Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II [CR1]

[sagittariansrock]

There is no reason why the 400F5.6, in an updated version, can't have the same IQ as the 400F2.8. It's that full stop faster that you pay so much for.

For example, the 24-70 F4 and the F2.8 are similar in IQ, but twice as much for a half stop.....
The 70-200 F4IS and F2.8IS are similar in IQ, but twice as much for a half stop....

by that logic, I would expect a 400F5.6 similar in IQ to the 2.8.... but around 1/4 the price. Realistically though, expect 1/3 the price...

F/2.8 to f/4 is a full stop.

And yes, there is no technical reason why canon could not ewuip the 400/5.6 with IQ as is with a current day 4 stop IS with 3 modes (full, panning, tripod sensing) and sell it at USD 1999,-

Its only freaking "marketing differentiation".

I started thinking the same way, but then came to realize- if there was a 400/5.6 lens that was as sharp as the Great Whites, had IS, and could take a 1.4X without noticeable deterioration in IQ, there would be a pretty good market for it around $ 3-3.5K.
Think about all the wildlife photographers, outdoor sports photographers, and birders shooting big birds, who cannot afford to go into the over-6K range. Today, these people are probably using the 300/2.8 v1 with TCs or the Sigma 120-300/2.8 with TCs. They will all love a 400/5.6 IS with superlative IQ.
The competition, of course, will be with the 100-400 v2, if it ever materializes, but I am pretty sure it would be Herculean to produce Great White-quality IQ in a $ 2.5-3K zoom, especially at the long end.

There is no risk to the 400/2.8 IS. Those who want it and are ready to pay for it, NEED the f/2.8. Two stops slower won't cut it for them, even if the lens is given to them for free.

 

[JonAustin]

Not to sound too pedantic, but the difference between f/5.6 and f/2.8 is two stops, not one. (Which only further reinforces your point.)

There is a full stop between f4 and f2.8 too.

I know, but I presumed that noting the two stops between f/5.6 and f/2.8 would make the one-stop difference between f/4 and f/2.8 obvious, and I didn't see any need to pile on.

 

[Don Haines]

F/2.8 to f/4 is a full stop.

Obviously, I should not post when half asleep.... OOPS!!!

 

[Etienne]

There is no reason why the 400F5.6, in an updated version, can't have the same IQ as the 400F2.8. It's that full stop faster that you pay so much for.

For example, the 24-70 F4 and the F2.8 are similar in IQ, but twice as much for a half stop.....
The 70-200 F4IS and F2.8IS are similar in IQ, but twice as much for a half stop....

Not to sound too pedantic, but the difference between f/5.6 and f/2.8 is two stops, not one. (Which only further reinforces your point.)

That's not pedantic. It needed to be said, or the author might have continued to make this mistake.

There's also a reason an f/5.6 lens can't be as sharp as a really good f/2.8 lens - diffraction.

Diffraction does not affect FF until around f/11. Diffraction doesn't even affect APS-C until f/8 . An f/5.6 lens can be every bit as sharp, or sharper than a f/2.8 lens. Large aperture does not necessarily mean sharper images, even stopped down. Just look at the Canon 50 f/1.2L, which is not as sharp as the 50 f/1.4 at comparable apertures.

 

[mrsfotografie]

And yes, there is no technical reason why canon could not ewuip the 400/5.6 with IQ as is with a current day 4 stop IS with 3 modes (full, panning, tripod sensing) and sell it at USD 1999,-

Its only freaking "marketing differentiation".

I might jump at this if it's fully usable wide open. Note that it must completely blow away my 100-400 @ 400mm.

 

[sagittariansrock]

And yes, there is no technical reason why canon could not ewuip the 400/5.6 with IQ as is with a current day 4 stop IS with 3 modes (full, panning, tripod sensing) and sell it at USD 1999,-

Its only freaking "marketing differentiation".

I might jump at this if it's fully usable wide open. Note that it must completely blow away my 100-400 @ 400mm.

Wow, I was a bit surprised for a minute to see that quote attributed to me.
I don't think a 400/5.6 IS will cost $ 1999, unfortunately

 

[AvTvM]

And yes, there is no technical reason why canon could not ewuip the 400/5.6 with IQ as is with a current day 4 stop IS with 3 modes (full, panning, tripod sensing) and sell it at USD 1999,-

Its only freaking "marketing differentiation".

I might jump at this if it's fully usable wide open. Note that it must completely blow away my 100-400 @ 400mm.

Wow, I was a bit surprised for a minute to see that quote attributed to me.
I don't think a 400/5.6 IS will cost $ 1999, unfortunately

me neither. ii am just convinced, it woul be technically possible.

 

[Etienne]

And yes, there is no technical reason why canon could not ewuip the 400/5.6 with IQ as is with a current day 4 stop IS with 3 modes (full, panning, tripod sensing) and sell it at USD 1999,-

Its only freaking "marketing differentiation".

I might jump at this if it's fully usable wide open. Note that it must completely blow away my 100-400 @ 400mm.

Wow, I was a bit surprised for a minute to see that quote attributed to me.
I don't think a 400/5.6 IS will cost $ 1999, unfortunately

It wouldn't be worth much more than $1999 ... maybe that's why Canon hasn't produced one. Even the 100-400 won't be much past $2500, and it will have to rock at 400mm to be worth it.

 

[fish_shooter]

One reason for the big whites' high resolution property is that lens resolution is a function of diameter; a larger diameter lens (for a given focal length larger aperture lenses have larger diameters) will resolve more than a smaller diameter lens assuming similar correction for lens aberrations. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_resolution and scroll down to lens resolution. There are other aspects of resolution as well that are discussed in the article. Lens aperture is just one part.

 

[AvTvM]

One reason for the big whites' high resolution property is that lens resolution is a function of diameter; a larger diameter lens (for a given focal length larger aperture lenses have larger diameters) will resolve more than a smaller diameter lens assuming similar correction for lens aberrations. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_resolution and scroll down to lens resolution. There are other aspects of resolution as well that are discussed in the article. Lens aperture is just one part.

I don't believe it and I don't care. I would definitely consider a 400mm/5.6 lens with 4-stop IS and IQ at least as good as the current 400mm/5.6 ... if price was less than USD/€ 2000 and would not waste a single thought, whether or not a 400/2.8 II IS would offer still marginally better IQ @ f/5.6 ... or not.

 

[mrsfotografie]

And yes, there is no technical reason why canon could not ewuip the 400/5.6 with IQ as is with a current day 4 stop IS with 3 modes (full, panning, tripod sensing) and sell it at USD 1999,-

Its only freaking "marketing differentiation".

I might jump at this if it's fully usable wide open. Note that it must completely blow away my 100-400 @ 400mm.

Wow, I was a bit surprised for a minute to see that quote attributed to me.
I don't think a 400/5.6 IS will cost $ 1999, unfortunately

Sorry that was a messy quote truncation I did there. It should have been:

And yes, there is no technical reason why canon could not ewuip the 400/5.6 with IQ as is with a current day 4 stop IS with 3 modes (full, panning, tripod sensing) and sell it at USD 1999,-

Its only freaking "marketing differentiation".

My apologies :-[

 

[Etienne]

One reason for the big whites' high resolution property is that lens resolution is a function of diameter; a larger diameter lens (for a given focal length larger aperture lenses have larger diameters) will resolve more than a smaller diameter lens assuming similar correction for lens aberrations. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_resolution and scroll down to lens resolution. There are other aspects of resolution as well that are discussed in the article. Lens aperture is just one part.

I don't believe it and I don't care. I would definitely consider a 400mm/5.6 lens with 4-stop IS and IQ at least as good as the current 400mm/5.6 ... if price was less than USD/€ 2000 and would not waste a single thought, whether or not a 400/2.8 II IS would offer still marginally better IQ @ f/5.6 ... or not.

You are right not to believe this and not to care. The original post is a bit misleading. From the wiki page:

"The ability of a lens to resolve detail is usually determined by the quality of the lens but is ultimately limited by diffraction. "

and

"Only the very highest quality lenses have diffraction limited resolution, however, and normally the quality of the lens limits its ability to resolve detail." This is the case for the lenses that mere mortals can afford. Since accurate design and production of a large aperture lens is much more difficult, the main difference you will see is light gathering ability and shallow DOF, not necessarily resolution. This reveals itself in the fact that most lenses get sharper as they are stopped down a bit : it is the aperture size used to take the image that limits the resolution that the lens can provide, not the maximum available aperture of the lens. A perfectly designed and built lens should perform worse as the aperture is reduced, but in real life, this does not happen. Reviewers of the 400 2.8L IS II say that the IQ does not improve as it is stopped down, but it doesn't get worse either. Maybe the sensor can't pick up the differences.

My bet is that Canon could design and build a 400 5.6L IS that could produce images every bit as good as the 400 2.8L IS (stopped to 5.6), of course much lighter and cheaper. Light and cheap means you're more likely to have it with you.

 

[privatebydesign]

My bet is that Canon could design and build a 400 5.6L IS that could produce images every bit as good as the 400 2.8L IS (stopped to 5.6), of course much lighter and cheaper. Light and cheap means you're more likely to have it with you.

Easily:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=327&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

 

[Lee Jay]

There is no reason why the 400F5.6, in an updated version, can't have the same IQ as the 400F2.8. It's that full stop faster that you pay so much for.

For example, the 24-70 F4 and the F2.8 are similar in IQ, but twice as much for a half stop.....
The 70-200 F4IS and F2.8IS are similar in IQ, but twice as much for a half stop....

Not to sound too pedantic, but the difference between f/5.6 and f/2.8 is two stops, not one. (Which only further reinforces your point.)

That's not pedantic. It needed to be said, or the author might have continued to make this mistake.

There's also a reason an f/5.6 lens can't be as sharp as a really good f/2.8 lens - diffraction.

Diffraction does not affect FF until around f/11. Diffraction doesn't even affect APS-C until f/8 . An f/5.6 lens can be every bit as sharp, or sharper than a f/2.8 lens. Large aperture does not necessarily mean sharper images, even stopped down. Just look at the Canon 50 f/1.2L, which is not as sharp as the 50 f/1.4 at comparable apertures.

Diffraction affects everything, all the time.

A large aperture doesn't automatically give you more resolution, it gives you a higher potential resolution, and you can never get around that. I added emphasis to my statement above to help you find the important point you missed the first time.

 

[Don Haines]

My bet is that Canon could design and build a 400 5.6L IS that could produce images every bit as good as the 400 2.8L IS (stopped to 5.6), of course much lighter and cheaper. Light and cheap means you're more likely to have it with you.

Easily:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=327&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

HEY!
This is an emotional argument.... common sense and logic (and particularly data) have no place

 

[privatebydesign]

Sorry Don, I'll slink off back to my hole

 

[Northstar]

Sorry Don, I'll slink off back to my hole

lol...good post though, i didn't know they were so similar at 5.6! good to know.

 

[sagittariansrock]

My apologies :-[

Please don't! I get lost among these quotes all the time

It wouldn't be worth much more than $1999 ... maybe that's why Canon hasn't produced one. Even the 100-400 won't be much past $2500, and it will have to rock at 400mm to be worth it.

On the contrary, I bet Canon can easily sell it for ~3k if the lens holds it own against the 400/2.8 II and can take a TC well. Whether it is technically possible to make such a lens is well beyond my level of expertise.

 

[fish_shooter]

Understanding resolution is not a simple topic. The Rayleigh Criterion in the reference I gave above is the "textbook" example. I got this in a class I took in microscopy decades ago. In this next reference (link at end of this statement) the authors argue that this is not good enough for digital. It is very long but if one scrolls down and looks at the tables (the resolution numbers in the columns go up (apertures decrease in size as one goes down) in each table but the values vary according to criterion - going across in the table (for a given aperture)) it is obvious that the maximum theoretical resolution (i.e., diffraction limited) at f/2.8 is greater than f/5.6
link: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/resolution.shtml

 

[tron]

Yet another 100-400 L II rumor. And it is a CR1! Quite reassuring ;D