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

[scyrene]

I've only found it possible to obtain a usable image in post-processing using added contrast if I overexpose by about 2/3 of a stop or more, and have a very well balanced histogram on all of my RGB channels. I'll almost always prefer using a bare lens and cropping to my desired focal length in post than using a TC and boosting contrast. That's just me though.

Well we all have our preferences I've never had to add extra contrast when using the 500L II + 1.4x III simply because of the extender. I'd still expect that if someone posted images taken with a bare supertelephoto lens and the same lens with a 1.4x extender (mark II or mark III) it would be very difficult to tell which were taken with which setup, but that's just my personal experience.

 

[scyrene]

Technically possible, but practically not going to happen because of a very undesirable result. Such an extender, with the optics disengaged, would essentially be an extension tube – providing a shorter minimum focus distance with a concomitant increase in max magnification, but at the cost of preventing distant/infinity focus. Since you generally use a supetele lens with distant subjects, a switchable TC that prevents you from focusing on those distanct subjects when disengaged is basically a non-starter.

With the 200-400mm lens, the TC is in front of the rear element groups, not behind them as an external TC is placed.

You are so wise

 

[Michael Clark]

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.

"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.

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.

The general assumption among those who have observed Canon since the EOS system was introduced in 1987 is that these "underwhelming" refreshes may also include some as yet unrevealed new capability that has to do with an impending release of a new camera in the relatively near future.

Kind of like back in 1995 when the first IS lens was introduced and pretty much all of the EOS bodies introduced since about 1992 already had the ability to control IS under the hood. But no one, including the owners of those cameras, had any clue until the first IS lens was released in 1995. That's when they found out the camera they bought back in 1992 was IS compatible. The same thing was seen earlier this year when Canon announced the new 470EX-AI flash with the new whiz-bang self pointing bounce flash head. It turns out that every new EOS body released since 2014 already has the ability to control this new feature announced in 2018.

Just because Canon has not announced these "underwhelming" lens updates have new capabilities that are yet to be revealed does not mean they're not being built into the new lenses.

 

[beegee]

Any idea if the “other” could be the 600 f/4 DO? With a lighter 400 f/2.8 and an even lighter 600 f/4 DO, would that not make a formidable combo?

 

[Loswr]

Any idea if the “other” could be the 600 f/4 DO? With a lighter 400 f/2.8 and an even lighter 600 f/4 DO, would that not make a formidable combo?

For the umteenth time, the rumor is about MkIII lenses. Not new focal length/aperture combos like a 500/5.6, not new lenses like a 600/4 DO, not adding built-in 1.4x TCs. Updated versions of current MkII lenses. That's all.

 

[beegee]

For the umteenth time, the rumor is about MkIII lenses. Not new focal length/aperture combos like a 500/5.6, not new lenses like a 600/4 DO, not adding built-in 1.4x TCs. Updated versions of current MkII lenses. That's all.

Sorry had missed the detail about MkIII. I thought it was two big whites, one happens to be the 400 f/2.8 MkIII and the other was undisclosed. Completely missed that the undisclosed was also a MkIII. SORRY.

 

[Del Paso]

Sony wants to replace Canon as "the professionals camera of choice" and is mimicking all the lenses Canon do for professionals. What I don't see is true innovation and ground-breaking lens designs so whilst the "soft targets" are being replicated that's not really moving the game on such as the Canon EF 11-24mm f4L did with its rectilinear design.

Not to mention the fabulous new TSE lenses...

 

[TAW]

Technically possible, but practically not going to happen because of a very undesirable result. Such an extender, with the optics disengaged, would essentially be an extension tube – providing a shorter minimum focus distance with a concomitant increase in max magnification, but at the cost of preventing distant/infinity focus. Since you generally use a supetele lens with distant subjects, a switchable TC that prevents you from focusing on those distanct subjects when disengaged is basically a non-starter.

With the 200-400mm lens, the TC is in front of the rear element groups, not behind them as an external TC is placed.

Great explanation. Thank you!

 

[degos]

For the umteenth time, the rumor is about MkIII lenses. Not new focal length/aperture combos like a 500/5.6, not new lenses like a 600/4 DO, not adding built-in 1.4x TCs. Updated versions of current MkII lenses. That's all.

We have no previous experience with what Canon would call an upgrade + TC. They might decide it's a Mk III, they might not. Repeating something you've based on personal conjecture doesn't make it any more true.

 

[Loswr]

We have no previous experience with what Canon would call an upgrade + TC. They might decide it's a Mk III, they might not. Repeating something you've based on personal conjecture doesn't make it any more true.

Oh please.

They put Extender 1.4x in the official name of the 200-400L. They're not going to add a TC and designate it a MkIII.

Making illogical statements doesn't make them less asinine.

 

[Maximilian]

Oh please.

They put Extender 1.4x in the official name of the 200-400L. They're not going to add a TC and designate it a MkIII.

Making illogical statements doesn't make them less asinine.

Especially when this was commented in this thread before, e.g. at post #9.

 

[Pieter]

Exciting rumor - our experience with the 400 II in the Dragonfly team (https://www.dragonflytelescope.org/) is excellent, at least for our purposes; great to see continued work to make awesome lenses even better!

 

[ethanz]

Exciting rumor - our experience with the 400 II in the Dragonfly team (https://www.dragonflytelescope.org/) is excellent, at least for our purposes; great to see continued work to make awesome lenses even better!

It is cool to see you post here. We've all heard about your project.

 

[Thrashard]

I'm pretty much locked in and going to splurge and get the 400mm f/2.8 III next year.

Could there be any chance Canon might release a 500mm 2.8 or are there limitations the larger the zoom ?

 

[Mikehit]

Could there be any chance Canon might release a 500mm 2.8 or are there limitations the larger the zoom ?

Yes - size. The front diameter would have to be 1.4 times the size of that on the f4. Then weight, then the price.

 

[Loswr]

Yes - size. The front diameter would have to be 1.4 times the size of that on the f4. Then weight, then the price.

There's always a possibility...after all, it would be a bit smaller than the 1200mm f/5.6L.

 

[BeenThere]

There's always a possibility...after all, it would be a bit smaller than the 1200mm f/5.6L.

Only in length. A larger front element at f2.8

 

[Loswr]

Only in length. A larger front element at f2.8

No, a 500/2.8 would have a smaller front element than the 1200/5.6 (and be shorter, obviously).

 

[AlanF]

Exciting rumor - our experience with the 400 II in the Dragonfly team (https://www.dragonflytelescope.org/) is excellent, at least for our purposes; great to see continued work to make awesome lenses even better!

Are you using the array for our Dragonfly and Damselfly thread?

 

[Pieter]

Are you using the array for our Dragonfly and Damselfly thread?

No but I did try for an afternoon! When we started building the array I tried out one of the 400's "in the wild" before we mounted it but they are no good for dragonflies, or at least the way I shoot them - I really need to walk around and be able to take shots quickly.. I use the 100-400 II on a 7D II for "portraits" and when I'm hunting for new species, the 100 f2.8 macro for close-ups, and the 300 f4 on a 5D III for in-flight shots (I prefer it over the 100-400 for that purpose because of its lower weight and its large focusing ring). The Dragonfly Array *is* named after the dragonfly photography as that helped inspire its development (the two mounts also kind of look like the eyes of a dragonfly).