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

YuengLinger

EOS 7D Mark II
Dec 20, 2012
1,895
19
Southeastern USA
#21
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???
Yes, Canon caters strictly to CR forum members, so, of course, they should imitate Sony just to satisfy us. Silly Billy.
 

Talys

Canon 6DII
Feb 16, 2017
1,818
83
Vancouver, BC
#23
Yes, Canon caters strictly to CR forum members, so, of course, they should imitate Sony just to satisfy us. Silly Billy.
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.
 
Sep 6, 2017
73
3
#24
A cheap 600mm f/8 will be unlikely to be competitive with the current cheap 150-600mm f/6.3s from Sigma and Tamron.
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.
 

sportskjutaren

Pro sports photographer
#26
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.
...
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.
 

sportskjutaren

Pro sports photographer
#27
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).
 

kaihp

EOS Rebel T7i
Mar 19, 2012
833
2
#28
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.
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.
 
Mar 2, 2014
26
4
#30
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???
Since none...
 

sportskjutaren

Pro sports photographer
#31
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.
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:
#33
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.
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.
 

AlanF

EOS 5DS R
Aug 16, 2012
3,930
181
#34
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.
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?
 

3kramd5

EOS 5D Mark IV
Mar 2, 2012
2,547
111
#36
We don't know the durability of Sony 400mm 2.8 until September.
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.
 

Mikehit

EOS 5D Mark IV
Jul 28, 2015
3,006
216
#38
Yueng Linger deleted his post - he was repeating his claim that the big white refresh is a last throw of the EF dice.