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

[scyrene]

I just got some pretty decent shots of a moose at 1/350sec handheld (as slow as you would want to go for anything moving, and yes gopher shooting practice helps), which makes me wonder if IS isn't just an excuse to be lazy more than anything.

Sure, just like autofocus, automatic metering, being able to review images on an LCD screen, even a viewfinder! Each new technological improvement makes things a little easier - or makes it possible to take good shots at a higher rate than before. I know there are a few dissenters who use superteles with IS switched off, but I find it is very useful for upping my keeper rate, and I don't see a problem with that.

 

[scottkinfw]

I would like to see 400 f/4 or 500f/5.6 lens in line up costing around 2500-3500$. this would be a serious step before the 300 f/2.8 and longer/faster/expensive lenses in Canon super-tele lineup.

What about the 300 4.0 IS?

A 500mm version would be even better, keeping it small, giving it is, and keeping the price down. I would keep my 400 5.6 and get one of these on release. Great thought.

sek

 

[scyrene]

Would love to see a 500mm f5.6

I have to say, to my mind this makes more sense. A little more differentiation, rather than four lenses competing at 400mm (100-400 II, 400 f/4 DO, 400 f/2.8, 400 f/5.6). A 500 f/5.6 IS *would* be more expensive, but surely not unfeasibly so - unlike a 600 f/5.6 as some have wished for.

 

[scottkinfw]

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...

If your price estimate is close, that would negate a large motivation to buy this lens.

sek

 

[neuroanatomist]

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...

If your price estimate is close, that would negate a large motivation to buy this lens.

Worth noting that Don's price estimate predates Nikon's 200-500mm f/5.6 lens. I think that a 500/5.6L built to Canon's current supertele standards would likely be ~$4K, but certainly Canon could launch an 'affordable' (>$2K) non-L version.

 

[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...

If your price estimate is close, that would negate a large motivation to buy this lens.

Worth noting that Don's price estimate predates Nikon's 200-500mm f/5.6 lens. I think that a 500/5.6L built to Canon's current supertele standards would likely be ~$4K, but certainly Canon could launch an 'affordable' (>$2K) non-L version.

agreed, but we have been surprised before with lenses and prices, so there is still hope

 

[NancyP]

At that 4K price, there might not be any point to the lens. That is getting to the price for used f/4 v. 1 lenses and not too far from the price of the new 400 DO. Frankly, while I love my "toy lens" (the old EF 400 f/5.6L no-IS), I would advise a starter to go for the 100-400 v.II if they can afford it, a used 100-400 v. I or the third party lenses if they can't.

 

[Deleted member 91053]

I just got some pretty decent shots of a moose at 1/350sec handheld (as slow as you would want to go for anything moving, and yes gopher shooting practice helps), which makes me wonder if IS isn't just an excuse to be lazy more than anything.

Sure, just like autofocus, automatic metering, being able to review images on an LCD screen, even a viewfinder! Each new technological improvement makes things a little easier - or makes it possible to take good shots at a higher rate than before. I know there are a few dissenters who use superteles with IS switched off, but I find it is very useful for upping my keeper rate, and I don't see a problem with that.

1/350 sec on the 400mm F5.6 without IS is easily do able and quite a bit lower with practice. Part of the AF/weight/size advantage of this lens is the lack of IS.
I am one of those who has found that IS is a distinct disadvantage for wildlife and sports shooting regardless of the focal length (my most used lens is the longest EF lens that Canon currently make). The improved AF acquisition speed and improved tracking with IS OFF (or better still not fitted) is worth far more to me than any claimed help that IS offers.
As to slow shutter speeds? I have managed 1/50 sec with my 7D2, 1.4 Mk3 and 100-400 Mk2 at full extension - approaching 900mm? True I did have a little help in that I could lean my left arm against the side of the hide which helped a little. Anyway I shot 4 consecutive frames 2 with IS on and 2 with IS off - do you want me to post them so you can guess which?
For reference my arms are pathetically weak, even so I have no use for IS when hand holding my Canon 800mm.

 

[scyrene]

I just got some pretty decent shots of a moose at 1/350sec handheld (as slow as you would want to go for anything moving, and yes gopher shooting practice helps), which makes me wonder if IS isn't just an excuse to be lazy more than anything.

Sure, just like autofocus, automatic metering, being able to review images on an LCD screen, even a viewfinder! Each new technological improvement makes things a little easier - or makes it possible to take good shots at a higher rate than before. I know there are a few dissenters who use superteles with IS switched off, but I find it is very useful for upping my keeper rate, and I don't see a problem with that.

1/350 sec on the 400mm F5.6 without IS is easily do able and quite a bit lower with practice. Part of the AF/weight/size advantage of this lens is the lack of IS.
I am one of those who has found that IS is a distinct disadvantage for wildlife and sports shooting regardless of the focal length (my most used lens is the longest EF lens that Canon currently make). The improved AF acquisition speed and improved tracking with IS OFF (or better still not fitted) is worth far more to me than any claimed help that IS offers.
As to slow shutter speeds? I have managed 1/50 sec with my 7D2, 1.4 Mk3 and 100-400 Mk2 at full extension - approaching 900mm? True I did have a little help in that I could lean my left arm against the side of the hide which helped a little. Anyway I shot 4 consecutive frames 2 with IS on and 2 with IS off - do you want me to post them so you can guess which?
For reference my arms are pathetically weak, even so I have no use for IS when hand holding my Canon 800mm.

Haha my arms are weak too, but you get used to using these lenses, right?

On a serious note, is there any data on AF with/without IS? I don't find it interferes at all, but I've not tested it. Has anyone? Incidentally, determining the 'keeper rate' advantage with IS would require more than 4 shots...

 

[Deleted member 91053]

Haha my arms are weak too, but you get used to using these lenses, right?

On a serious note, is there any data on AF with/without IS? I don't find it interferes at all, but I've not tested it. Has anyone? Incidentally, determining the 'keeper rate' advantage with IS would require more than 4 shots...

Firstly please note that I am a bit Anti IS, but that is only because I have lenses that have it.

As to data - I suspect not. There are probably too many variables to get any valid conclusions. I can however give you one example of my data. Visited the Red Kite center at Llandeusant (don't you love Welsh spellings!) and used my (then) Canon 300 F4 L IS - 300 frames and not a single keeper. I re-visited the following weekend, turned IS off = a couple of hundred good shots and 100 + potential keepers. This got me thinking to say the least!
Later, when I had my Canon 600 F4 L IS, I found the same thing though not as pronounced. I also observed that AF acquisition was a touch faster, we are not talking night and day here just that split second that may get you a shot. Later again I sold the 600 and went to the Canon 800 F5.6 L IS with it's 4 stop IS system. The new IS allowed hand held shots at 1/125 sec - wonderful I thought. However the lens didn't track too well on my 1D4 and 1DX and could be a (very) little hesitant to lock on to a subject. Going on my previous experiences I tried it with the IS off. It now focused faster and tracked better than my 600 and rivaled my Canon 300 F2.8 L IS (with IS off) for AF = happy me! I now haven't used IS for 2 years and 5 months - I wonder if it still works? ;D
Naturally there is a downside, namely higher shutter speeds are needed when hand holding or shooting partially supported (ie no tripod or mono pod). 1/125 sec is now no longer practical with my 800mm but 1/250 sec gives a high percentage of good shots hand held.
Not using IS will not suit everybody, I haven't met them yet but they must be out there? All I would suggest is that you and others give it a go and see what happens. I (and some local photogs) have found a significant increase in our hit rate by doing this. After all if it doesn't work for you then you can always turn it back on?

 

[j-nord]

I just got some pretty decent shots of a moose at 1/350sec handheld (as slow as you would want to go for anything moving, and yes gopher shooting practice helps), which makes me wonder if IS isn't just an excuse to be lazy more than anything.

Sure, just like autofocus, automatic metering, being able to review images on an LCD screen, even a viewfinder! Each new technological improvement makes things a little easier - or makes it possible to take good shots at a higher rate than before. I know there are a few dissenters who use superteles with IS switched off, but I find it is very useful for upping my keeper rate, and I don't see a problem with that.

1/350 sec on the 400mm F5.6 without IS is easily do able and quite a bit lower with practice. Part of the AF/weight/size advantage of this lens is the lack of IS.
I am one of those who has found that IS is a distinct disadvantage for wildlife and sports shooting regardless of the focal length (my most used lens is the longest EF lens that Canon currently make). The improved AF acquisition speed and improved tracking with IS OFF (or better still not fitted) is worth far more to me than any claimed help that IS offers.
As to slow shutter speeds? I have managed 1/50 sec with my 7D2, 1.4 Mk3 and 100-400 Mk2 at full extension - approaching 900mm? True I did have a little help in that I could lean my left arm against the side of the hide which helped a little. Anyway I shot 4 consecutive frames 2 with IS on and 2 with IS off - do you want me to post them so you can guess which?
For reference my arms are pathetically weak, even so I have no use for IS when hand holding my Canon 800mm.

LOL come hiking with me at 8000+ feet in CO. I don't care how low you can shoot in ideal handheld conditions. Try quickly drawing and shooting while out of breathe. It can easily take a minute or two to catch your breath, especially when you are carrying an additional 15lbs of camera gear on you. IS is huge even when shooting wider landscape shots handheld.

 

[scyrene]

Haha my arms are weak too, but you get used to using these lenses, right?

On a serious note, is there any data on AF with/without IS? I don't find it interferes at all, but I've not tested it. Has anyone? Incidentally, determining the 'keeper rate' advantage with IS would require more than 4 shots...

Firstly please note that I am a bit Anti IS, but that is only because I have lenses that have it.

As to data - I suspect not. There are probably too many variables to get any valid conclusions. I can however give you one example of my data. Visited the Red Kite center at Llandeusant (don't you love Welsh spellings!) and used my (then) Canon 300 F4 L IS - 300 frames and not a single keeper. I re-visited the following weekend, turned IS off = a couple of hundred good shots and 100 + potential keepers. This got me thinking to say the least!
Later, when I had my Canon 600 F4 L IS, I found the same thing though not as pronounced. I also observed that AF acquisition was a touch faster, we are not talking night and day here just that split second that may get you a shot. Later again I sold the 600 and went to the Canon 800 F5.6 L IS with it's 4 stop IS system. The new IS allowed hand held shots at 1/125 sec - wonderful I thought. However the lens didn't track too well on my 1D4 and 1DX and could be a (very) little hesitant to lock on to a subject. Going on my previous experiences I tried it with the IS off. It now focused faster and tracked better than my 600 and rivaled my Canon 300 F2.8 L IS (with IS off) for AF = happy me! I now haven't used IS for 2 years and 5 months - I wonder if it still works? ;D
Naturally there is a downside, namely higher shutter speeds are needed when hand holding or shooting partially supported (ie no tripod or mono pod). 1/125 sec is now no longer practical with my 800mm but 1/250 sec gives a high percentage of good shots hand held.
Not using IS will not suit everybody, I haven't met them yet but they must be out there? All I would suggest is that you and others give it a go and see what happens. I (and some local photogs) have found a significant increase in our hit rate by doing this. After all if it doesn't work for you then you can always turn it back on?

Interesting. I'd be very concerned if I had a 100% failure rate - if it was across the board, surely that lens would be famous for it? Otherwise perhaps the IS module on that lens was faulty?

I have been out and accidentally left the IS off, and I found more shots blurred due to camera motion than normal, which is what I'd expect.

Perhaps you could try IS mode 3 on the 600 - it keeps the IS off until the shutter button is pressed. IS can make subjects move around the viewfinder erratically, which might explain some of what you've experienced. IS mode 3 is the compromise for that.

Ultimately it's a matter of personal taste, but IS clearly works for many people in many situations, though as you say, there's not a lot of solid data on the subject.

 

[Deleted member 91053]

Interesting. I'd be very concerned if I had a 100% failure rate - if it was across the board, surely that lens would be famous for it? Otherwise perhaps the IS module on that lens was faulty?

I have been out and accidentally left the IS off, and I found more shots blurred due to camera motion than normal, which is what I'd expect.

Perhaps you could try IS mode 3 on the 600 - it keeps the IS off until the shutter button is pressed. IS can make subjects move around the viewfinder erratically, which might explain some of what you've experienced. IS mode 3 is the compromise for that.

Ultimately it's a matter of personal taste, but IS clearly works for many people in many situations, though as you say, there's not a lot of solid data on the subject.

Firstly remember that the IS on the 300 F4 L IS is a very early system and newer lens designs have improved IS. What I found with my 300 F4 L IS is that, on moving subjects, one is fighting against the IS which is trying to keep things still. Unfortunately birds don't fly in very predictable directions so panning mode is of no help here. When I first shot the Red Kites with this lens nearly all were soft and or poorly focused so they were binned. The subsequent visit was much more successful.

Perhaps I didn't put it very well but I have found that, with newer lens designs, that this effect is far less pronounced - in other words Canon have improved their IS systems over the years, though I am still better off without it. You mention IS mode 3 - good point! I should have mentioned this! The lenses I quoted do not have this mode they are simply 1. 2 or Off.

More recently (Mid March) I bought the Canon 100-400 Mk2 which has IS Mode 3. For some reason which I cannot fathom I am having trouble hand holding this lens - balance perhaps? I have yet to have this problem with any other lens that I own or have tried = wierd! So as a stop-gap until I can improve my technique I have used the IS on this lens when shooting at 1/400 sec or slower. Modes 1 and 2 are better than previous incarnations but still interfere with AF a bit however Mode 3 is proving to be surprisingly good and does not seem to have much of a detrimental effect - I have had to revise my opinions there.

If you have used your lens with IS off and it doesn't suit you then turn it on and keep it there! It is all down to what works for the individual. I am better off without IS as are the local wildlife shooters who have tried it so far, but we are all different. I am just concerned that many people simply will not try it and are missing out on a quick easy way to get better results in most (but not all) cases.

 

[Deleted member 91053]

LOL come hiking with me at 8000+ feet in CO. I don't care how low you can shoot in ideal handheld conditions. Try quickly drawing and shooting while out of breathe. It can easily take a minute or two to catch your breath, especially when you are carrying an additional 15lbs of camera gear on you. IS is huge even when shooting wider landscape shots handheld.

As my backpack weighs up to 50 lbs (sometimes a chair and popup hide need to be added) and I am a heavy smoker so I do not need to go much above sea level to get completely out of breath!
I cannot hold lenses particularly steady, far from it, but I can keep the vibrations fairly slow/smooth - this is easier with heavy lenses as their sheer weight damps down higher frequency vibrations which destroy images.This may well be a holdover from my shooting days? Please note the exception of the 100-400 Mk2 - I struggle with this one!

If you find IS to be a benefit then that's great - Canon don't make many lenses without it! Personally I would prefer my lenses not to have it as, with the exception of the 100-400 Mk2, I have no use for it and would appreciate the reduced bulk, weight, complexity and expense of not having it.
Just my experiences.

 

[j-nord]

The 400 f5.6 non-IS is a gold standard for BIF. BIF shooters typically don't want IS. However, this lens is also a gold standard for all other amateur or on the go wildlife shooters, they typically do want IS. This is where the issue lies. About half (by my rough estimation, based on nothing) the 400 f5.6 fans want a refreshed lens with IS and the other half don't want IS. Canon could go either way but I'd bet they would go with IS if they do, actually, make a refreshed lens. I personally would rather have a superb 400 f5.6 IS (or a 500mm) that has faster AF, is sharper, is lighter, has the built in lens hood, than the 100-400ii. I'd pay around $2k for such a lens and possibly up to $3k if it's 500mm instead.

 

[Plainsman]

I'd much prefer a new Canon 300/4 IS with very fast AF ahead of this one.

Or even a lightweight 300/5.6 IS STM lens from that factory in Malaysia which gives us the reputedly excellent/cheap 55-250 STM - sorry for being slightly off topic!

 

[Deleted member 91053]

I'd much prefer a new Canon 300/4 IS with very fast AF ahead of this one.

Or even a lightweight 300/5.6 IS STM lens from that factory in Malaysia which gives us the reputedly excellent/cheap 55-250 STM - sorry for being slightly off topic!

Canon used to make a nice 300mm F5.6 back in FD days - it was TINY! A new AF version could be as cheap as chips if Canon wanted to make it, I suspect they won't though.

 

[9VIII]

I'd much prefer a new Canon 300/4 IS with very fast AF ahead of this one.

Or even a lightweight 300/5.6 IS STM lens from that factory in Malaysia which gives us the reputedly excellent/cheap 55-250 STM - sorry for being slightly off topic!

I'll take one of each.
Actually it's a good point that a basic 300mm f5.6 Prime would cost next to nothing to make, they could probably get it on the market for $200. Add USM and IS and charge $500 and all of a sudden you have one of the best compact telephoto lenses on the market.
But then we just got a rumor for effectively that lens in a zoom. It would be just be neat to see what it would look like as a prime.
Speaking of compact, one must wonder what Canon could do with their newly perfected DO tech to cut down an already compact telephoto lens.

Really that's where this should be headed, Canon already has the best budget birding lens on the market and that's probably never going to change, it will never be obsolete, there's no point in developing the same thing twice.
So, how much would you pay for a 400f5.6 IS DO?
Same deal for the 300f4IS, it's still great, but it certainly could be chopped down a bit.
Here's the specs of that lens compared to the recent Nikon 300f4PF comparison. They basically took 1/3 off the length.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Specifications.aspx?LensComp=1040&Lens=111&Go.x=3&Go.y=17&Go=Go&Units=E

 

[wsmith96]

For me, I don't see the need for 3 lenses when one will do nicely. You can replace your 70-200, 300 f4 and 400 f5.6 with the 100-400 mk ii when shooting wildlife. It's that good. Think of the weight savings in your bag carrying one lens to cover them all. If you need longer, add a 1.4 teleconverter and enjoy your day.

If/when the 400 is shows up, of course I'll take a look at it, but I'm really impressed with the new 100-400.

 

[j-nord]

300 f4 IS II that is much sharper at f4 and has the other usual updates could definitely have its place. f4 allows use of 2x with the new crop of f8 AF bodies. Further the 300 f4 IS was/is used for portrait fairly regularly. An 300 f5.6 or the 100-400ii doesnt offer the same DOF/bokeh. I think a 300 f5.6 prime is utterly pointless in the line up. If you want 300 f5.6 then pick up the 70-300L, they run under $1k used.