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

applecider

EOS Rebel T7
May 20, 2012
461
33
Portland Oregon, Cape Cod
#41
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.
Up to now canon has kept its native f stops on lenses to 5.6 so they work with all cameras. A f8 max lens would not for instance work with a 7D v one, or in my armament my backup SL1. So a long lens max f8 is unlikely.
 
Likes: Isaacheus

CanonFanBoy

EOS 6D Mark II
Jan 28, 2015
2,491
141
Irving, Texas
#42
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.
True. There is never a supply of new buyers and users. It's all the same guys. Once they die there won't be a need for these lenses at all. *rolls eyes*
 

CanonFanBoy

EOS 6D Mark II
Jan 28, 2015
2,491
141
Irving, Texas
#43
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'?
You beat me to it. ;)
 
#47
A 600mm F/8 IS USM would be pretty nice too.
Yes, I would really love to see some telephoto lenses which start at f/8 and therefore are very light, as I take most of my photos at f/8 anyway and I own a camera were autofocus works at f/8.

There are some manufacturers like Danubia that produce 500mm lenses with a fixed f/8 aperture for less than $100, but those have very bad image quality and no autofocus. However those lenses are very light. I would like to see such a lens with autofocus, IS, and a better image quality. Of course that would be somehow heavier, but now as heavy and expensive as the cheapest 500mm options from Canon.
 

Mikehit

EOS 5D Mark IV
Jul 28, 2015
3,010
220
#48
I did not delete my post. It is still there. And still a reasonable conjecture.
My apologies, you didn't - I don't know what happened there but looking at the time difference between your post and mine I may well have got distracted between opening the page and replying resulting in them getting separated on different pages and I could not see it when I looked.
 
Last edited:

docsmith

EOS Rebel T7i
Sep 17, 2010
730
54
#49
o_O:eek:

Been looking for a reason to use these new emojis. Thanks for providing one!

These lenses are designed to be relevant for something approaching decades. Nothing about that is a "last" gasp.

Canon has shown no signs of slowing down on EF lens releases. 85 f/1.4 IS? 70-200 f/4 IS II? The 70-200 III repaint is a bit odd, but I am withholding judgement until reviewers get their hands on it and, who knows, the real driver for that could have been cost savings internal to Canon to make it more viable for a longer period of time. If Canon starts releasing a but of repainted updates, if DSLRs (7DIII, 90D, 5Ds II) are not updated, then you may be onto something if by "last gasp" you actual mean a very long and health wind down like the last few miles of a marathon.
 

YuengLinger

EOS 7D Mark II
Dec 20, 2012
1,897
19
Southeastern USA
#51
o_O:eek:

Been looking for a reason to use these new emojis. Thanks for providing one!

These lenses are designed to be relevant for something approaching decades. Nothing about that is a "last" gasp.

Canon has shown no signs of slowing down on EF lens releases. 85 f/1.4 IS? 70-200 f/4 IS II? The 70-200 III repaint is a bit odd, but I am withholding judgement until reviewers get their hands on it and, who knows, the real driver for that could have been cost savings internal to Canon to make it more viable for a longer period of time. If Canon starts releasing a but of repainted updates, if DSLRs (7DIII, 90D, 5Ds II) are not updated, then you may be onto something if by "last gasp" you actual mean a very long and health wind down like the last few miles of a marathon.
You've phrased it brilliantly. I did not mean that we are going to wake up on a certain date within the next 12 months and find that EF is no longer produced, sold or serviced, but that we are in a time of transition--with EF already planned for a gentle phase out. Certainly there have been tweaks in the pipeline, some small, some large, and they are being introduced now. But if the best possible mirrorless Canon can build to compete and excite involves a new mount, EF will no longer be the sole focus of lens development, obviously. EOS will remain for sale for some years, and adapters will extend the use of EF beyond that.
 

scyrene

EOS 6D Mark II
Dec 4, 2013
2,218
79
UK
www.flickr.com
#52
It would make the lens more versatile.
And Canon would be the only manufacturer to have a 400/2,8 with a built-in TC.
A unique feature only 'makes sense from a business perspective', as you originally said, IF it appeals to more potential customers than a competing product without that feature. We do not know if more possible 400mm f/2.8 buyers would prefer the lens with a built-in extender or without, but we can assume Canon has some idea. It adds length, weight, and cost, which might put other people off, so it isn't necessarily a good business move - it might repel more customers than it attracts (I emphasise *might*, and repeat that none of us here know either way). Incidentally, I am one who uses a supertele with an extender attached almost all the time, so it would appeal to me, but I've seen others saying they definitely wouldn't want a non-removable extender.
 
Sep 6, 2017
73
3
#53
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?
I haven't tried the Sigma 150-600, but I have used the Tamron 150-600 G2. Both are quite comparable from everything I hear. I own the 400mm F/5.6 and I've rented a Sigma 500mm F/4.5 and a Canon 600mm F/4. The fact that your Sigma is as sharp in the center as your 300mm F/2.8 w/ x2TC, or the 400mm F/4 w/ x1.4TC doesn't surprise me at all. I've used both the Canon 1.4TC and 2TC on my super-telephotos - they leave much to be desired. Contrast suffers with the TC, even the ones built by Canon (which are the best that I know of).

My 400/5.6 beat out the Tamron in terms of sharpness, contrast, color rendition, AF speed, and AF accuracy at the 400mm focal length and apertures between 5.6-11. The Sigma 500mm F/4.5 beat out the Tamron in those same categories initially, expect for the AF accuracy, which required some significant microfocus adjustment. After MF adjustment was applied, it beat out the Tamron in AF accuracy as well. And lastly, the Canon 600/4... I don't even know why I'm bothering to say this. As you would expect, the Canon 600/4 when stopped down to f/6.3 (or any aperture) destroys the Tamron at 600mm.

Slapping a Teleconverter on a shorter focal length prime with a maximum aperture twice as large as a prime lens with double the focal length is not an accurate indicator of how that longer prime lens would perform. Super-telephoto lenses are highly complex optical designs that require significant correction and control of aberrations. TC's are a duct tape solution for extended reach, not image quality.
 

sportskjutaren

Pro sports photographer
#54
...
It adds length, weight, and cost, which might put other people off,
...
Nikon upgraded their 200-400/4 to a 180-400/4, added a built-in TC, and made it lighter at the same time.
That said, I would personally prefer a "heavier and bigger" lens with a built-in TC, than one without.
And, as You understand. I do really see a possibility to have a built-in TC and reduce weight at the same time.
 
Jan 26, 2017
233
76
www.flickr.com
#56
You've phrased it brilliantly. I did not mean that we are going to wake up on a certain date within the next 12 months and find that EF is no longer produced, sold or serviced, but that we are in a time of transition--with EF already planned for a gentle phase out. Certainly there have been tweaks in the pipeline, some small, some large, and they are being introduced now. But if the best possible mirrorless Canon can build to compete and excite involves a new mount, EF will no longer be the sole focus of lens development, obviously. EOS will remain for sale for some years, and adapters will extend the use of EF beyond that.
I think it is a bit early to read EF mount's obituary. It's very early to assume mirrorless will replace all DSLRs and that Canon will throw away the EF mount in favour of a new mount - replacing all existing EF lenses with new mount equivalents. For big lenses of this sort, a new mount offers nothing that EF doesn't already, so why re-invent the wheel? It doesn't make sense.

If we look at Nikon's trajectory (since their mirrorless news has been more publicly available), they look as if they are planning for mirrorless to compliment their DLSR line and not replace it. They have said that their mirrorless line will focus on high end primes - notably an f/0.95 lens. Why would they do this? Because a new mount can let them do this where the current mount won't - there is a genuine advantage to having a new mount for that sort of lens.
 

AlanF

EOS 5DS R
Aug 16, 2012
3,937
184
#58
I haven't tried the Sigma 150-600, but I have used the Tamron 150-600 G2. Both are quite comparable from everything I hear. I own the 400mm ............ I've used both the Canon 1.4TC and 2TC on my super-telephotos - they leave much to be desired. Contrast suffers with the TC, even the ones built by Canon (which are the best that I know of)......
Dear oh dear, your standards are indeed much higher that just about everyone else I know. Most of us are rather satisfied with 1.4xTCs on our supertelephotos, and 2xTCs on the more recent lenses fare well. Indeed, the 600mm f/4 II + 1.4xTC is preferred over the bare 800mm f/5.6.

You have been arguing for an f/8 600mm, and it has been pointed out to you that it would not AF on some Canon bodies and cannot be used with TCs. In addition, f/8 is above the diffraction limit for APS-C sensors and high resolution ones like the 5DSR and others down the line. f/8 does not AF that well on most bodies. In short, if you think that TCs leave a lot to be desired, which I dispute, a maximum aperturte f/8 leaves far more to be desired.
 
Last edited:

scyrene

EOS 6D Mark II
Dec 4, 2013
2,218
79
UK
www.flickr.com
#59
Nikon upgraded their 200-400/4 to a 180-400/4, added a built-in TC, and made it lighter at the same time.
That said, I would personally prefer a "heavier and bigger" lens with a built-in TC, than one without.
And, as You understand. I do really see a possibility to have a built-in TC and reduce weight at the same time.
They could reduce the weight from the current one whilst adding in an extender, but a new model with an extender will obviously weigh more than a new model without an extender! Some people want to cut as much weight and size as possible, though I repeat I don't know how many there are of each opinion.
 

scyrene

EOS 6D Mark II
Dec 4, 2013
2,218
79
UK
www.flickr.com
#60
I've used both the Canon 1.4TC and 2TC on my super-telephotos - they leave much to be desired. Contrast suffers with the TC, even the ones built by Canon (which are the best that I know of).
Everybody's standards are different of course, but I find the 1.4x on the 500L II so similar in image quality to the bare lens that I'd not be able to consistently tell shots from them apart. The 2x does degrade things a little. As for contrast, can't that be easily dialled back in during processing?