Canon - Give us 400/5.6L IS NOW!!

[stein]

Dear Canon,
why can't you add IS to a new 400/5.6L in your setup, 10000' of bird/action photographers would buy a lightweight, top-quality lens of this caliber the first week out on the market!?
High-ISO and better cameras is perfect for such a lens!
OR you could look up in your museum the even older 400/4.5 and remake that, that used to be a nice lens in the old FD-era
Back to the drawing-table NOW!
Stein,Tromsø, Norway

 

[AlanF]

Canon has just done that. A new lens just as sharp as the old, and they have added a zoom down to 100mm as well. It also closes up small for ease of packing.

 

[Dave685]

Totally agree Stein and add to that a 500/5.6L & 600/5.6L as now with better performing cameras many of us don't need faster lenses. I rarely use my 500/4L wider than f5.6 and it's main advantage would be when used with an extender as at f8 AF can be a little slow and centre point only. However this is a small price to pay for the portability of such lenses not to mention the much lower prices. Although I accept the new 100-400 II is a very good all round lens it's image quality will always fall short of that produced by a prime which would be especially noticeable when used with an extender. A new 400/5.6L would I accept probable be a little longer than the new 100-400 II but lighter and cheaper also when you speak to owners of that lens most say that most of the time they use it at the 400mm end which isn't even a true 400mm!

Dare I say it I would consider moving to Nikon for such lenses!!!!

 

[Loswr]

Canon has just done that. A new lens just as sharp as the old, and they have added a zoom down to 100mm as well. It also closes up small for ease of packing.

+1

Or you could wait...

 

[bholliman]

Canon has just done that. A new lens just as sharp as the old, and they have added a zoom down to 100mm as well. It also closes up small for ease of packing.

True, great lens, but also double the price.

The old 400/5.6 has a significant advantage in weight (1250g vs. 1640g for the 100-400II) and slightly better corner sharpness looking at the TDP data. Since I don't use focal lengths above 200mm that often, I am finding it difficult to justify to myself paying $2.2K for a lens that will get infrequent use. I assume I'll still use my 70-200/2.8 II for anything 200mm and under, so if I bought a 100-400, it would be used primarily at 400. At this point I'm still leaning toward buying one of the venerable 400/5.6's, maybe used. An new IS version would undoubtedly add another $500 to the price tag, but I would consider one if it were available.

 

[Plainsman]

Canon are already supplying the market with the superb 400/4DO and 100-400 II.

What more do you want? Why can't people just be grateful?

A 400/5.6 IS would require a complete re design and would cost roughly the same as the 100-400 II.

Canon have a hugely variable lens production line which I am sure they would like to downsize in favour of zooms and DO lenses.

I've had two 400/5.6s and they are good lenses but at 400 you are absolutely stuffed if the subject of your photo is only slightly to big!!

 

[anolis23]

Canon has just done that. A new lens just as sharp as the old, and they have added a zoom down to 100mm as well. It also closes up small for ease of packing.

True, great lens, but also double the price.

The old 400/5.6 has a significant advantage in weight (1250g vs. 1640g for the 100-400II) and slightly better corner sharpness looking at the TDP data. Since I don't use focal lengths above 200mm that often, I am finding it difficult to justify to myself paying $2.2K for a lens that will get infrequent use. I assume I'll still use my 70-200/2.8 II for anything 200mm and under, so if I bought a 100-400, it would be used primarily at 400. At this point I'm still leaning toward buying one of the venerable 400/5.6's, maybe used. An new IS version would undoubtedly add another $500 to the price tag, but I would consider one if it were available.

I agree the old lens is lighter, but the new 100-400 ii is significantly more compact, which to my opinion makes it even more portable. I can have my camera with lens attached in a larger variety of camera bags than with the 400 5.6, which I sold after buying the 100-400 ii. For now in real world use I have not seen any differences in sharpness between the two lenses, which is quite impressive, considering it is a zoom vs prime, plus the addition of IS and an amazing close focusing distance. The performance of the 100-400 ii with extender is also much better than on the 400 prime. In this video I actually gave a quick take on both lenses: http://youtu.be/uAMoWZYTico

That said, the 400 5.6 is a great lens and you can't get anything better at that price point! IS indeed would make it spectacular!

 

[AlanF]

And f/4.5 is not a sensible choice of aperture. It won't AF with a Canon 1.4xTC on many cameras or with a Canon 2xTC on any (apart from liveview).

 

[Joey]

Canon has just done that. A new lens just as sharp as the old, and they have added a zoom down to 100mm as well. It also closes up small for ease of packing.

+1

 

[scottkinfw]

I have a 400 5.6 and it is wonderful! I enjoy the compact light portability for travel- especially where strict wight restrictions and space restrictions apply on airlines. The images it produces are most excellent by all standards with my 5D III. IS would be nice, better IQ, smaller and lighter would be nice too. The lens is well built, and it was very inexpensive. I know that this lens is OLD OLD OLD, however a newer version would have to be a grand slam out of the ball park for me to consider buying one.

Sorry to be Debbie Downer, but I'm glad I have such a great copy.

sek

 

[NancyP]

I think that the current 400 f/5.6L fills a unique niche, "inexpensive lightweight prime supertelephoto with fast AF", that allows beginners to try working with a supertelephoto and (once techniques are learned) get really good photos. The qualityrice ratio is highly favorable. The focal length is ideal for beginning bird photographers. I know that I wasn't ready to plunk down the money for an f/4 supertelephoto when I started, and I didn't know how I would do in shooting handheld. Certainly it is better to learn handheld shooting on this lens than on a 500 f/4 (particularly the version 1 at 4 kg). At the time I bought the 400 f/5.6L, it had by a good margin the best image quality in lenses under $2,000.00. I considered the 100-400L IS v.1 but since I had a 70-200 f/4L plus a 1.4x TC, I didn't feel that I needed another zoom. There are more choices now for the budget birder, many people will go for the Tamron 150-600 or save up for the 100-400L IS II. The next step up for me would be an f/4 supertelephoto.

 

[Don Haines]

I think that the current 400 f/5.6L fills a unique niche, "inexpensive lightweight prime supertelephoto with fast AF", that allows beginners to try working with a supertelephoto and (once techniques are learned) get really good photos. The qualityrice ratio is highly favorable. The focal length is ideal for beginning bird photographers. I know that I wasn't ready to plunk down the money for an f/4 supertelephoto when I started, and I didn't know how I would do in shooting handheld. Certainly it is better to learn handheld shooting on this lens than on a 500 f/4 (particularly the version 1 at 4 kg). At the time I bought the 400 f/5.6L, it had by a good margin the best image quality in lenses under $2,000.00. I considered the 100-400L IS v.1 but since I had a 70-200 f/4L plus a 1.4x TC, I didn't feel that I needed another zoom. There are more choices now for the budget birder, many people will go for the Tamron 150-600 or save up for the 100-400L IS II. The next step up for me would be an f/4 supertelephoto.

I agree, and if a 400F5.6 version II came out, you could expect much better performance than the 100-400 MkII. I think it would sell.

 

[Mharwood16]

I totally agree! I've thought about that lens for a long time, and a new IS version would probably tip the scales for me! As long as the new version didn't take a massive leap in price!

 

[9VIII]

Forget 400f5.6 IS, they can make the prime almost as compact as the zoom with a 400f5.6 DO IS.

Trouble is, they're not going to make another 400f5.6 prime lens because if they did it would make their entire line of Big Whites obsolite. I have no doubt that the best optical formula for that combination would be both inexpensive and one of the sharpest lenses ever produced.

Canon can't have that.
(Unless we convinced them that we would still buy it for $3,000 and let them have twice as much profit as normal, that might work.)

The best we can hope for is a new Sigma 400f5.6 (the old one was actually better than the Canon to begin with, under the Global Vision line it would slaughter the competition. I know you're giving up native AF at that point, but it's the only option that has a realistic chance).

Basically your options are: the old lens, the zoom, or pony up $8,000 and join the Big White club.

 

[NancyP]

The DO technology is still expensive and takes the lenses out of the "beginner" range. The old 400 f/4 DO was three or four times as expensive as the 400 f/5.6, and I believe that the current new 400 f/4 DO is ~$7,000.00+ . If they could figure out how to make a DO lens both good and inexpensive, they could sell a bunch of new 400 f/5.6 DO IS as "expensive beginner supertelephoto lenses". One of the problems in choosing which lenses to design is estimating demand, plant capacity, new investment.

Tamron has handed both Canon and Nikon (particularly Nikon) their collective *ss*s on a plate with the 150-600 for less than $1,100.00.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I doubt if there would be many buyers, most have bought or are waiting for the 100-400mm L MK II. Adding in all the wanted features will raise the price to close to $2,000, and it will still be too long, and will not focus closely.

I think that Canon should keep churning out the existing lens, pricing everyone out of the market is not a good move.

 

[bholliman]

I think that Canon should keep churning out the existing lens, pricing everyone out of the market is not a good move.

+1 Probably the best solution for Canon and the consumers. A new IS lens would be close to the 100-400 II in price so probably wouldn't sell and/or hurt sales of the zoom. The old 400/5.6 selling for $1,100 is a good deal and gives budget super tele photographers a nice entry level option.

 

[mpphoto]

I would be interested in a 400mm f/5.6L IS, but I know the price would be higher than I want to pay. I like my Tamron 150-600mm and it is a good value. However, its weight is bothering me more often. A 400mm lightweight lens for around $900-1000 used would be great. Well, that is what the current 400mm f/5.6L is, but the lack of IS scared me off. I ended up buying a used 300mm f/4L IS that fit my budget. I will pair it up with a 1.4x III extender I already have. Hopefully this will produce decent image quality. I have seen some pretty good photos from the 300mm f/4L IS + 1.4x III combo. It's the best solution I could come up with, based on my budget and what is on the market.

I think a lot of people want a light 400mm with IS for less than $2000. I'm not sure if physics and economics will allow this. The 100-400mm II is close to $2k, but it outweighs the 400mm f/5.6L by about 12 ounces.

 

[unfocused]

Personally, I'd prefer a 200 mm f2.8 prime with IS that could be paired with one of the new 2x converters for a 400 mm f5.6 prime. More compact than the 400 mm prime, more versatile and probably would sell better.

But, I don't think that's going to happen either. It seems most buyers prefer zooms and the new generation of zooms seem to rival the primes and sell just fine, so I don't see much incentive for Canon to update these primes.

 

[e_honda]

Both the 300 f/4L IS and 400 f/5.6L could use updating, but I don't see it happening anytime soon. Not with the new zooms that go up to those ranges.

Plus if they update these 2 primes and make them that much better, they run the risk of cutting into the sales of the more expensive (and profitable) 300 f/2.8L and 400L DO lenses.