Yes, Canon caters strictly to CR forum members, so, of course, they should imitate Sony just to satisfy us. Silly Billy.
Upvote
0
Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS III one of two “Big White Lenses” coming ahead of Photokina [CR3]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
Yes, Canon caters strictly to CR forum members, so, of course, they should imitate Sony just to satisfy us. Silly Billy.
Doubtful. Canon will be making $5,000-$15,000 EF lenses for a very long time yet, I think
Upvote
0
I'm pretty curious as to the sturdiness and build quality of the Sony 400/2.8. The experience I have with Sony telephotos at the moment is the 100-400 GM, which I have mixed feelings about. While it is certainly a fine piece of engineering, it also feels like a delicate flower in comparison to the 100-400L2. It's also missing mechanical focus, the ability to just grab the ring and focus, or even, unlike the 70-200 a tactile way of knowing when manual focus is at either end. On the other hand, the programable button is cool, and I am fond of the tripod foot design.
Upvote
0
It would look that way on paper, but the Tamron & Sigma 150-600mm F/5-6.3 aren't impressive at all on the long end. Low contrast, slow AF, pincushion distortion, and aberrations that usually accompany super-telephoto zooms, compared to a prime that is. A Canon 600mm F/8 with IS and USM auto-focus motors would be a very compelling choice for anyone interested in sports or wildlife photography. It might be a smaller aperture than the Sig and Tammy 150-600, but that means Canon would be able to apply better optical corrections when shooting wide-open. I'd happily shoot at 1/2 to 2/3 of a stop more ISO if it meant getting fast and consistent focus, better contrast, better CA management, and better image stabilization than what a 3rd-party superzoom could offer at 600mm and F/6.3.
Upvote
0
This kind of lenses takes a really long time to develop.
I can't see that Canon cares about weight only that much.
Just because of what some other brand is doing.
Upvote
0
Nikon recently released an "upgraded" 200-400/4 which is a 180-400/4, built in a TC and made it lighter at the same time.
If canon will release a new 400/2,8 without a built-in TC.
I will be seriously disappointed.
I would, seriously, prefer a lens a bit bigger, and a little bit heavier, with a built-in TC.
Then one without.
And I do say that with experience from traveling a lot with heavy gear at international championships.
(Like EURO 2016 in France, 8000 KiloMeters (5000 miles) during one month.
https://agency.jkpg-sports.photo/index/G0000QZWjtakA.cg
Or the FIFA WC in Russia, 13000 KiloMeters (8000 miles) during five weeks.
https://agency.jkpg-sports.photo/index/G0000FrucfpGrwrQ).
If canon will release a new 400/2,8 without a built-in TC.
I will be seriously disappointed.
I would, seriously, prefer a lens a bit bigger, and a little bit heavier, with a built-in TC.
Then one without.
And I do say that with experience from traveling a lot with heavy gear at international championships.
(Like EURO 2016 in France, 8000 KiloMeters (5000 miles) during one month.
https://agency.jkpg-sports.photo/index/G0000QZWjtakA.cg
Or the FIFA WC in Russia, 13000 KiloMeters (8000 miles) during five weeks.
https://agency.jkpg-sports.photo/index/G0000FrucfpGrwrQ).
Upvote
0
Then brace yourself for the disappointment then, because a 400/2.8 with a built-in TC wouldn't be a "Mk III" - it would be the first version of such a lens.
It's not that I don't understand why you want it, it's just that this is not what the rumor is telling.
Upvote
0
The keyword here is "rumor".
And I will for sure not take anything for granted until we receive official information on this topic.
Canon introduced the built-in TC in their 200-400 that was released in 2013.
(After they changed the construction. They shoved a prototype in 2011).
The 400/2,8L IS II USM was released in 2011.
To me, it would make no sense at all if they wouldn't have worked on 400/2,8 with a built-in TC.
Let's remember that there is a seven-year timespan since the release of the 400/2,8L IS II USM.
I might end up being totally wrong here.
But it would make no sense to me at all.
If Canon wouldn´t use their knowledge from developing their 200-400/4 and built-in TC, with the upcoming 400/2,8.
From a business perspective, a built-in TC makes a ton more of sense, than not having it built-in.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
venusFivePhotoStudio
Venus Five Photo Studio
Nobody would use such a lens
try to add a x2 converter and a x1.4 converter on a 2.8 lens and you'll understand why.
Upvote
0
I am not basing my comments "on paper". I own and use the 400mm DO II, 100-400mm II and the Sigma 150-600mm C, and used to have the 300mm f2.8 II. My Sigma is as sharp at the centre as the 300mm f/2.8 II + 2xTC or the 400mm DO II + 1.4xTC. It's a very good lens, though there are bad copies out there. Have you compared those lenses yourself or are your comments based on what you have seen on paper?
Upvote
0
I find it highly unlikely we will know anything about its durability until long after the release date. We might have a few people disassemble one to make qualitative assessments in September or October, but unless Sony publishes its reliability engineering (which I’ll note is a discipline based in statistics), anything conclusive will take time and a sizeable sample.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
