A New EF 400 f/5.6L Before Photokina? [CR1]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
- Status
If it does happen it will shorten my wishlist to 35L, 135L and 180L Macro.
I dont like zooms as their image quality cannot approach that of primes. This holds true if the design year are within months of each other.
Zooms are heavier than primes at the furthest focal length and max aperture.
400/5.6 with IS would be a killer light long lens.
It should sell for the same price of a 70-200/2.8 IS II.
I'd be using it at 400mm all the time so a 100-400 would be useless for me.
I dont like zooms as their image quality cannot approach that of primes. This holds true if the design year are within months of each other.
Zooms are heavier than primes at the furthest focal length and max aperture.
400/5.6 with IS would be a killer light long lens.
It should sell for the same price of a 70-200/2.8 IS II.
I'd be using it at 400mm all the time so a 100-400 would be useless for me.
Upvote
0
F
FarQinell
Guest
A new 400/5.6L with IS II would be a fantastic ultra light long lens - nothing like it in the Nikon range.
Perhaps the beginning of the end for the 400/4 DO which Canon do not seem to want to upgrade - image quality wise.
The current 400/5.6 is slightly sharper than the excellent 100-400L and appreciably sharper than the 400/4 DO.
If it comes out and turns out to be even sharper than the current model Canon will sell lots of them.
Perhaps the beginning of the end for the 400/4 DO which Canon do not seem to want to upgrade - image quality wise.
The current 400/5.6 is slightly sharper than the excellent 100-400L and appreciably sharper than the 400/4 DO.
If it comes out and turns out to be even sharper than the current model Canon will sell lots of them.
Upvote
0
dolina said:
My sigma 10-20 at 20 is incredibly sharp as is also my 24-105 and 70-200, there is no descernable difference to my 100mm 2.8, 50 1.4 and or 400 5.6. Modern high quality zooms are excellent and produce ultra sharp images and are no way 'inferior' in image quality to primes. Unless lenses are pushing the extreme boundaries of optical performance and measured in a lab then I'm sure there will a difference but in day to day shooting, nah.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
vlim said:
Given the reason above (shorter retracted length), I sincerely hope it's not an internal zoom, as that would likely make it even slightly longer than the 400/5.6 prime. The current 100-400 is the same size as the 70-200/2.8 and 28-300, meaning it fits nicely in a Toploader Pro 75 AW and other toploading bags. While some (like the ThinkTank ones) are expandable, I really prefer the shorter length.
Personally, I like the push-pull zooms, but I'd be ok with a rotating zoom like the 70-300L.
Upvote
0
Had a Sigma, never gonna go with the brand again. This is my personal preference.Eimajm said:
neuroanatomist said:
A comparison between the 400/5.6 and 100-400 had the prime having a longer focal length than the zoom. This appears to be a standard practice.
I think this rumor's more wishful thinking than an actual product.
Upvote
0
Re the Sigma good or bad debate:
I (still) have a 120-400mm from them, it's not very sharp at 400mm.
I also have a 120-300mm OS from them, and it's sharp enough, and still fares well with a 2X TC on. My only real complaint with it is the background OOF highlight circle can get very busy and this has ruined a few shots that should have been excellent - a crane fishing in a pond.
The IS also seems clumsy to activate, because often the first picture in a series is shake-blurred. Remembering to let the OS (IS) spin up before you start taking photos helps of course.
Trying to track birds at 600mm and up is quite punishing but I find that 400mm is (even on a crop like the 7D) at or even below the bare minimum to get detail on anything but a raptor or a flock of birds. For single birds, especially small ones, I need that 600mm and a much closer minimum focus distance than 3.5M which is quite terrible actually.
I (still) have a 120-400mm from them, it's not very sharp at 400mm.
I also have a 120-300mm OS from them, and it's sharp enough, and still fares well with a 2X TC on. My only real complaint with it is the background OOF highlight circle can get very busy and this has ruined a few shots that should have been excellent - a crane fishing in a pond.
The IS also seems clumsy to activate, because often the first picture in a series is shake-blurred. Remembering to let the OS (IS) spin up before you start taking photos helps of course.
f/5.6 is fine for 800mm because you already have a narrow enough angle of view for birds. 400mm users would like to pop on a teleconverter while retaining AF.Don Haines said:
Trying to track birds at 600mm and up is quite punishing but I find that 400mm is (even on a crop like the 7D) at or even below the bare minimum to get detail on anything but a raptor or a flock of birds. For single birds, especially small ones, I need that 600mm and a much closer minimum focus distance than 3.5M which is quite terrible actually.
It won't get made because they want to sell and make only 500mm f/4L lenses.dhofmann said:
Upvote
0
F
FarQinell
Guest
It won't get made because they want to sell and make only 500mm f/4L lenses.dhofmann said:
[/quote]
Very true neither Canon or Nikon are ever likely to offer a 500/5.6 or 600/5.6 with IS II even though I am sure that there is a market out there for lightweight ultra long lenses.
The best we can hope for from Canon is a new 400/5.6 with IS II and for that we would be extremely grateful - if it ever comes about!
What about Sony then? Their longest "pro" lens currently is a 300/2.8. Perhaps they may be tempted to break the stranglehold Canon/Nikon have on long lenses and come up with something tasty like a prime 500 or 600/5.6!
Upvote
0
vlim said:
Note the question mark.... I was questioning the statement about 5.6 being too slow for a prime and using the 800-5.6 as an example of a 5.6 prime that obviously isn't
Upvote
0
i would like to see both a new 100-400 and 400 is.... debating which one will be better at this stage is mute.... to me it would only make sense that they released the 400 is first, with a big improvement in IQ, then released the 100-400 6 months later with a better than current but not as good as the prime IQ... or if the prime was in fact a couple of hundred bucks cheaper!
Upvote
0
Marsu42 said:
And I shied away and bought the 400mm f/5.6 because I was warned of internal reflections in the DO lenses. Headlights on ALMS cars for example. Could be another case of "what are you shooting"?
I have the 100 - 400 and the 400 5.6 and sold my 400mm f/2.8 (much longer tale) The 2.8 was heavy, blew in the wind and took amazing sharp and clear photos. The 100-400 for my taste is a 100-350, thus I still need a 400mm. Also the 400mm with an extender is pretty reliable, even if manual focus.
But if I'm grabbing one lens, over my shoulder and walking, for long shots, the 400mm f/5.6 is my favorite. Of course, primes are better, why not?
So maybe the DO got a bad rap and maybe they didn't quite cut it? What I really want is the 200-400mm with the 1.4x switch!
Upvote
0
dhofmann said:
Pentax announced a 560mm f/5.6 for $7,000. So the $7500 price is very realistic.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/09/10/Pentax-announces-smc-DA-18-270mm-F3-5-6-3-ED-SDM-and-HD-DA-560mm-F5-6-ED-AW-for-K-mount
Edwin Herdman said:
Other than that there is not enough demand for a 2nd 500mm. Same goes with the 600mm and 800mm.
FarQinell said:
Sony is selling a 500mm but it costs as much as a Canon 800mm!
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/845555-REG/Sony_SAL500F40G_500mm_f_4_0_G_Lens.html
Upvote
0
- Status
