A New EF 400 f/5.6L Before Photokina? [CR1]

[Canon Rumors]

<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/09/a-new-ef-400-f5-6l-before-photokina-cr1/"></g:plusone></div><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/09/a-new-ef-400-f5-6l-before-photokina-cr1/"></a></div>
<strong>A new 400mm suggested


</strong>There is a suggestion that we will see the announcement of a new EF 400 f/5.6L before Photokina in September. I would imagine such a lens would  include IS, but I guess  a lot of people assumed the same for a new EF 24-70 f/2.8L II.</p>
<p><strong>Source: [<a href="http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/Canon_new_lenses.html" target="_blank">NL</a>]</strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>

 

[fotoray]

Replacement lens that currently costs about same as 100-400. At f/5.6 why would anyone want this lens? Help me understand benefit over 100-400?

 

[KKCFamilyman]

Unless its sharper.

 

[pmackey]

The 400mm f/5.6 prime is sharper than the 100-400mm.

I really hope they add IS to this lens...

 

[EvillEmperor]

Hm, with a new 100-400 possibly on the way, unless they add IS, I see no real point. 5.6 is too slow for a prime.

 

[pmackey]

I see no real point. 5.6 is too slow for a prime.

They're popular with the birds-in-flight crowd where there is plenty of light so f5.6 is fine. In that situation you usually don't need IS either though.The minimum focus distance is 3.5m... which could also do with an improvement but again, it's not really needed for BIF.

There are faster 400mm primes but they are very expensive compared to the 5.6

 

[Don Haines]

5.6 is too slow for a prime....... like the 800-5.6?

Prime is about the quality of the optics, the quality of the build, the quality of the sealing..... in short a prime lens is a higher quality lens than a regular lens. Yes, they tend to be faster lenses, but it is not speed that makes it a prime lens, it is quality. Not all prime lenses have to weigh 10 pounds and cost $10,000, there is a market for lenses of various degrees of quality and performance.... look at the 70-200 lenses....

and a 400 f2.8 is hard to hand-hold, take hiking up a mountain, or carry on a canoe trip.....

 

[dave]

I sold my original 400mm f/5.6 not long ago because I just didn't get time to use it anymore. However for the price and in decent light it was a great lens for a modest price. It was a bit like the 35L - not the greatest image quality in the world but it made me happy in a way that pictures from the 100-400mm didn't... and after using a 70-200 f/2.8 is ii, it was easy-peasy to handhold.

I helps that the images from the prime weren't being shot through a cloud of internal lens dust.

For me, it is a great option for serious hobbyists who simply can't afford to spend f/2.8 dollars and an upgrade (especially with IS) would be welcomed by many.

 

[Mark1]

If this were true I would expect Canon to release the new 100-400 at the same time. That would cover all the bases for this range. Expensive zoom with IS and less expensive prime with no IS but sharper at 400mm.

Wishful thinking!

 

[funkboy]

Personally i'd like to see a refreshed 300 f/4L IS or 200 f/2.8 IS first. I think they have broader market appeal & should also be less expensive.

Then they can replace the 100-400 so that it's as sharp as the prime at the long end & everyone will be happy (especially the credit card companies...)

 

[Panurus]

Replacement lens that currently costs about same as 100-400. At f/5.6 why would anyone want this lens? Help me understand benefit over 100-400?

The bokeh of prime is better.

 

[epsiloneri]

Replacement lens that currently costs about same as 100-400. At f/5.6 why would anyone want this lens? Help me understand benefit over 100-400?

Short answer: Image quality. Versatility. Weight. Pick two.

Longer answer: Different trade-offs; in general, there are many desirable properties of lenses (including those above + AF, price, etc) that cannot all be optimised at the same time, so you have to make trade-offs depending on your priorities. The 100-400 and 400/5.6 represent different choices (as does the 400/2.8 ). There is no single lens that is best at everything, even if not considering price.

 

[Deleted member 42026]

I was thinking of getting that lens eventually.

Well, so long as the update doesn't take the price out of 'quite affordable' territory. Otherwise forget it for me.

Adding to other's comments: f5.6 for lens like this means that its not $6000!!!!! Yes we want faster, but can one pay it? I can't. I'd love a 400mm f2.8 is ii but nuh uh for the $$$. Unless of course I'm not paying out my own pocket.

 

[Marc_o_]

Stupid question maybe, but : why not a 400mm f/4 ??

The 300/4 IS already exists, so ...

 

[Birdshooter]

Stupid question maybe, but : why not a 400mm f/4 ??

The 300/4 IS already exists, so ...

So does the 400 f/4, it's the DO

 

[Hillsilly]

I wonder if they can make it a little lighter, shorter, give it the sharpness and AF speed of the f2.8 and make it fully weather sealed without affecting the price too much? IS is a nice idea, but I'll happily skip it if it means a big price increase. Like many people, I only venture into 400mm territory when photographing sports and wildlife and IS isn't going to help freeze action much better.

 

[tron]

If it has the latest 4-stop Canon IS and the price is not exorbitant I will think seriously about it...

 

[Canon-F1]

before photokina... they better hurry then.

 

[bvukich]

before photokina... they better hurry then.

Never said which year

 

[vlim]

5.6 is too slow for a prime....... like the 800-5.6?

the 800 f/5.6 too slow ? wow i guess you've never tested it

this new 400 would be great if it's a weather sealed lens with the IS II (and a price under 2k of course)

but if the new unofficilay announced 100-400 f4-5.6 L IS is as good as the 70-300 f4-5.6 L IS in term of sharpness and quality of the image the choice will be a tough one !