Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L IS Mentioned [CR1]

[AlanF]

The deal is that the 400f5.6, as-is, nearly performs as well as all the V1 Big Whites. That seriously devalues a lot of hardware. They made V2 Big Whites to rectify that, but from an amature's perspective the main thing missing is still just IS, the competition for IQ is still close enough.
Even without adding IS, look at the 100-400MkII VS the 400f5.6 when both have a 2XTC, the zoom still sucks.

The comment about the 400/5.6 vs the 100-440mm II is simply untrue. With the 2xTC the 100-400 II is actually sharper in the centre than the 400/5.6, and you don't put a 2xTC on these lenses to capture the extreme corners - you do it for small subjects in the centre.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=2&LensComp=972&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=6&APIComp=2

I wouldn't use the 2xTC on either of these lenses under normal circumstances. Using the 1.4xTC, which is much more usual, the 2 lenses are pretty much the same. If the 400/f/5.6 performs nearly as well as the big whites then so does the 100-400mm II!

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=1&LensComp=972&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=2

 

[beforeEos Camaras]

I too will upgrade my 4005.6l to a 400 5.6l is but until then I will have fun with the 400 5.6l mk1

 

[beforeEos Camaras]

F 5.6 ?!
So it would be a seasonal Lens, for Jimmy Cliff, bright bright Sunshiny day ...

its how much iso you want to use I have taken photos in the sunset time and they was some of my best

 

[DJL329]

Any chance of this being an EF-S 400/5.6 IS?

Ummm ... noooo.

Want a smaller, lighter, faster lens with IS that is at least 400mm equivalent on a crop body? Here you go: Canon EF 300mm F/4L IS USM. Put a 1.4x TC on it, and it's a 672mm f/5.6 equivalent on a crop body.

 

[StudentOfLight]

Any chance of this being an EF-S 400/5.6 IS?

Ummm ... noooo.

Want a smaller, lighter, faster lens with IS that is at least 400mm equivalent on a crop body? Here you go: Canon EF 300mm F/4L IS USM. Put a 1.4x TC on it, and it's a 672mm f/5.6 equivalent on a crop body.

This is a CR1 so my reply was really just a thought experiment from my side.

Also, the 300mm f/4 + 1.4xTC doesn't hold up so well on APS-C. Here is a comparison with the 18-135mm kit zoom at the long end:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=809&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=1&LensComp=111&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=1

My philosophy is that if the pixel quality is worse than a kit zoom can deliver wide-open then I tend to look at other options.

 

[NancyP]

Interesting, but for sure it is a CR1.

 

[AccipiterQ]

I don't see any point in making this lens. A new EF 400/5,6L IS will get about the same price as the new and very sharp EF 100-400/4,5-5,6L IS II. It will maybe be a bit lighter, but not by much.

Canon should instead make a EF 500/5,6 IS. This will be a great lens for bird shooters, much better than a 400mm which is a bit too short, especially for smaller birds.
Even better would be a DO version: after Nikon launched their new and very compact AF-S 300/4 PF VR I think we will see many new DO lenses also from Canon to a much lower price in the coming years.

That's actually a great point now that you mention it. I could even sell my 400 5.6L to defray the cost.

 

[DominoDude]

Any chance of this being an EF-S 400/5.6 IS?

EF-S will reduce the size, weight and cost, making it easier for Canon to compete on price against the Sigma and Tamron 150-600 offerings. The Sigma and Tamron perform admirably on full frame but on APS-C the IQ isn't really mind-blowing.

Look how the current 400/5.6 with 1.4xTC on APS-C fares against the Tamron at 600mm on full frame.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=2&LensComp=278&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=0

The Tamron is better in the center of frame but the corners are unwhelming. The Sigma isn't way better than the Tamron either. So there's definitely a gap to aim at in terms of price and performance and with EF-S the lens will not be competing directly with the Canon's newer EF lens offerings.

Making a 400mm EF-S lens would only be a small fraction smaller and lighter than an EF version, and despite having a crop body, I would not touch it. At least for me, far better to have a lens that can be used on both crop and FF bodies....

Same here. I wouldn't go anywhere near it. If I want FF vignetting in the corners I'd go FF, not get anything with a smaller image circle. The concept as it is today is a nearly perfect compromise.

 

[justaCanonuser]

I gave up waiting on this lens, but I think I'd buy one in a heartbeat if they actually made it. The best thing about the 400 f/5.6 is that with its small size and weight you can almost always take it with you - I can't say the same with my 300 f/2.8 IS II.

Small size? Isn't it as large as a tamron 150-600?

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Product-Images.aspx?Lens=278&LensComp=0&LensComp2=929

I always thought the lens lookes like a 200mm with a 2x converter attached.

It is quite small, roughly about the same size but lighter than the Tammy 150-600. I love to use it when I do not want to carry my 500mm Canon prime with me, it fits perfectly in the hand. In contrast to the Tammy, the 400/5.6 offers a very fast, reliable AF with Canon DSLRs, that allows shooting BIF. So it's a nice package for birders.

 

[justaCanonuser]

I really love my 400/5.6 as a light alternative to my 500mm prime for birding (if there's enough light available). IS would be nice but not that important for me personally, but it could definitely help Canon to make this lens more popular. When you start using the current Mk I version, you first really struggle to hit the target because of the nervous viewfinder image and the small angle of view. IS would definitely help.

I'd only upgrade if other specs would attract me. The biggest downside of the 400/5.6 I is its closest distance of only 3.5 m. In contrast to the EF 300/4 with very decent 1.5 m (.24x magnification), the 400/5.6 does not provide a real tele macro for shy objects such as dragon flies. A decent improvement to, say, 2.0 m, would really make it much more attractive.

A lighter DO version, as others suggested here, would definitely be great. The new 400/4 DO II promises that Canon could make another top Fresnel lens.

 

[Don Haines]

Any chance of this being an EF-S 400/5.6 IS?

Ummm ... noooo.

Want a smaller, lighter, faster lens with IS that is at least 400mm equivalent on a crop body? Here you go: Canon EF 300mm F/4L IS USM. Put a 1.4x TC on it, and it's a 672mm f/5.6 equivalent on a crop body.

This is a CR1 so my reply was really just a thought experiment from my side.

Also, the 300mm f/4 + 1.4xTC doesn't hold up so well on APS-C. Here is a comparison with the 18-135mm kit zoom at the long end:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=809&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=1&LensComp=111&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=1

My philosophy is that if the pixel quality is worse than a kit zoom can deliver wide-open then I tend to look at other options.

Although the 300 F4 is newer than the 400 F5 .6, it is nowhere near the quality of any of the series II long primes.
Both lenses are seriously in need of updating and once that is done should have significantly better quality than the 100-400 F5.6. There have been a lot of advancements both with coatings and with materials in the last 15 years. When they were designed these lenses were considered to be of excellent quality. By today's standards and they are mediocre, but still deliver performance equivalent (or better) than the newest zoom lenses. An update should return them to their position as stellar performers, good enough to be used on crop bodies with a teleconverter..

 

[bholliman]

I gave up waiting on this lens, but I think I'd buy one in a heartbeat if they actually made it. The best thing about the 400 f/5.6 is that with its small size and weight you can almost always take it with you - I can't say the same with my 300 f/2.8 IS II.

Small size? Isn't it as large as a tamron 150-600?

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Product-Images.aspx?Lens=278&LensComp=0&LensComp2=929

I always thought the lens lookes like a 200mm with a 2x converter attached.

It is quite small, roughly about the same size but lighter than the Tammy 150-600. I love to use it when I do not want to carry my 500mm Canon prime with me, it fits perfectly in the hand. In contrast to the Tammy, the 400/5.6 offers a very fast, reliable AF with Canon DSLRs, that allows shooting BIF. So it's a nice package for birders.

I've rented both the 400/5.6 and Tammy 150-600 for use on my 6D. Of course, the 6D isn't valued for it's AF capability, but I had much better AF success with the 400, much faster and better accuracy. Regarding size, they are similar in length, but the Tammy is quite a bit heavier. Here are the physical specs:

 

[Don Haines]

I don't see any point in making this lens. A new EF 400/5,6L IS will get about the same price as the new and very sharp EF 100-400/4,5-5,6L IS II. It will maybe be a bit lighter, but not by much.

Canon should instead make a EF 500/5,6 IS. This will be a great lens for bird shooters, much better than a 400mm which is a bit too short, especially for smaller birds.
Even better would be a DO version: after Nikon launched their new and very compact AF-S 300/4 PF VR I think we will see many new DO lenses also from Canon to a much lower price in the coming years.

That's actually a great point now that you mention it. I could even sell my 400 5.6L to defray the cost.

However, a 500F5.6 would be getting close to the cost of the 200F2. I would expect this lens to be somewhere in the $5000 dollar range...

 

[9VIII]

500f5.6 is an interesting concept.
It's a little smaller than the latest superzooms, so while not ridiculous, it's still big. You can bet Canon would charge above $4K, but even $5K is a few grand off the new 400DO (and you wouldn't need a TC either), and given that the other long lenses are all above $10K now, half price for a stop less light sounds really good. Good for me, but maybe not for someone trying to also sell a 500f4. We can only hope.

 

[StudentOfLight]

Any chance of this being an EF-S 400/5.6 IS?

EF-S will reduce the size, weight and cost, making it easier for Canon to compete on price against the Sigma and Tamron 150-600 offerings. The Sigma and Tamron perform admirably on full frame but on APS-C the IQ isn't really mind-blowing.

Look how the current 400/5.6 with 1.4xTC on APS-C fares against the Tamron at 600mm on full frame.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=2&LensComp=278&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=0

The Tamron is better in the center of frame but the corners are unwhelming. The Sigma isn't way better than the Tamron either. So there's definitely a gap to aim at in terms of price and performance and with EF-S the lens will not be competing directly with the Canon's newer EF lens offerings.

Making a 400mm EF-S lens would only be a small fraction smaller and lighter than an EF version, and despite having a crop body, I would not touch it. At least for me, far better to have a lens that can be used on both crop and FF bodies....

I'm sure that if an EF-S CR1 lens did materialize then it would not be targeting a discerning photographer such as yourself. There are however a vast majority of shooters out there using APS-C exclusively.

 

[Don Haines]

Any chance of this being an EF-S 400/5.6 IS?

EF-S will reduce the size, weight and cost, making it easier for Canon to compete on price against the Sigma and Tamron 150-600 offerings. The Sigma and Tamron perform admirably on full frame but on APS-C the IQ isn't really mind-blowing.

Look how the current 400/5.6 with 1.4xTC on APS-C fares against the Tamron at 600mm on full frame.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=2&LensComp=278&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=0

The Tamron is better in the center of frame but the corners are unwhelming. The Sigma isn't way better than the Tamron either. So there's definitely a gap to aim at in terms of price and performance and with EF-S the lens will not be competing directly with the Canon's newer EF lens offerings.

Making a 400mm EF-S lens would only be a small fraction smaller and lighter than an EF version, and despite having a crop body, I would not touch it. At least for me, far better to have a lens that can be used on both crop and FF bodies....

I'm sure that if an EF-S CR1 lens did materialize then it would not be targeting a discerning photographer such as yourself. There are however a vast majority of shooters out there using APS-C exclusively.

My previous statement was wrong about size. If they kept the same or similar design, the size and weight differences would be negligible, but if they redesigned it with more aggressive optics (bend the light sharper), they could significantly reduce the length of the lens, but at the expense of IQ....

Also, what about mirror lenses? That's an interesting way to shrink the size of a lens....

 

[beforeEos Camaras]

Any chance of this being an EF-S 400/5.6 IS?

EF-S will reduce the size, weight and cost, making it easier for Canon to compete on price against the Sigma and Tamron 150-600 offerings. The Sigma and Tamron perform admirably on full frame but on APS-C the IQ isn't really mind-blowing.

Look how the current 400/5.6 with 1.4xTC on APS-C fares against the Tamron at 600mm on full frame.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=2&LensComp=278&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=0

The Tamron is better in the center of frame but the corners are unwhelming. The Sigma isn't way better than the Tamron either. So there's definitely a gap to aim at in terms of price and performance and with EF-S the lens will not be competing directly with the Canon's newer EF lens offerings.

Making a 400mm EF-S lens would only be a small fraction smaller and lighter than an EF version, and despite having a crop body, I would not touch it. At least for me, far better to have a lens that can be used on both crop and FF bodies....

I'm sure that if an EF-S CR1 lens did materialize then it would not be targeting a discerning photographer such as yourself. There are however a vast majority of shooters out there using APS-C exclusively.

My previous statement was wrong about size. If they kept the same or similar design, the size and weight differences would be negligible, but if they redesigned it with more aggressive optics (bend the light sharper), they could significantly reduce the length of the lens, but at the expense of IQ....

Also, what about mirror lenses? That's an interesting way to shrink the size of a lens....

mirror lens that's what I tried in the early 80`s a celstron 8in with a canon camera adapter. too bad it was just a tryout but wow on the reach

 

[TeT]

Any chance of this being an EF-S 400/5.6 IS?

EF-S will reduce the size, weight and cost, making it easier for Canon to compete on price against the Sigma and Tamron 150-600 offerings. The Sigma and Tamron perform admirably on full frame but on APS-C the IQ isn't really mind-blowing.

Look how the current 400/5.6 with 1.4xTC on APS-C fares against the Tamron at 600mm on full frame.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=2&LensComp=278&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=0

The Tamron is better in the center of frame but the corners are unwhelming. The Sigma isn't way better than the Tamron either. So there's definitely a gap to aim at in terms of price and performance and with EF-S the lens will not be competing directly with the Canon's newer EF lens offerings.

Making a 400mm EF-S lens would only be a small fraction smaller and lighter than an EF version, and despite having a crop body, I would not touch it. At least for me, far better to have a lens that can be used on both crop and FF bodies....

I'm sure that if an EF-S CR1 lens did materialize then it would not be targeting a discerning photographer such as yourself. There are however a vast majority of shooters out there using APS-C exclusively.

Keep in mind that the consumer who would be interested in a 400 5.6 is limited, it would not behoove canon to make that lens as an EF S and cut out the FF users. there just are not enough users for this particular PRIME focal length to warrant multiple offerings and keep cost down enough to sell it.

ALSO, it should be better than the 100-400. I do not know how it should compare to the DO ?

 

[Hjalmarg1]

If this one becomes a reality, I can easily see myself trading in my old 400/5.6L to get it. Apart from the MFD (~3.5m), and the aperture, it's very hard to see any drawbacks with the current model. I just love it, and so does many other birders around here.

If true, Canon will take my money right away

 

[Hillsilly]

As long as the new lens focuses faster, is a little sharper and weighs less than the new 100-400 I'm sure there'll be a lot of interest. You can count me in.