO) would look quite interesting…
This is the end of Canon
Yeah, “vyklopny” means vari-angle LCD on the D300s.
I’d find it really cool, too. Let’s see if it comes out being true next month.
If nikon makes all the lenses they say on the roadmap, then I hope canon is going to make a lot of lenses too. I miss some lenses (and I am just a beginner) that nikon hase already.
A 400/4.5 or 400/4.0 non-DO is a must. I dream of this lens in the Canon line since 20 years.
Canon had a 400/4 non DO prototype a while ago, and they shown pictures of it in a technical publication, but can’t remember where and what.
If you are going to have an f/2 zoom, then the focal length range has to be small or the lens will be huge. You are probably most likely to want f/2 for portrait shots, so a zoom covering classic portrait focal lengths would be best. This is reported to be a “DX” lens, so with Nikon’s 1.5x crop factor, the effective focal length of the 60-95mm zoom (you mixed up the “5”) becomes 90-143mm, which is very close to an 85-135mm equivalent lens. It would be a fast (and probably relatively compact) portrait zoom lens. The price would need to be competitive, though.
I almost bought that until I saw the list of lenses planned for release. In 2007-2008, people talked about mass release of multiple (>5) lenses from Nikon. And history has shown that is simply NOT possible. Specs of cameras are predictable though.
I had to laugh at the Nikon fantasy road map list.
Can you honestly believe they are going to release a D700 replacement that actually trump their D3x released just 10 months earlier in every areas with full HD video thrown in?
The 5DMk2 while edges the 1DsMk3 in IQ and low light Canon did limit the AF, speed and build quality to distinguish it from the 1D series so I cant see how Nikon would want to make D700x superior in every department to D3x and holding down the price to $3k.
Should even work with a f/5.6 lens.
I could give it a try with my 100-400 tonight.
This is because it a fake list drawn up by fanboys.
Well, there is the 400/2.8L IS USM, what about that?
Well, a 400/2.8 IS weights more than 5 kgs, is a huge lens to carry around an cost a fortune. I know it because I had a 400/2.8 non IS in the past.
A 400/4 or 4.5 will be an excellent compromise for those looking for a lighter and cheaper high grade 400 mm, but still better than the 400/5.6
BTW, a 400/4 or 4.5 will be almost as heavy and as big as a 300/2.8, but it would me a marvelous complement to my 200/1.8.
Don’t see a 400mm f/4.5 L IS making much sense. If you add a 1.4x TC you will loose AF on all bodies but the 1D’s. A 400mm f/4 or a 500mm f/4.5 would make sense. Maybe a 400mm f/4.5 would make sense if there was a new companion 1.3x TC which would allow AF to work on all camera bodies or a new high IQ 1.7x TC which would allow AF to work on 1D’s (Nikon has an 1.7x TC).
Prior to launching the current (but old) 500mm f/4 L IS, Canon had a 500mm f/4.5 which was almost 25% lighter than the current f/4 lens. That is a huge difference if you handhold or hike with the lens.
A 500mm f/5.6 L IS would be lovely – a “inexpensive” super high IQ super tele. Perfect for birding and BIF. Would be a lot lighter than the current 500mm.
The Nikon road map doesn’t look credible when you compare it to their current product line.
1.4xII + 400 f5.6 mounted on my 40D creates a manual focus only 560 f/8.0. It’s still a pretty sweet lens though on a tripod.
I’d prefer a 500 5.6IS. Extra hundred mm, and like has already been pointed out, you wouldn’t gain anything on 400 f4.5 with an extender so why not go with a half step narrower aperture and a 100 extra mm. It would likely be lighter too.
huh. when I rented a DO for my trip I found that the contrast in it was still equal to my 2.8L zooms, not equal to a super-tele prime but still useable.
I doubt that DO lenses are sufficiently cost effective for Canon to bother with a series II of that lens, they’ve probably already saturated its market too.
I *think* I’d prefer a 500mm f/5.6 L IS too. Most of the time I need a longer lens than 400mm. Sometimes I need a faster lens than f/5.6. A 400mm f/4.5 L IS could be a compromise but only if I could add a TC and still have AF – which won’t be possible with the current 1.4x TC and a non-1D body.
Have you tried taping the TC pins ? I would think that it would give you slow AF (focus achieved within 1 second) on the 400mm f/5.6 L + 1.4x TC. The 300mm f/2.8 L IS + 2x TC II + 1.4x TC stacked does AF on the 40D – it is quite accurate but slow because the camera moves the lens 1.4x more than it should have each time it tells the lens to change focus distance.
I think a 400 f/5.6 IS is better. it’s a perfect budget tele lens but lacks IS. It would be a nice tele choice with 70-200. (If the gap between 200 & 400 is not that important for you.)
how are you stacking TC’s? they have a fixed rear element at the back that doesn’t let you add another
The D400 is a nice upgrade to my 40D. Canon lens to sell
didn’t mean to imply it’s not a good lens, but all the reviews I read on it (I was very interested in it when it came out for smaller lighter 400 prime) said you have to bump up the contrast in post or in camera, so it kinda killed my buzz over it. It seemed to me Canon took a lot of heat over the lower contrast (which is not necessarily a bad thing) and because of the reviews the lens may not have sold as well as it deserves, a mkii of it could resolve that.
It’d be interesting if Canon II’s the 400 5.6 as the 100-400 4.5-5.6 is far more popular and I think they’d do better sales-wise to improve it with a non-slider zoom and weather sealed version.
Canon makes a 400 4.0 L DO lens that is a little smaller and lighter than the 300 2.8.
They’d be better off making a top notch 200-500/5.6 L is than another 400. More people are switching to ff and you def need the longer fl though I think the crop people wouldn’t mind the extra reach either
Additional TC’s may be mounted behind the 2x mk II. The 2x mk II rear lens element is recessed. Canon advice against it but it can be done. The lens data reported to the camera is wrong though. But it can be done.
That would a nice lens, might even make for 4.5-5.6 like the 100-400, and as long as it’s not a slider like the 100-400 which can’t be weather sealed.
1+ for the 200-500mm
ok
+2 for the 200-500mm
Personally I would prefer f/4, so more like 200-400 (Nikon already has one), I would trade the 100mm for the f/stop (personal preference though), of course a 200-400 f/4 could take a 1.4x converter, getting you to 280-520 f/5.6, which might be good enough for your uses? the ability to quickly trade length and speed is nice when you need the versatility.
+3 200-500mm
+4 200-500mm
That would be a great lens! I’d also give up the 100 for the fixed 4.0.
Price is a factor though too. The Nikon 200-400 is about $6200, the Canon 100-400 is only about $1400. A big price difference for a stop. Probably worth it though to get that 520 5.6 out of it too.
+5 for 200-500;
OR a EF 500IS f5.6
I long for a 200-400/4.0 IS (be it DO or L) I will buy one and try to make it work :)
I love my 400/5.6 for BIF’s and for a light but sharp 400 (hiking companion). A 200-400/4.0 with an EF mount would be perfection for much of the shooting I do.
I can not say how many times I have put a Nikon 200-400/4.0 and D700 and D300 in my cart only to let me better judgement to kick back in when I see the price tag.
The 400DO post 2003 is a nice lens; but I find my 300/2.8 to be manageable in weight and better as it is a bare 2.8 lens and a near perfect 420/4.0L IS. (it is also a usable 600/5.6L IS)
Canon can keep the 400/4.5 if they would only give me a 200-400.
Canon TC’s will not autofocus at apertures smaller than F:/5.6 on XXD Cameras. If you use a non reporting teleconverter, one that does not tell the camera what aperture you are using, it will try to autofocus, but it depends on the body as to how well it works. I found on two XTi’s that auto focus would not woek at all, while on my 40D, it would work in bright outdoor light.
Of course, if your camera does not know what aperture you are using, that can also be a problem with the exposure and you might need to set the aperture in aperture priority mode, I forget how I did it rxactly, since its been a year since I tried it.
Putting two canon teleconverters together seems to allow a body to attempt to autofocus, but the image sharpness and CA is poor.
How does IS help with BIF?? Its nice for still objects, but, in my experience, its best to turn it off for moving objects.
Looking at your Galapagos Islands photos Zac, your 400 DO shots look darn good to me. Maybe I should reconsider that lens. Would love to hear your thoughts about that lens sometime.
sort of true, but then again what did the D3 have over the D700?
not all BIF move. When I was in africa I often was able to use liveview 10x manual focus on even birds, not always obviously.
+10000 on the 500 f/5.6 IS
the zoom would compromise IQ and maybe cost and weigh more
speed, viewfinder, body, battery, dual CF slots. The D3 is still better, the proposed D700x is actually as fast as the D3x is natively (making it a complete equal in specs) and faster by 1.5 fps with a battery grip, Nikon won’t outspec their pro line with a cheaper model this soon after its release.
would love to see the new 24-70 be an f2, and no…. i would not care about the weight. that would be one sweet peace of gl-ass :D.
I thought i was the only one wanting a EF 200-500/f5.6L IS.
how about a $4000 sticker? do you care about that?
nope, i have planned for the release of this lens, and planned just in case it came to that, of course the quality of images from this 4g lens would have to be outstanding.
If Sigma had made a 200-500/f5.6 EX instead a f/2.8, it would sell like hotcakes.
Normally IS doesn’t help BIF – in most cases you will need fast shutter speeds for BIF which negates the need for IS. But IS adds significantly to the versatility of the lens. Its good for non-BIF birding in less than ideal light – e.g. in the woods. But good long-lens hand-holding technique also help quite a bit…
200-500/f5.6L IS were do I pre-order?
If this is true then 1d mark iv must be a full frame and canon is trying to compensate for the loss in cropping.
Since it appears that 1d mark iv is a cropped sensor cam, I believe that this rumor is fake.
I’d rather keep it 2.8 and extend the tele range out to around 90-105. 70 is a bit short at times and the extra reach would mean not having to switch to the 70-200 as often.
and just for that reason Canon will not make it.
Of course we would all love that perfect lens, but Canon isnt gonna make it when they can sell you 2 lenses instead of 1.
plus for me, id prefer get the lens even wider, maybe about 20 and keep the 70mm :D
Well, I don’t think that is the case. Canon already makes a 24-105 4.0 and I doubt that is stopping anyone from buying a 70-200. I’d certainly not give up the 70-200 if they made a 24-105 2.8, I’d just be selling my 24-70. Like you, I do doubt Canon will make one though. You’d think they would be coming out with new lenses left and right to stay on top but they just sit back and let everyone else come out with lenses I’d like to use. It’s not to the point where I’ll switch, yet! But geeze…friggin Pentax makes a $1400 body with weather sealing that probably bests the 1Ds3, and inexpensive weather sealed 2.8 lenses to match…wish Canon would at least keep up.
200-500 can be a nice neighbor for those canon nice 70-200 lenses… awesome!… +10000000000000000000000
Sliders can be weather sealed – see 28-300L
fair enough. personally the standard zoom range is not useful enough to me to warrant that much cash.
to each his own
+10000000000000000000001
Yeah should have said ISN’T weather sealed. I use the 100-400 for a compact travel 400, the 2.8 is not something I want to tote around with the rest of my gear it’s just huge, but the push-pull design is a pain, especially with the tightener/lock feature you have to use finger gymnastics to work while shooting. They could have made the lens telescope out from a rotating zoom ring design it would have been MUCH better. ALSO, the push-pull design shoots air into the mirror box if you dont loosen the tightener ring all the way before pulling – not good in a dusty environment – not sure if the 28-300 has that problem or not. IMO the 100-400 really needs an update for the weather sealing at a minimum.
according to EOS systems manual 2008 pdf the 28-300 is not DW-R, and I can
t see a gasket on the mount….
That’s what I thought too Zac, I just looked up some reviews and the ones I found claim it is weather sealed. The site the-digital-picture.com says “Like many of the newer L-Zooms, the 28-300 IS is weather sealed” and juzaphoto.com writes in his review of it “The built quality is impressive – it is solid as a rock, and it is weather sealed. I won’t hesitate to use this lens even in unfriendly environments and under the rain…” and lensplay.com has it on their “highest level of weather sealing” list.
Maybe they’re all assuming it is because it’s an L lens? Maybe it has some better sealing than the 100-400 but not fully DW-R? It’d be interesting to know.
Either way though, an updated 100-400 is overdue IMO.
If you look at all Canon primes, there is a big price jump on any lens that needs more than a 77mm front element. I don’t know if it’s the size of the front element that makes it more expensive or other lens elements, but it does seem to be the case. If I’m right, that means that a 500/5.6 would still be in the upper echelons of the Great Whites, price wise (just look at the price difference between the 200/2 vs 200/2.8)
As for the 400s, 3 in the lineup is a lot, but I believe canon still offers all four 70-200 options (4/2.8/IS/non-IS) so it’s possible that canon would introduce a 400/5.6L IS along side the current and wonderful 400/5.6L. I’m not sure how much market the 400DO has appealed to, the specs are great but the cost prohibitive… birders would rather get the real deal 500/f4 for the extra $400 and skip buying the 1.4XTC that they would have bought for the 400 anyway… and gain a stop and IQ. I would love a 400DO, don’t get me wrong, but I think most wildlife photogs agree that the money it better spent on other options.
A 400/5.6L IS, I’d love one. I got rid of my 400L for many reasons, and one of them was the amount of light needed for sharp shots.
I have been trying to get a hold of 400/5.6 from B&H, but been sold out for a while. Hate it when rumour about new lenses come when you are about to buy a lens in the same range :-)
Check out the Minolta 400 f4.5, if Canon’s rumored lens is similar in profile with Canon’s legendary optics count me in (Google > Images > Minolta 400 f4.5 = jaw hitting floor).