EF 400mm f/5.6L IS on the Way?

[Loswr]

A 200 F/2.8,2.0 or 1.8 will equal its reach an f ratio with just the addition of a 2X convertor.

The current 400/5.6 prime is already optically better than the 70-200/2.8L IS II + 2x TC, and the bare zoom is better than the bare 200/2.8 prime. A 2x TC results in a significant IQ loss - there's certainly a need for a native 400/5.6 lens.

 

[Duade Paton]

The 400mm f/5.6 is a very good lens, but is not razor sharp as others keep saying. The optics could easily be improved to sharpen it significantly, and IS nowadays should be there.

I have used a 70-200, 300 2.8 IS II, 400 5.6L, 500 IS II and a 600 F4 with crop and FF cameras. I would have to say the IQ and Sharpness of the 400 5.6L is very good for its price point. I am continually impressed with the quality and sharpness I get from the lens and honestly don't know how much better they can make it without a large price increase.

I will admit IS and a MFD of 1.5 would be welcomed but not at a large price increase. My main interest is sharpness and IQ and at the moment for $1200 this lens is a bargain.

Whilst this is not a strict comparison due to the different location and settings it still shows the performance of the 400 5.6L. One shot is with a 7D & 400 5.6L and the other a 1DX & 500 F4 IS II + 1.4x. Without looking at EXIF data can you easily tell which one was taken with $17,000 worth of gear to a kit worth $2000?

 

[mrsfotografie]

The 400mm f/5.6 is a very good lens, but is not razor sharp as others keep saying. The optics could easily be improved to sharpen it significantly, and IS nowadays should be there.

I have used a 70-200, 300 2.8 IS II, 400 5.6L, 500 IS II and a 600 F4 with crop and FF cameras. I would have to say the IQ and Sharpness of the 400 5.6L is very good for its price point. I am continually impressed with the quality and sharpness I get from the lens and honestly don't know how much better they can make it without a large price increase.

I will admit IS and a MFD of 1.5 would be welcomed but not at a large price increase. My main interest is sharpness and IQ and at the moment for $1200 this lens is a bargain.

Whilst this is not a strict comparison due to the different location and settings it still shows the performance of the 400 5.6L. One shot is with a 7D & 400 5.6L and the other a 1DX & 500 F4 IS II + 1.4x. Without looking at EXIF data can you easily tell which one was taken with $17,000 worth of gear to a kit worth $2000?

No, but then the light conditions are favorable for the 7D+the 400 5.6L combination. Nice photo by the way

I saw the the 400 5.6L in a camera store today. Hadn't payed it much attention before, but it is surprisingly small and even thin looking, there was a 70-300L sitting next to it on the shelf, and it looked to me like the 70-300 despite being shorter (in retracted state) appeared to have more girth to it. The 400 5.6L is of no interest to me; too narrow an aperture and no IS.

 

[Don Haines]

There are several lenses that would do the job better (for me) than the 400F5.6....
400F5.6 - $1,525.46
500F4.0 - $10,509.00
400F2.8 - $11,638.96
600F4.0 - $12,983.56
200-400 - $13,220.96
800F5.6 - $14,114.43

This is what it would cost me today to get the various lenses where I live....and as you can see, there is quite the jump going above the 400F5.6 and that is why I would like to see an improved 400F5.6.

I think that a 600F5.6 is out as it would be similar in size and cost to a 300F2.8, which around here sells for $7,880.75 and I would guess that a 500F5.6 would be somewhere around the $4000 range.

Yes, there is a Tamron 150-600 about to come out, but I really doubt it will out-resolve the current 400F5.6.

For me, the 400F5.6 is as good of a resolving lens as I can afford.

Don
As usual you have the answers spot on. The 400mm f/5.6 is a very good lens, but is not razor sharp as others keep saying. The optics could easily be improved to sharpen it significantly, and IS nowadays should be there. There needs to be lenses that the average person can afford so that superteles are not just the preserve of the lucky few who have the cash. Sigma or Tamron could make a really good prime but they have given them up for consumer tele-zooms.

The 400F5.6 came out in May of 1993. In the last 21 years there have been great advances in the accuracy of machining. What we took for excellence twenty years ago is now commonplace. The advances in image quality of the big whites from series 1 to series 2 implies advances in optics, both in manufacture and computer aided design. The 400F5.6 was sharp for its time, but I would expect a new version to be much better as it should be both mechanically and optically superior.

 

[AlanF]

The 400mm f/5.6 is a very good lens, but is not razor sharp as others keep saying. The optics could easily be improved to sharpen it significantly, and IS nowadays should be there.

I have used a 70-200, 300 2.8 IS II, 400 5.6L, 500 IS II and a 600 F4 with crop and FF cameras. I would have to say the IQ and Sharpness of the 400 5.6L is very good for its price point. I am continually impressed with the quality and sharpness I get from the lens and honestly don't know how much better they can make it without a large price increase.

I will admit IS and a MFD of 1.5 would be welcomed but not at a large price increase. My main interest is sharpness and IQ and at the moment for $1200 this lens is a bargain.

Whilst this is not a strict comparison due to the different location and settings it still shows the performance of the 400 5.6L. One shot is with a 7D & 400 5.6L and the other a 1DX & 500 F4 IS II + 1.4x. Without looking at EXIF data can you easily tell which one was taken with $17,000 worth of gear to a kit worth $2000?

You can get great photos with most lenses if you are close enough to fill up the frame and rotten photos with the best lenses and gear if you are shooting under poor conditions and have to crop. So, without seeing the full frame of each or being given 100% crops instead of just seeing reduced size images at unknown crops you can't make any meaningful judgements.

 

[Brainphotography]

The 400mm f/5.6 is a very good lens, but is not razor sharp as others keep saying. The optics could easily be improved to sharpen it significantly, and IS nowadays should be there.

I have used a 70-200, 300 2.8 IS II, 400 5.6L, 500 IS II and a 600 F4 with crop and FF cameras. I would have to say the IQ and Sharpness of the 400 5.6L is very good for its price point. I am continually impressed with the quality and sharpness I get from the lens and honestly don't know how much better they can make it without a large price increase.

I will admit IS and a MFD of 1.5 would be welcomed but not at a large price increase. My main interest is sharpness and IQ and at the moment for $1200 this lens is a bargain.

Whilst this is not a strict comparison due to the different location and settings it still shows the performance of the 400 5.6L. One shot is with a 7D & 400 5.6L and the other a 1DX & 500 F4 IS II + 1.4x. Without looking at EXIF data can you easily tell which one was taken with $17,000 worth of gear to a kit worth $2000?

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I've always found the 400mm f5.6 L to be very sharp. Ok, I find my 400mm f2.8 LIS is slightly sharper but that's comparing a much more expensive and faster optic. But it's certainly a bit sharper than the numerous 100-400 LIS and 300mm f4 LIS I've tried. But they are all sharp enough. If people find that any of the above lenses aren't sharp enough for them...then please get a grip...they are all sharp enough.

 

[Brainphotography]

The 400mm f/5.6 is a very good lens, but is not razor sharp as others keep saying. The optics could easily be improved to sharpen it significantly, and IS nowadays should be there.

I have used a 70-200, 300 2.8 IS II, 400 5.6L, 500 IS II and a 600 F4 with crop and FF cameras. I would have to say the IQ and Sharpness of the 400 5.6L is very good for its price point. I am continually impressed with the quality and sharpness I get from the lens and honestly don't know how much better they can make it without a large price increase.

I will admit IS and a MFD of 1.5 would be welcomed but not at a large price increase. My main interest is sharpness and IQ and at the moment for $1200 this lens is a bargain.


Whilst this is not a strict comparison due to the different location and settings it still shows the performance of the 400 5.6L. One shot is with a 7D & 400 5.6L and the other a 1DX & 500 F4 IS II + 1.4x. Without looking at EXIF data can you easily tell which one was taken with $17,000 worth of gear to a kit worth $2000?
http://www.photos.duadepaton.com/Ducks-Grebes-and-Swans/Pacific-Black-Duck/i-[quote="Duade Paton"]

[quote="AlanF"]
The 400mm f/5.6 is a very good lens, but is not razor sharp as others keep saying. The optics could easily be improved to sharpen it significantly, and IS nowadays should be there.
[/quote]
I have used a 70-200, 300 2.8 IS II, 400 5.6L, 500 IS II and a 600 F4 with crop and FF cameras. I would have to say the IQ and Sharpness of the 400 5.6L is very good for its price point. I am continually impressed with the quality and sharpness I get from the lens and honestly don't know how much better they can make it without a large price increase.

I will admit IS and a MFD of 1.5 would be welcomed but not at a large price increase. My main interest is sharpness and IQ and at the moment for $1200 this lens is a bargain.

Whilst this is not a strict comparison due to the different location and settings it still shows the performance of the 400 5.6L. One shot is with a 7D & 400 5.6L and the other a 1DX & 500 F4 IS II + 1.4x. Without looking at EXIF data can you easily tell which one was taken with $17,000 worth of gear to a kit worth $2000?
[img]http://www.photos.duadepaton.com/Ducks-Grebes-and-Swans/Pacific-Black-Duck/i-NpHtDTV/0/L/PacificBlackDuckFlickr-L.jpg

NpHtDTV/0/L/PacificBlackDuckFlickr-L.jpg[/img]

[/quote]


Photo 1 looks like what I get with my 7d and 400 5.6 . I've had the 400 5.6 for quite a few years now. With aperture at 5.6 and 400mm we need as much light as possible. Boosting the ISO will add more noise and grain. At 400 mm there's usually some cropping as well. Im currently saving up for the 600 mark ii. You can definitely see that photo 2 has more pop and finer bokeh. 1dx with 600 ii is also a nice combo. My 85 1.2 ii has similar pop.

 

[Lee Jay]

The current 400/5.6 prime is already optically better than the 70-200/2.8L IS II + 2x TC, and the bare zoom is better than the bare 200/2.8 prime.

Which is why there's no need for a 400/5.6L IS if the 100-400L is replaced. The version II will very likely be better optically than the current 400/5.6L, have IS, focus just as well if not better, have better MFD and be able to zoom out as a bonus. Sure it will be expensive but who thinks a 400/5.6L II will come in under $2,500? The zoom will sell more and therefore benefit more from the cost reduction you get from volume production.

 

[Don Haines]

The current 400/5.6 prime is already optically better than the 70-200/2.8L IS II + 2x TC, and the bare zoom is better than the bare 200/2.8 prime.

Which is why there's no need for a 400/5.6L IS if the 100-400L is replaced. The version II will very likely be better optically than the current 400/5.6L, have IS, focus just as well if not better, have better MFD and be able to zoom out as a bonus. Sure it will be expensive but who thinks a 400/5.6L II will come in under $2,500? The zoom will sell more and therefore benefit more from the cost reduction you get from volume production.

And the 400F5.6 II will be sharper and lighter.... And will sell a lot more copies than any of the big whites.... There is a market for both.... It is not a one or the other scenario.

 

[Loswr]

The current 400/5.6 prime is already optically better than the 70-200/2.8L IS II + 2x TC, and the bare zoom is better than the bare 200/2.8 prime.

Which is why there's no need for a 400/5.6L IS if the 100-400L is replaced. The version II will very likely be better optically than the current 400/5.6L, have IS, focus just as well if not better, have better MFD and be able to zoom out as a bonus. Sure it will be expensive but who thinks a 400/5.6L II will come in under $2,500? The zoom will sell more and therefore benefit more from the cost reduction you get from volume production.

I don't disagree, at least from the consumer's perspective. The zoom would be more popular. As I stated, from a business perspective, the current 100-400L sells well...very well! By some reports, Canon sells more 100-400's than 70-300L's, despite the latter being newer and sharper. If Canon has both a new 100-400 and a 400/5.6 designed and production-ready, it might make business sense to release the new prime first, wait a couple of years, then release the new zoom.

 

[serendipidy]

The current 400/5.6 prime is already optically better than the 70-200/2.8L IS II + 2x TC, and the bare zoom is better than the bare 200/2.8 prime.

Which is why there's no need for a 400/5.6L IS if the 100-400L is replaced. The version II will very likely be better optically than the current 400/5.6L, have IS, focus just as well if not better, have better MFD and be able to zoom out as a bonus. Sure it will be expensive but who thinks a 400/5.6L II will come in under $2,500? The zoom will sell more and therefore benefit more from the cost reduction you get from volume production.

I don't disagree, at least from the consumer's perspective. The zoom would be more popular. As I stated, from a business perspective, the current 100-400L sells well...very well! By some reports, Canon sells more 100-400's than 70-300L's, despite the latter being newer and sharper. If Canon has both a new 100-400 and a 400/5.6 designed and production-ready, it might make business sense to release the new prime first, wait a couple of years, then release the new zoom.

I'm an old man...I don't know if I can wait that long ;D

 

[kirispupis]

The current 400/5.6 prime is already optically better than the 70-200/2.8L IS II + 2x TC, and the bare zoom is better than the bare 200/2.8 prime.

Which is why there's no need for a 400/5.6L IS if the 100-400L is replaced. The version II will very likely be better optically than the current 400/5.6L, have IS, focus just as well if not better, have better MFD and be able to zoom out as a bonus. Sure it will be expensive but who thinks a 400/5.6L II will come in under $2,500? The zoom will sell more and therefore benefit more from the cost reduction you get from volume production.

And the 400F5.6 II will be sharper and lighter.... And will sell a lot more copies than any of the big whites.... There is a market for both.... It is not a one or the other scenario.

Exactly. The other thing to consider is weight. It is quite a bit easier photographing BIF with the 400/5.6. I suggest everyone here who thinks a 400/5.6 is an unnecessary lens try one for a few days. For the price it is an amazing lens, as I expect any successor to be.

 

[mb66energy]

[...]

The 400F5.6 came out in May of 1993. In the last 21 years there have been great advances in the accuracy of machining. What we took for excellence twenty years ago is now commonplace. The advances in image quality of the big whites from series 1 to series 2 implies advances in optics, both in manufacture and computer aided design. The 400F5.6 was sharp for its time, but I would expect a new version to be much better as it should be both mechanically and optically superior.

Much better mechanically? Much better optically? I am not shure. Better optically: Yes. Better mechanically: Don't think. I reuse my 1.4 50mm S.S.C. with the EOS M and it is a very good lens optically but mechanically a dream compared to "modern" lenses.

Accuracy of machining is one thing - but quality control on a 7 lens optics is much easier than controling 12 or 15 lenses. If QC at Canon is o.k. the advances of machining aren't relevant.
And I am shure that computer aided design is standard since the late 1970s so the 5.6 400 for shure is a product of a computer optimized design.

The main cause of sharpness losses I observe with my tele lenses is due atmospheric effects - the lens is sharp like my 2.0 100 (one of the "sharpest" lenses) or the 2.8 100 macro (USM, non-IS).

 

[Menace]

The current 400/5.6 prime is already optically better than the 70-200/2.8L IS II + 2x TC, and the bare zoom is better than the bare 200/2.8 prime.

Which is why there's no need for a 400/5.6L IS if the 100-400L is replaced. The version II will very likely be better optically than the current 400/5.6L, have IS, focus just as well if not better, have better MFD and be able to zoom out as a bonus. Sure it will be expensive but who thinks a 400/5.6L II will come in under $2,500? The zoom will sell more and therefore benefit more from the cost reduction you get from volume production.

And the 400F5.6 II will be sharper and lighter.... And will sell a lot more copies than any of the big whites.... There is a market for both.... It is not a one or the other scenario.

+1

I'm sure both zoom and prime will sell pretty well but personally I'll only be interested in 400 5.6 II ideally with IS.

 

[Lee Jay]

The current 400/5.6 prime is already optically better than the 70-200/2.8L IS II + 2x TC, and the bare zoom is better than the bare 200/2.8 prime.

Which is why there's no need for a 400/5.6L IS if the 100-400L is replaced. The version II will very likely be better optically than the current 400/5.6L, have IS, focus just as well if not better, have better MFD and be able to zoom out as a bonus. Sure it will be expensive but who thinks a 400/5.6L II will come in under $2,500? The zoom will sell more and therefore benefit more from the cost reduction you get from volume production.

And the 400F5.6 II will be sharper and lighter.... And will sell a lot more copies than any of the big whites.... There is a market for both.... It is not a one or the other scenario.

It'll be lighter, slightly, and very little different optically unless the new 100-400L is a dog.

Let's say the new 100-400L is $2,500 and the new 400/5.6L IS is $2,200, the weight difference is 300g, and the optical difference is basically undetectable. How many people would give up the 100-399mm range for $300 and 300g? Some, for sure, but I don't think it would be very many. And, honestly, I think these assumptions are optimistic in favor of the prime.

I think the zoom would out-sell the prime 20:1.

Used to be primes had more advantages than they do now. But with zooms that are close to perfect optically and newer, lighter designs, primes have fewer advantages. Sure they still do have advantages, but mostly where you're desperate for extremes of speed or focal length.

Oh, and just so you know, of my 7 lenses, 4 are fixed focal length.

 

[Sabaki]

I have a very sharp 400 f/5.6 but I reckon it falls slightly short of the amazing sharpness you would get with the 100mm L macro or 24-70 mk II. And I agree with the poster about the minimum MFD.

So there's definitely room, although slight, for improvement.

The 100-400 & 400mm f/5.6 will both be replaced and the prime will be sharper while the zoom more versatile.
It would be awesome if the zoom could get close to the prime sharpness wise because there are situations (like a bird hide) where the animals get rather close and getting the whole of the bird in your shot is impossible.

I'm excited though, let's see what happens

 

[markesc]

I've lost patience.... pre-ordered the Tokina 150-600...

Worst case I'll just sell it, but I'm done waiting for Canon to pull it together and I'll gladly support the competition.

After renting the sigma 150-500 and canon 100-400, my conclusion with that was the 100-400 = more keepers, the sigma can give even better results if you're willing to live view focus/tons of time, however neither lens was I impressed with. Formerly owned (2009) the 70-200 f2.8 L is... a 2x ii on that one was a complete joke, but no extender = perfection!!

I do love the 70d+ 70-300 f4-5.6L I have currently, but I need more reach for my 5dmkiii, and I'm note attempting to pay the bills with this hobby, so I'm okay with 90% of the results for 10% of the price of the alternatives from Canon, after all, it should be about the idea, not the equipment!

Will post examples once it arrives!

Photo is a cropped 5dmkiii + 70-300 L that I'll keep for hiking adventures!

 

[9VIII]

Honestly, as much as I love my 400mm prime, the trend does seem to indicate that Canon could get away with just introducing a new zoom lens that replaces both of the older lenses, and I would be happy with that.
The only thing that would hold it back in my mind is if they kept the push-pull zoom mechanism. I generally don't like telescoping lenses because of the possibility of wiggle it introduces, and including the extra dust problems I might actually pass on a telescoping MkII even if it performed significantly better. If it were push-pull and above $2K I would just throw that in a big white fund instead.

Whatever they do, I'm really, really hoping they keep the integrated hood. I absolutely adore that feature.

 

[mrsfotografie]

Honestly, as much as I love my 400mm prime, the trend does seem to indicate that Canon could get away with just introducing a new zoom lens that replaces both of the older lenses, and I would be happy with that.
The only thing that would hold it back in my mind is if they kept the push-pull zoom mechanism. I generally don't like telescoping lenses because of the possibility of wiggle it introduces, and including the extra dust problems I might actually pass on a telescoping MkII even if it performed significantly better. If it were push-pull and above $2K I would just throw that in a big white fund instead.

Whatever they do, I'm really, really hoping they keep the integrated hood. I absolutely adore that feature.

Not to start another push-pull dust bucket rave war, but have you actually used the 100-400? You can tighten the barrel with a friction adjust ring and I can testify there is absolutely no wobble whatsoever.