2013 - The Year for 400mm Lenses? [CR1]

[DWM]

I would like to see the 100-400 improved with the 4 stop IS, better image quality and a twist zoom instead of the push/pull that sucks dirt and moisture in everytime you slide it. If they would improve it enough then there wouldn't be a need for the 400 f5.6 prime. Better yet I would love for them to make a high IQ zoom to go up to 500mm f5.6 to compete with the 500mm f6.3 zoom that both Sigma and Tamron have.

 

[samkatz]

They sell a lot more of the 100-400's than the 400 f5.6. My contact at Henry's said 20 to 1, if not higher.

I have a Sigma 120-400 and access to a 100-400 at work. The Sigma beats the Canon.... this has to be putting pressure on Canon to upgrade it.

I played a few times with the 400 5.6 and greatly prefer it, except no IS for my shaky hands... I tend to shoot a lot from a canoe so IS is a big thing for me. If a 400 5.6 with IS came out I would be sorely tempted.... or maybe a 500 f6.3 IS??????? I can't afford the $10,000 chunks of glass so something a bit more moderate would be greatly appreciated.

Don, can you elaborate on the Sigma vs Canon comparison??? If I tire of waiting for the "new" 100-400 I might buy the Sigma. I was never quite happy w/the 100-400 and sold it, still rent one now and then. The reviews I read of the two Sigmas (120-400, 120-500) werent' great. Tx.

 

[Loswr]

...a twist zoom instead of the push/pull that sucks dirt and moisture in everytime you slide it.

Is that Internet wisdom speaking, or do you have that problem with your copy of the lens? If the latter, your copy is likely defective and should be sent for service. If the former, did that 'expert' mention the fact that the 100-400L has dust/moisture seals under the switches and zoom/focus ring, and lacks only the mount gasket to be a 'weather sealed' lens like its push-pull cousin, the 28-300L?

I trust you're aware that lenses aren't hermetically sealed - any extending zoom design, whether push-pull or twist, 'sucks air' with every extension and expels it with every retraction. If you have a 'sealed' extending zoom like a 24-105L, etc., extend the barrel, then hold the lens up and look into the lens mount while retracting the barrel - the eye-blow will make you blink! The 100-400 moves more air, because of the larger internal volume, but making it a twist zoom won't change that. Making it an internal zoom, like the 70-200L lenses, would change that...at the cost of making it an >11" long lens, all the time. I say, "No, thanks," to that.

 

[Don Haines]

I have a Sigma 120-400 and access to a 100-400 at work. The Sigma beats the Canon.... this has to be putting pressure on Canon to upgrade it.

Don, can you elaborate on the Sigma vs Canon comparison??? If I tire of waiting for the "new" 100-400 I might buy the Sigma. I was never quite happy w/the 100-400 and sold it, still rent one now and then. The reviews I read of the two Sigmas (120-400, 120-500) werent' great. Tx.

My test was not very scientific, only one copy of each lens, plus a Sigma 150-500 and a Canon 400 5.6....

The setup was a tripod mount, outdoors on a clear sunny day, and the target was cars on the other side of the parking lot. I can't remember what the shutter speed was, but it was ISO800, fastest F stop, and the body was a 60D. All lenses were manually focused with live view, zoomed in all the way. Shutter was 10 second delay so any vibrations would hopefully be dampened out. Image evaluation was by using the rear display to zoom in on a selected area of the picture, a car licence plate at the center of the picture.

Canon 100-400 at 400 5.6, could barely read liscence plate
Sigma 120-400 at 400 5.6, could read plate
Sigma 150-500 at 500 6.3, could not read plate
Canon 400 at 5.6, plate was very readable

I had expected the Canon 400 to be the best, and no suprise there. I expected the Canon 100-400 to be better than the Sigma 120-400 so I was suprised to find otherwise. I had also expected that the longer range of the Sigma 150-500 would resolve better than the shorter 120-400 so I was very suprised to find otherwise

 

[helpful]

400mm f/4 is exactly what I need if it's super, super sharp. I will refuse to pay $7,000 for it, however. $3,000 is the most I would pay if it also has IS and is absolutely perfect in every way. Otherwise, it's worth paying four times more to get the 400mm f/2.8.

Next would be a 135mm f/1.8 that is faster focusing than the current 135mm f/2. The most I would pay is $2,000 if it is extremely good, like at least 200 lp/mm sharper than the current camera.

 

[Loswr]

400mm f/4 is exactly what I need if it's super, super sharp. I will refuse to pay $7,000 for it, however. $3,000 is the most I would pay if it also has IS and is absolutely perfect in every way.

You might, just might, be able to find a beat-up old EF 400mm f/4.5L for $3K. If you honestly think a new 400/4L IS will be under $5K, you should see a psychiatrist for a diagnosis, or possibly a rehab clinic to flush out some illicit narcotics...

 

[AlanF]

I have a Sigma 120-400 and access to a 100-400 at work. The Sigma beats the Canon.... this has to be putting pressure on Canon to upgrade it.

Don, can you elaborate on the Sigma vs Canon comparison??? If I tire of waiting for the "new" 100-400 I might buy the Sigma. I was never quite happy w/the 100-400 and sold it, still rent one now and then. The reviews My test was not very scientific, only one copy of each lens, plus a Sigma 150-500 and a Canon 400 5.6....

The setup was a tripod mount, outdoors on a clear sunny day, and the target was cars on the other side of the parking lot. I can't remember what the shutter speed was, but it was ISO800, fastest F stop, and the body was a 60D. All lenses were manually focused with live view, zoomed in all the way. Shutter was 10 second delay so any vibrations would hopefully be dampened out. Image evaluation was by using the rear display to zoom in on a selected area of the picture, a car licence plate at the center of the picture.

Canon 100-400 at 400 5.6, could barely read liscence plate
Sigma 120-400 at 400 5.6, could read plate
Sigma 150-500 at 500 6.3, could not read plate
Canon 400 at 5.6, plate was very readable

I had expected the Canon 400 to be the best, and no suprise there. I expected the Canon 100-400 to be better than the Sigma 120-400 so I was suprised to find otherwise. I had also expected that the longer range of the Sigma 150-500 would resolve better than the shorter 120-400 so I was very suprised to find otherwise

I have tested two copies of a 100-400mm L, one was soft, and the other as good as a 400mm L. Slrgear give about 2-2.5 blur units for the 400mm L and the zoom L at 400mm, and a blurry 7 units for the Sigma 120-400mm at 400 mm (although it is very good at shorter lengths). So, I guess you have been unlucky with your copy of the 100-400mm L and lucky with your Sigma.

I have no problems with the 100-400mm L sucking in dirt. But, that is on a weather sealed 7D. I have read reports of problems with unsealed bodies. But, as Neuroanatomist has pointed out that that could happen with rotating zooms as well.

 

[DWM]

...a twist zoom instead of the push/pull that sucks dirt and moisture in everytime you slide it.

Is that Internet wisdom speaking, or do you have that problem with your copy of the lens? If the latter, your copy is likely defective and should be sent for service. If the former, did that 'expert' mention the fact that the 100-400L has dust/moisture seals under the switches and zoom/focus ring, and lacks only the mount gasket to be a 'weather sealed' lens like its push-pull cousin, the 28-300L?

I trust you're aware that lenses aren't hermetically sealed - any extending zoom design, whether push-pull or twist, 'sucks air' with every extension and expels it with every retraction. If you have a 'sealed' extending zoom like a 24-105L, etc., extend the barrel, then hold the lens up and look into the lens mount while retracting the barrel - the eye-blow will make you blink! The 100-400 moves more air, because of the larger internal volume, but making it a twist zoom won't change that. Making it an internal zoom, like the 70-200L lenses, would change that...at the cost of making it an >11" long lens, all the time. I say, "No, thanks," to that.

No it is not internet wisdom. I do have the 100-400. So far I have not had a problem big enough to send it in for service. There is some dust visible but does not effect image quality yet. I know others that have sold theirs for this reason before it got too bad so it is not just my copy. Ironically I have have had more dust problems with the camera it is used on. Obviously something that moves that much air is going to move dust and moisture. I am far more cautious with this lens than with my other setups because of this risk. Unless they install a filter system the seal will not stop small dust and moisture particals. If the seal is tight enough to stop this without a filter then the lens wouldn't slide very well because the air couldn't pass through.

Now on the second part,(sorry I didn't make it clear enough) I was refering to the internal zoom like the 70-200 f2.8 where the air exchange is all inside because nothing externally extends. I'm smart enough to know that there is no difference simply because of the method used to extend it.

As the length goes, I feel it would not need to be >11". It should be doable by adding only a little more length than say the 70-200 2.8 IS II with a 2x tele installed. Yes I know there would be more to it than just add 2x optics. That is why I said a "little more" length. That should put it just under 11" which isn't a problem for me on a lens with that much range. A fixed length lens is a lot easier to keep balanced on a gimbal tripod at all focal lengths. Interesting thing is the 70-200 2.8 IS II I had with a 2x tele was just as sharp as the 100-400 in the center which is about all I'm concerned with at that focal length. Only time will tell what Canon will decide is best if any change comes.

 

[coreyhkh]

I would be interested in a 100-400 and 400 5.6 to go along with my 500 f4.

will have to see more info and reviews before I buy though.

 

[Don Haines]

I have a Sigma 120-400 and access to a 100-400 at work. The Sigma beats the Canon.... this has to be putting pressure on Canon to upgrade it.

Don, can you elaborate on the Sigma vs Canon comparison??? If I tire of waiting for the "new" 100-400 I might buy the Sigma. I was never quite happy w/the 100-400 and sold it, still rent one now and then. The reviews My test was not very scientific, only one copy of each lens, plus a Sigma 150-500 and a Canon 400 5.6....

The setup was a tripod mount, outdoors on a clear sunny day, and the target was cars on the other side of the parking lot. I can't remember what the shutter speed was, but it was ISO800, fastest F stop, and the body was a 60D. All lenses were manually focused with live view, zoomed in all the way. Shutter was 10 second delay so any vibrations would hopefully be dampened out. Image evaluation was by using the rear display to zoom in on a selected area of the picture, a car licence plate at the center of the picture.

Canon 100-400 at 400 5.6, could barely read liscence plate
Sigma 120-400 at 400 5.6, could read plate
Sigma 150-500 at 500 6.3, could not read plate
Canon 400 at 5.6, plate was very readable

I had expected the Canon 400 to be the best, and no suprise there. I expected the Canon 100-400 to be better than the Sigma 120-400 so I was suprised to find otherwise. I had also expected that the longer range of the Sigma 150-500 would resolve better than the shorter 120-400 so I was very suprised to find otherwise

I have tested two copies of a 100-400mm L, one was soft, and the other as good as a 400mm L. Slrgear give about 2-2.5 blur units for the 400mm L and the zoom L at 400mm, and a blurry 7 units for the Sigma 120-400mm at 400 mm (although it is very good at shorter lengths). So, I guess you have been unlucky with your copy of the 100-400mm L and lucky with your Sigma.

I have no problems with the 100-400mm L sucking in dirt. But, that is on a weather sealed 7D. I have read reports of problems with unsealed bodies. But, as Neuroanatomist has pointed out that that could happen with rotating zooms as well.

As said, my test was very unscientific. It shows that they appear to be in the same ballpark, but to start saying one was better or worse with any kind of real value, you would need to be running a dozen or more copies of each lens through the test.... and if you were going through all that trouble you would use a better target than a liscence plate.

 

[Loswr]

...a twist zoom instead of the push/pull that sucks dirt and moisture in everytime you slide it.

Is that Internet wisdom speaking, or do you have that problem with your copy of the lens? If the latter, your copy is likely defective and should be sent for service. If the former, did that 'expert' mention the fact that the 100-400L has dust/moisture seals under the switches and zoom/focus ring, and lacks only the mount gasket to be a 'weather sealed' lens like its push-pull cousin, the 28-300L?

I trust you're aware that lenses aren't hermetically sealed - any extending zoom design, whether push-pull or twist, 'sucks air' with every extension and expels it with every retraction. If you have a 'sealed' extending zoom like a 24-105L, etc., extend the barrel, then hold the lens up and look into the lens mount while retracting the barrel - the eye-blow will make you blink! The 100-400 moves more air, because of the larger internal volume, but making it a twist zoom won't change that. Making it an internal zoom, like the 70-200L lenses, would change that...at the cost of making it an >11" long lens, all the time. I say, "No, thanks," to that.

No it is not internet wisdom. I do have the 100-400. So far I have not had a problem big enough to send it in for service. There is some dust visible but does not effect image quality yet. I know others that have sold theirs for this reason before it got too bad so it is not just my copy. Ironically I have have had more dust problems with the camera it is used on. Obviously something that moves that much air is going to move dust and moisture. I am far more cautious with this lens than with my other setups because of this risk. Unless they install a filter system the seal will not stop small dust and moisture particals. If the seal is tight enough to stop this without a filter then the lens wouldn't slide very well because the air couldn't pass through.

Now on the second part,(sorry I didn't make it clear enough) I was refering to the internal zoom like the 70-200 f2.8 where the air exchange is all inside because nothing externally extends. I'm smart enough to know that there is no difference simply because of the method used to extend it.

As the length goes, I feel it would not need to be >11". It should be doable by adding only a little more length than say the 70-200 2.8 IS II with a 2x tele installed. Yes I know there would be more to it than just add 2x optics. That is why I said a "little more" length. That should put it just under 11" which isn't a problem for me on a lens with that much range. A fixed length lens is a lot easier to keep balanced on a gimbal tripod at all focal lengths. Interesting thing is the 70-200 2.8 IS II I had with a 2x tele was just as sharp as the 100-400 in the center which is about all I'm concerned with at that focal length. Only time will tell what Canon will decide is best if any change comes.

Fair enough... Perhaps I've been lucky, no dust in my 100-400mm to date (had it nearly 3 years). Used mostly on a 7D, no dust on the sensor, either (5DII was a different story). I find my copy to be a little sharper (even in the center) compared to my 70-200 II + 2x, but the difference isn't much.

Generally speaking, a new design can be lighter, but only slightly shorter. As for the 70-200 II + 2x, the combo measures just over 10" anyway, so 'a little more length' than that is getting pretty close to 11" anyway. For me, the 8" length of the current (retracted) lens is as long as is convenient for me - fits in a Lowepro Toploader 75 AW with a 1D X and 1.4xIII mounted, fits upright in my Storm im2720 hard case, and any longer would nix both.

 

[max]

The only lens I would buy would be a 100-400mm right now... Or a 400mm f/4 below 3 grand.

 

[DWM]

Or a 400mm f/4 below 3 grand.

If they build one under 3 grand you better stay clear of it for quality purposes. Keep in mind that the reason the current 400 f4 is a DO is because it is cheaper to build that way. A non DO will positively be higher than the current DO f4 which is right around $5900

 

[tnargs]

<li>EF 400 f/5.6L IS (Highly desired)</li>

<li>EF 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS (Not push-pull & patents exists)</li>

How about some product differentiation, make one of these an EF-S and reward the 90% of Canon DSLR owners with the first ever high quality telephoto Canon lens that is smaller, lighter, and optimized for their sensors.

 

[Loswr]

<li>EF 400 f/5.6L IS (Highly desired)</li>

<li>EF 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS (Not push-pull & patents exists)</li>

How about some product differentiation, make one of these an EF-S and reward the 90% of Canon DSLR owners with the first ever high quality telephoto Canon lens that is smaller, lighter, and optimized for their sensors.

Telephoto lens designs have the entrance pupil essentially at or very near the front element. As a result, there's really nothing to be gained by a smaller image circle for a telephoto lens - a 400/5.6 with an EF-S image circle will need most of the same sized elements as an EF lens. Thus, there's no point in an EF-S version, as it would not be significantly smaller or lighter, nor cheaper.

 

[discojuggernaut]

All the people wanting a cheap 400mm f/4, isn't it somewhat like asking for a cheap 200mm f/2 or a cheap 300mm f/2.8? I don't have my calculator out, but i assume the math is somewhat close. Seeing as both those lenses are in the $6K and up level, how would one assume that a 400mm f/4 wouldn't be at least as much?

 

[Loswr]

All the people wanting a cheap 400mm f/4, isn't it somewhat like asking for a cheap 200mm f/2 or a cheap 300mm f/2.8? I don't have my calculator out, but i assume the math is somewhat close. Seeing as both those lenses are in the $6K and up level, how would one assume that a 400mm f/4 wouldn't be at least as much?

...one could be delusional.

 

[JonAustin]

Once the 200-400mm F/4L IS + 1.4x proves itself in the market, I'd love to see Canon come out with a version sans the built-in teleconverter. While I see the utility of this feature, and I appreciate the engineering accomplishment it represents, I already have a 1.4x II, and I'd rather mount it the old-fashioned way when needed, and save the $$$ and ### instead.

 

[LDS]

You might, just might, be able to find a beat-up old EF 400mm f/4.5L for $3K. If you honestly think a new 400/4L IS will be under $5K, you should see a psychiatrist for a diagnosis, or possibly a rehab clinic to flush out some illicit narcotics...

Did ever Canon made an EF 400/4.5L? I can't find it anywhere, Canon Camera Museum has no references.

In the '80s the FD 400/4.5 costed slightly less than a third of the FD 400/2.8. Thereby I guess it could be possibile today to deliver an EF 400/4.5 in the $3000-4000 range, which would make it cheaper than the DO. If it could have enough sales it's another matter.

 

[Loswr]

You might, just might, be able to find a beat-up old EF 400mm f/4.5L for $3K. If you honestly think a new 400/4L IS will be under $5K, you should see a psychiatrist for a diagnosis, or possibly a rehab clinic to flush out some illicit narcotics...

Did ever Canon made an EF 400/4.5L? I can't find it anywhere, Canon Camera Museum has no references.

In the '80s the FD 400/4.5 costed slightly less than a third of the FD 400/2.8. Thereby I guess it could be possibile today to deliver an EF 400/4.5 in the $3000-4000 range, which would make it cheaper than the DO. If it could have enough sales it's another matter.

You're right - I was thinking of the EF 500mm f/4.5L. Thanks for the correction! I doubt Canon would release an f/4.5 supertele lens at this point, given the reasonable assumption that most would want the option to use a TC, and that would require an f/4 lens for AF to work on most bodies.