Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L IS Mentioned [CR1]

[AlanF]

As long as the new lens focuses faster, is a little sharper and weighs less than the new 100-400 I'm sure there'll be a lot of interest. You can count me in.

If it is sharper, I will defintely buy one to complement the 100-400 II zoom.

 

[stein]

We do have the 300/2.8LIS & 300/4L IS + 1.4x but with better autofocus this will be a killer for birds/wildlife
Updated coating and new glass/IS-technology will make this a lightweight deligt to carry around for us birders!!
On the wishlist already
Stein, Norway

 

[icassell]

Even though I now have the 500/4, I still love my 400/5.6 which was my first birding lens. I haven't used it since yesterday . It is light and easy to stick in a travel bag, whereas the 500 requires some planning. Now that I have the 7D Mk 2, I also now have AF with the 1.4X. I bought this lens after serious debate with myself over it versus the 100-400 (at the time, there was no Mk 2 of that lens) and have never regretted the decision. It is considerably lighter than the 100-400 and easy to hand-hold. It was certainly sharper than the 100-400 mk 1 and a very fast focusing lens. The downside of a f/5.6 lens on my older body has been negated with the better ISO capability on my 7D 2, but IS would make it even better (although that might be a trade for increased weight).

I will certainly consider replacing my Mk 1 if there is a Mk 2. My wishes for a new lens are a shorter MFD and IS.

In the interim, I will be getting the 100-400 v. 2, so the new 400 will need to be superior to that in some way for me to buy it.

 

[brapoza]

Would love to see a 500mm f5.6

 

[9VIII]

The deal is that the 400f5.6, as-is, nearly performs as well as all the V1 Big Whites. That seriously devalues a lot of hardware. They made V2 Big Whites to rectify that, but from an amature's perspective the main thing missing is still just IS, the competition for IQ is still close enough.
Even without adding IS, look at the 100-400MkII VS the 400f5.6 when both have a 2XTC, the zoom still sucks.

The comment about the 400/5.6 vs the 100-440mm II is simply untrue. With the 2xTC the 100-400 II is actually sharper in the centre than the 400/5.6, and you don't put a 2xTC on these lenses to capture the extreme corners - you do it for small subjects in the centre.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=2&LensComp=972&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=6&APIComp=2

I wouldn't use the 2xTC on either of these lenses under normal circumstances. Using the 1.4xTC, which is much more usual, the 2 lenses are pretty much the same. If the 400/f/5.6 performs nearly as well as the big whites then so does the 100-400mm II!

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=1&LensComp=972&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=2

Ok I got this worked out now.

I was comparing on crop where the zoom lens is specifically bad in the corners.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=2&LensComp=972&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=6&APIComp=2

While it's not quite the night and day difference you get on crop, it would still be hard to say that the zoom is better overall in any other circumstance either.
It's close, but picking between the two is easy if you're just looking for the best 400mm lens, the prime lens is generally superior and almost half the price.

 

[Don Haines]

The deal is that the 400f5.6, as-is, nearly performs as well as all the V1 Big Whites. That seriously devalues a lot of hardware. They made V2 Big Whites to rectify that, but from an amature's perspective the main thing missing is still just IS, the competition for IQ is still close enough.
Even without adding IS, look at the 100-400MkII VS the 400f5.6 when both have a 2XTC, the zoom still sucks.

The comment about the 400/5.6 vs the 100-440mm II is simply untrue. With the 2xTC the 100-400 II is actually sharper in the centre than the 400/5.6, and you don't put a 2xTC on these lenses to capture the extreme corners - you do it for small subjects in the centre.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=2&LensComp=972&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=6&APIComp=2

I wouldn't use the 2xTC on either of these lenses under normal circumstances. Using the 1.4xTC, which is much more usual, the 2 lenses are pretty much the same. If the 400/f/5.6 performs nearly as well as the big whites then so does the 100-400mm II!

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=1&LensComp=972&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=2

Ok I got this worked out now.

I was comparing on crop where the zoom lens is specifically bad in the corners.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=2&LensComp=972&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=6&APIComp=2

While it's not quite the night and day difference you get on crop, it would still be hard to say that the zoom is better overall in any other circumstance either.
It's close, but picking between the two is easy if you're just looking for the best 400mm lens, the prime lens is generally superior and almost half the price.

And remember, this is comparing a mark 1 prime to a mark 2 zoom. A mark 2 400f5.6 should have very similar IQ to the 400f2.8 II.

 

[justaCanonuser]

Would love to see a 500mm f5.6

It's available! With EF mount! Just google the famous "Kowa 500mm F/5.6 FL". This lens comes with two (!!) red rings, so it really challenges Canon's L series with only one red ring 8)

 

[MJ]

Would love to see a 500mm f5.6

me too!
500 f5.6 IS L / 600 f5.6 IS L optically on par with their larger cousins, in a price range below 4.5K, in a handholdable relatively compact size
OR
400 f5.6 IS in a price range below 2K, with more contrast, sharper edges, small and lightweight.

 

[Steve Dmark2]

Hello Together,

Did somebody here any news/rumors of this lens?
If Canon would update this lens, im sure they sell tons of it, despite the 100-400 5.6ii

 

[wsmith96]

This rumor has been quiet for a while now.

 

[[email protected]]

Now that the 80D has f/8 capacity at all its focus points, I think Canon could differentiate a very high quality, reasonably-priced 500mm lens against the big whites by pushing it to f/8. I know they've never done this, and it seems unlikely, but the high ISOs needed for f/8 would be seen as the compromise, disallowing those spending $10k on a big white lens from going cheap and relying on this new one.

Canon would get the best of both worlds; hooking thousands of otherwise left-out people into their long lens ecosystem and retaining marketshare, while protecting their highest margin products.

Strategically it makes a lot of sense because where Canon is strongest is an under appreciated quality for most: autofocus capacity. By stretching it to f/8, the competition's versions - were they to follow - would stink at the outset.

And the form factor of that 500 f/8 would be pretty small. Throw in DO optics to reduce length, maybe even make it cover only the crop sensor circle, and you'd have something a bit smaller than the current 400 f/5.6, which is a very manageable lens. Canon would get that part of the market that is too embarrassed to pull out a foot-long piece of hardware at the kid's soccer game - which is a heck of a lot of people now in the age of camera phones. In fact, I suspect this might be the single greatest marketing problem Canon has right now for their lens division.

 

[Don Haines]

This rumor has been quiet for a while now.

Yes, but I am standing by with my credit card for when it happens

BTW, why I would purchase this lens instead of the 100-400 II:

IQ. Given similar materials and technology, a prime is always sharper than a zoom as the design can be optimized for a single focal length.

Dust pump. This is a constant length lens. Every time you zoom a 100-400 in and out you are pumping dust and moisture through the lens.... not very good in poor conditions....

Weight. This will be a lighter lens than the 100-400.

besides, when I need a long lens, it almost always is not long enough.... this lens should play well with teleconverters and give me more reach.....

 

[j-nord]

This discussion in summation:

- I want it
- I won't believe until I see it
- i'd probably prefer a 500 5.6
- there is a huge gap in telephoto pricing, the $2k-$4k range is ripe for the picking
- I won't believe it until I see it
- I want it

I agree with all of the above! ;D

but... years of rumors and 'wants' and we will continue to wait...

 

[wsmith96]

This rumor has been quiet for a while now.

Yes, but I am standing by with my credit card for when it happens

BTW, why I would purchase this lens instead of the 100-400 II:

IQ. Given similar materials and technology, a prime is always sharper than a zoom as the design can be optimized for a single focal length.

Dust pump. This is a constant length lens. Every time you zoom a 100-400 in and out you are pumping dust and moisture through the lens.... not very good in poor conditions....

Weight. This will be a lighter lens than the 100-400.

besides, when I need a long lens, it almost always is not long enough.... this lens should play well with teleconverters and give me more reach.....

I hear ya. In my case, I didn't wait and picked up a refurb 100-400 mkII for a steal during the Christmas season. Was able to grab it for under $1500, so if the 400 prime becomes available as is better, I'm comfortable that I'll be able to get my money back so I can reinvest.

 

[pierlux]

This rumor has been quiet for a while now.

Yes, but I am standing by with my credit card for when it happens

BTW, why I would purchase this lens instead of the 100-400 II:

IQ. Given similar materials and technology, a prime is always sharper than a zoom as the design can be optimized for a single focal length.

Dust pump. This is a constant length lens. Every time you zoom a 100-400 in and out you are pumping dust and moisture through the lens.... not very good in poor conditions....

Weight. This will be a lighter lens than the 100-400.

besides, when I need a long lens, it almost always is not long enough.... this lens should play well with teleconverters and give me more reach.....

+1! And, last but not least, price. Whatever it may cost, it will be much less than the 100-400. For all those who are going to use the 100-400 at the long end most of the time, and eventually own the super-nice 70-300 L, a 400 L IS would be a nice addition to the bag.

 

[mrzero]

Canon would get that part of the market that is too embarrassed to pull out a foot-long piece of hardware at the kid's soccer game - which is a heck of a lot of people now in the age of camera phones. In fact, I suspect this might be the single greatest marketing problem Canon has right now for their lens division.

Huh? Is that really a problem? I thought that was half the fun of buying the big lenses.

 

[9VIII]

I think the biggest change we've seen in the last year is that Nikon released a 500f5.6 zoom lens, and at an extremely attractive price. That's the first of its kind from a first party, and now that Nikon is willing to give people a 90mm front element for under $1,500 we have all sorts of rumors of Canon working on something similar (though we don't know the price).
I'd love to see a 500f5.6 IS Prime for under $2,000 more than anything else. It wouldn't be too hard to make it lighter and sharper than the Nikon option.

 

[Steve Dmark2]

This rumor has been quiet for a while now.

Yes, but I am standing by with my credit card for when it happens

BTW, why I would purchase this lens instead of the 100-400 II:

IQ. Given similar materials and technology, a prime is always sharper than a zoom as the design can be optimized for a single focal length.

Dust pump. This is a constant length lens. Every time you zoom a 100-400 in and out you are pumping dust and moisture through the lens.... not very good in poor conditions....

Weight. This will be a lighter lens than the 100-400.

besides, when I need a long lens, it almost always is not long enough.... this lens should play well with teleconverters and give me more reach.....

My words

 

[chrysoberyl]

I think the biggest change we've seen in the last year is that Nikon released a 500f5.6 zoom lens, and at an extremely attractive price. That's the first of its kind from a first party, and now that Nikon is willing to give people a 90mm front element for under $1,500 we have all sorts of rumors of Canon working on something similar (though we don't know the price).
I'd love to see a 500f5.6 IS Prime for under $2,000 more than anything else. It wouldn't be too hard to make it lighter and sharper than the Nikon option.

This is what I'm waiting for - exactly! Canon AF + 500mm and not a dust pump.

 

[scottkinfw]

I gave up waiting on this lens, but I think I'd buy one in a heartbeat if they actually made it. The best thing about the 400 f/5.6 is that with its small size and weight you can almost always take it with you - I can't say the same with my 300 f/2.8 IS II.

I agree 100%. For me, this lens is fantastic, but I too would buy the new version IS and an improved optics. It is so light and relatively small, it is easy to take, even with strict weight requirements on smaller airplanes.

Bring it on.

sek