Who would throw ~1200€ for new 300mm 4L IS II or 400mm 5.6L IS?

[Steve Dmark2]

Hello Everybody,

as i own a 300mm 4L IS lens which was released back in 1997 I desperatelly want to have the same lens with today advanced technology.
I don't need a zoom lens for the generally known reasons

This is what i wish:

[list type=decimal]
[*]300mm 4L IS ii with similar performance with 1.4x and 2x teleconverters like the 300mm 2.8 ii
With todays stabilizer and USM autofocus.
Also I wish for weather sealing and that the lens hood is still integrated like current version.
I also wish the reduction of minimal focus distance to 1m (like the 100-400)
I Prefer the 300 with converters over the 400 because i can have aperture of 4 if i need.
[/list]


Or:

• 400mm 5.6L IS with todays stabilizer and USM autofocus.
  Also a closer minimal focus distance is a given.

Give me your opinion if or which of the both lenses you want to see in 2017.

 

[Maximilian]

Hi Steve!

Personally I do not have the money to spend on a tele prime as well as a tele zoom.
So my choice would be the opposite, meaning I'd go for a 100-400 mm zoom because it is more versatile for me.

But I also understand the advantages of a prime and that there should be a market for such lenses.
(And if I had the money I'd be interested in such a lens, too)

So now back to your initial question:
I'd prefer a 300/4L IS II if I could choose.

Reasons:
It is a little bit smaller and lighter than the 400/5.6L if I look at the actual numbers. (4 cm)
It is more versatile, as you could combine it with a 1.4x TC and could still offer almost the same IQ than a native 400/5.6L.
So you have two lenses in one as you do not always need 400 mm reach.
And you have a f4 lens, that could help you in difficult light conditions like twilight and nightfall.

Of course I would expect the built and optical quality similar to the latest L releases as well as IS, weather sealing and so on.

Although I suppose I won't buy neither of those two lenses I hope I will see both - or at least one - of those fantasy lenses because I want to know what IQ Canon can deliver with todays technology, esp. compared to the zoom.

Maybe that would make me change my initial opinion

 

[tron]

Hello Everybody,

as i own a 300mm 4L IS lens which was released back in 1997 I desperatelly want to have the same lens with today advanced technology.
I don't need a zoom lens for the generally known reasons

This is what i wish:

[list type=decimal]
[*]300mm 4L IS ii with similar performance with 1.4x and 2x teleconverters like the 300mm 2.8 ii
With todays stabilizer and USM autofocus.
Also I wish for weather sealing and that the lens hood is still integrated like current version.
I also wish the reduction of minimal focus distance to 1m (like the 100-400)
I Prefer the 300 with converters over the 400 because i can have aperture of 4 if i need.
[/list]


Or:

• 400mm 5.6L IS with todays stabilizer and USM autofocus.
  Also a closer minimal focus distance is a given.

Give me your opinion if or which of the both lenses you want to see in 2017.

1. As I have an excellent 100-400 4.5-5.6L IS II I wouldn't care for 400 5.6 L IS.
2. I also have a much older than yours 300 f/4. The non-IS version: 300mm f/4L. It is sharper than IS version and remains excellent with 1.4X. So I would have no need for a new 300. But I understand that both desired prime lenses (if made by Canon) would be a terrific IQ and size combination.

 

[Mikehit]

Why not wish for a 400mm f5.6 II with performance with extenders?

it all depends on what you want to use the lens for.

 

[nc0b]

I get better BIF results with my 400mm f/5.6 than my 100-400mm II. If the zoom had a second focus limiter option of 10m, the zoom would likely do as well. Unfortunately the zoom can focus hunt down to 3m and never recover. On the other hand, the zoom does well with the 1.4X TC III, while the prime does not.

 

[chrysoberyl]

Definitely a 400mm 5.6L IS with todays stabilizer and USM autofocus. I'd cough up another $500 if it was f/5. I will not have the 100-400 II for all the usual reasons.

John

 

[Mikehit]

Definitely a 400mm 5.6L IS with todays stabilizer and USM autofocus. I'd cough up another $500 if it was f/5. I will not have the 100-400 II for all the usual reasons.

John

....'usual reasons'?

 

[Don Haines]

Definitely a 400mm 5.6L IS with todays stabilizer and USM autofocus. I'd cough up another $500 if it was f/5. I will not have the 100-400 II for all the usual reasons.

John

The 400F5.6 is lighter than the 100-400, an updated version will be sharper, it will cost less, and since it is a constant length, it will not be pumping dust and humidity through the lens and camera when it gets zoomed. The last point is a huge consideration when you are operating under adverse environmental conditions....

 

[JonAustin]

I'd trade in my 100-400 II for a 300mm 4L IS II with built-in 1.4x extender!

 

[j-nord]

This has been discussed quite a few times in the last year.

I have a 100-400ii but would still be interested in a 500 f5.6 IS to pair with it.

I don't think there is a big market for a 400 5.6 IS since most people that still use the un-stabilized lens do so because they DO NOT want IS for BIF but do want a smaller lighter lens with that 10m AF stopper.

However, I think a 500 f5.6 IS with good 10m AF stopper would have broader appeal for both 400 f5.6, 100-400II , and big white users though, probably being a bit more expensive than the 100-400ii. 300 f4 IS II also makes sense in the line up for portrait and outdoor sports and some casual wildlife.

 

[streestandtheatres]

This makes sense to me. Though I would love to upgrade my 400 5.6 to an IS model. It's great for birds in flight at the moment, but it would also be useful to have IS for when the bird lands and I don't want to use 1/2000... I can see why a lot of people like the 100-400 but birds don't hang around and I find it easier to quickly compose a shot with a prime. I use the 8.5 to infinity nearly all the time.

I have no interest in a 300 f4.

This has been discussed quite a few times in the last year.

I have a 100-400ii but would still be interested in a 500 f5.6 IS to pair with it.

I don't think there is a big market for a 400 5.6 IS since most people that still use the un-stabilized lens do so because they DO NOT want IS for BIF but do want a smaller lighter lens with that 10m AF stopper.

However, I think a 500 f5.6 IS with good 10m AF stopper would have broader appeal for both 400 f5.6, 100-400II , and big white users though, probably being a bit more expensive than the 100-400ii. 300 f4 IS II also makes sense in the line up for portrait and outdoor sports and some casual wildlife.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

've had the version I lenses and would not have a interest in version II. I think that Canon is doing the right thing in making the original versions available at bargain prices, it lets those with less money to invest get a excellent lens.

A new version would double the price.

 

[Steve Dmark2]

Definitely a 400mm 5.6L IS with todays stabilizer and USM autofocus. I'd cough up another $500 if it was f/5. I will not have the 100-400 II for all the usual reasons.

John

....'usual reasons'?

Heavier, less good weather sealing, AF Speed, AF Accuracy...

 

[Steve Dmark2]

I like the possibility to go to 4L because most birds hide in shades and it gives me lower ISO with my 7Dmark2.
The converter build in would also be fun.

So I see that im not the only one interessted in such a lens type.
There is definitely a market for those!
But weird though that canon does not update theirs.
Even more weird that the third party lenses are not even existing.

 

[Mikehit]

Even more weird that the third party lenses are not even existing.

I agree it does seem weird but maybe their absence suggests there being no market for it.
Anyone wanting a 400prime will value the f4/f2.8 models and maybe 400mm is getting to specialised that at f5.6 the zoom more versatile for their use.

 

[chrysoberyl]

Definitely a 400mm 5.6L IS with todays stabilizer and USM autofocus. I'd cough up another $500 if it was f/5. I will not have the 100-400 II for all the usual reasons.

John

....'usual reasons'?

Heavier, less good weather sealing, AF Speed, AF Accuracy...

Sorry, I was disinclined to be repetitious and I posted something like this recently:

1. Lighter weight.
2. Smaller size.
3. No dust and moisture huffing.
4. Sharper edges.
5. Less CA and flare because there are fewer elements.
6. Fewer elements should also make it less expensive.
7. Fewer elements should also result in faster and more accurate AF.
8. No lens creep.

John

 

[AlanF]

Definitely a 400mm 5.6L IS with todays stabilizer and USM autofocus. I'd cough up another $500 if it was f/5. I will not have the 100-400 II for all the usual reasons.

John

....'usual reasons'?

Heavier, less good weather sealing, AF Speed, AF Accuracy...

Sorry, I was disinclined to be repetitious and I posted something like this recently:

1. Lighter weight.
2. Smaller size.
3. No dust and moisture huffing.
4. Sharper edges.
5. Less CA and flare because there are fewer elements.
6. Fewer elements should also make it less expensive.
7. Fewer elements should also result in faster and more accurate AF.
8. No lens creep.

John

2. Smaller? The 100-400 is shorter when retracted to 100mm.
3. Huffing? The discussions are hardly full of complaints.
4. Sharper edges? The 100-400mm II has better MTFs than the 400mm f/5.6 for both edge sharpness as well resolution - https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/page/3/
5. Less CA? The 400mm f/5.6 has more CA - http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/612-canon400f56ff?start=1 http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/896-canon100400f4556is2?start=1

 

[GMCPhotographics]

To be frank, the 300mm f4 LIS is pretty much redundant after the 70-200 f2.8 LIS II and 1.4x TC were released. The 70-200 is sharper and better in every measurable way except weight.
The 400mm f5.6 L, which used to be photographer's birds in flight lens of choice...is pretty much redundant since the new 100-400 f5.6 LIS II.

 

[Steve Dmark2]

...
4. Sharper edges? The 100-400mm II has better MTFs than the 400mm f/5.6 for both edge sharpness as well resolution - https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/page/3/
5. Less CA? The 400mm f/5.6 has more CA - http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/612-canon400f56ff?start=1 http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/896-canon100400f4556is2?start=1
...
[/quote]

But put the 400mm 5.6L IS ontodays technology and it would beat again the 100-400 5.6 II.

 

[Steve Dmark2]

To be frank, the 300mm f4 LIS is pretty much redundant after the 70-200 f2.8 LIS II and 1.4x TC were released. The 70-200 is sharper and better in every measurable way except weight.
The 400mm f5.6 L, which used to be photographer's birds in flight lens of choice...is pretty much redundant since the new 100-400 f5.6 LIS II.

Hello,

Not only weight, but also Pricing.
The reason why somebody buys a 300mm 4L IS is the pricing very well below 2k. The 70-200 IS ii tops that line.

Cheers