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

[vlim]

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?

If you arlready have the great and light 70-200 f/4 L IS a new 400 is a better choice in my opinion

 

[Etienne]

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?

If it's sharper, faster focus, lighter, smaller, I would look at it. Maybe cheaper too.

 

[Marsu42]

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

Slow because you don't get the necessary shutter speeds? You will in good daylight. And using a 70-300mm on crop (=112-480mm 35mm) I can say that the depth of field with f5.6 is still pretty thin, so if I could with my crappy crop sensor I'd rather use f8 and higher iso often. So if the new 400mm has the new IS, fast af, is sharp, affordable and not that heavy it's a winner unless you plan on using a tc.

 

[Loswr]

the new unofficilay announced 100-400 f4-5.6 L IS

Since when was it unoficially announced? Much less officially? There have been two patents issued on it, and it's been rumored is 'coming soon' for many years.

 

[AvTvM]

the new unofficilay announced 100-400 f4-5.6 L IS

Since when was it unoficially announced? Much less officially? There have been two patents issued on it, and it's been rumored is 'coming soon' for many years.

so true. unfortunately!

I could not care less for a 400/5.6, especially without IS. But I really would like a gret new 100-400/4.0-5.6 with improved IQ on the ling end and latest 4-stop IS.

 

[dave]

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.

It's interesting that you would happily skip IS.

Obviously one wouldn't want to pay heaps but I think in this case about the general rule that without IS you need to shoot a 400mm lens at at least 1/400th to get consistently sharp images. There are many instances where you don't necessarily need a speed of 1/400th to stop movement of wildlife. If IS can help steady the lens so that about 1/60th to 1/100th are useable (and even slower), then to me that opens up many more possibilities for the lens.

I suppose it's horses for courses but when I had the original there were plenty of times when IS would have been handy.

 

[vlim]

Since when was it unoficially announced ?

It was kind of a joke since a new version of this lens is almost announced every year But 2012 will be the year !

 

[KyleSTL]

If it's sharper, faster focus, lighter, smaller, I would look at it. Maybe cheaper too.

I hope that was sarcastic. Have you seen Canon's recent releases?

 

[BeenThere]

I use the old 400/5.6 mostly to shoot birds in flight. Being unpredictable, the pan motion can be side to side, up and down, or anything in-between. So, IS is not that useful for these shots. Setting IS to horizonal pan mode would sometimes be applicable, but not predictable in the field from shot to shot. I have found the old 400 on 5D II to focus fairly quickly. You usually have to follow the flight path for a few seconds in AI servo before getting framing right in any event.

 

[Loswr]

But 2012 will be the year !

Sure. Announced in 2012. Announced availability 2013. Actual availability 2014. Go Canon!

 

[Etienne]

If it's sharper, faster focus, lighter, smaller, I would look at it. Maybe cheaper too.

I hope that was sarcastic. Have you seen Canon's recent releases?

LOL ... cheaper than the rumored 100-400 mk II.

 

[Etienne]

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.

It's interesting that you would happily skip IS.

Obviously one wouldn't want to pay heaps but I think in this case about the general rule that without IS you need to shoot a 400mm lens at at least 1/400th to get consistently sharp images. There are many instances where you don't necessarily need a speed of 1/400th to stop movement of wildlife. If IS can help steady the lens so that about 1/60th to 1/100th are useable (and even slower), then to me that opens up many more possibilities for the lens.

I suppose it's horses for courses but when I had the original there were plenty of times when IS would have been handy.

IS is a must for me.

IS even makes it easier to see what your shooting hand-held at 400mm. I hate a jiggling, bouncy view.
How can you expect to capture the right "moment" when the viewfinder is like driving a jeep down a mountain pass?

 

[vlim]

Sure. Announced in 2012. Announced availability 2013. Actual availability 2014. Go Canon!

 

[Don Haines]

The 400 F5.6 sells for $1350 in Canada. To get a longer Canon lens you have to be ready to shell out $9690. That's a HUGE jump in price.... and I'd be willing to bet that there is a market for something in between, like a 600 F5.6.

A fixed lens is mechanicly simpler than a zoom lens. Since the optics are fixed they can be made much sharper than a zoom lens. They are lighter, more robust, and better sealed than a comparable zoom lens. To go to the 100-400 F5.6 zoom lens means paying out an additional $350 for a lens that will not perform as well... Yes you get the zoom feature, but honestly, aren't most of the shots you take with this lens at the 400mm end?

 

[dhofmann]

The 400 F5.6 sells for $1350 in Canada. To get a longer Canon lens you have to be ready to shell out $9690. That's a HUGE jump in price.... and I'd be willing to bet that there is a market for something in between, like a 600 F5.6.

A 600mm f/5.6L would cost at least US$7,500. But a 500mm f/5.6L might come in under US$4,000.

 

[Caps18]

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

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

I have the 300mm f/4 and a 1.4x to make a 420mm f/5.6 IS. And I can use it as a 300mm f/4 if I need to.

A 400mm f/4 IS (or even no IS) would be a good lens for Canon to make.

 

[cenkog]

+1

The 400 F5.6 sells for $1350 in Canada. To get a longer Canon lens you have to be ready to shell out $9690. That's a HUGE jump in price.... and I'd be willing to bet that there is a market for something in between, like a 600 F5.6.

A fixed lens is mechanicly simpler than a zoom lens. Since the optics are fixed they can be made much sharper than a zoom lens. They are lighter, more robust, and better sealed than a comparable zoom lens. To go to the 100-400 F5.6 zoom lens means paying out an additional $350 for a lens that will not perform as well... Yes you get the zoom feature, but honestly, aren't most of the shots you take with this lens at the 400mm end?

 

[funkboy]

A 400mm f/4 IS (or even no IS) would be a good lens for Canon to make.

They do make a 400 f/4 IS. It has a green ring on it.

Not sure how I feel about DO. It looks like they've been shying away from it with recent releases in favor of other technologies, possibly as a result of customer feedback. However the 400 is supposed to be a whole lot better than the 70-300 DO. For the price it had better be...

 

[Marsu42]

Not sure how I feel about DO.

There seem to be two DO generations - the old green ring one Canon dumped due to mediocre sharpness and horrible bokeh, and the new one they just patented for lighter tele primes which is supposed a completely other DO tech.

 

[Loswr]

The 400 F5.6 sells for $1350 in Canada. To get a longer Canon lens you have to be ready to shell out $9690. That's a HUGE jump in price.... and I'd be willing to bet that there is a market for something in between, like a 600 F5.6.

A 600mm f/5.6L would cost at least US$7,500. But a 500mm f/5.6L might come in under US$4,000.

+1. It's not that f/5.6 lenses are automatically (relatively) inexpensive. Just check the price of the 800/5.6. It comes down to the element size required to fill the iris diaphragm with light. A 600/5.6 tele would have a 107mm front element, which is the same as the 300/2.8. The longer focal length would translate to a higher price than the 300/2.8, I'd bet ~$8K for a 600/5.6. Since there's $13K 600/4, and you can get 600/5.6 with a 300/2.8 and 2x TC, I doubt Canon will see much of a market for a 600/5.6.