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

[Loswr]

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.

+1, no wobble on the 100-400 or 28-300.

Nor do I have any dust in mine after three years of use.

I hope the push-pull stays - makes it really fast to zoom, and allows you to lock the zoom at the long end or anywhere in between (whereas zoom locks on recent/most rotating zooms only allow locking in retracted position).

 

[Don Haines]

A lot of people are asking why not replace it with a 10-400 in the lens lineup?

The point that a lot of people seem to be missing is probably the first thing that Canon considered.... Is there a market for this lens? I think we can all agree that the 100-400 will greatly outsell the 400F5.6, but that is not important. The real question is if there is a market for an updated 400F5.6.... And judging from the responses on this thread and it's activity, there seems to be demand.

So it won't sell as well as a 100-400..... Whoop-de-do..... It will certainly outsell the 400f2.8 and the 400DO so why are you not calling out predictions of doom and gloom for those two lenses.... Or for that matter, the rest of the Big Whites?

Given the same level of technology a prime will always be lighter, less expensive, focus better, have higher IQ, and less copy variation than a zoom. There are less glass elements and that means less light loss through transmission and there will be less reflections. The optical path is optimized for a single length, not compromised for a range, and that gives you better IQ. The lack of zooming mechanism means that the prime is mechanically simpler, and that means stronger, lighter, and easier to build..... which gives you less copy variation and you are less likely to get the out of focus issues where the lens is slightly misaligned and one side focuses better than the other. There will always be people who will be willing to take this instead of the versatility of a zoom lens...

As long as Canon thinks there is a profitable market for a lens, it will continue to be sold.

 

[Lee Jay]

So it won't sell as well as a 100-400..... Whoop-de-do..... It will certainly outsell the 400f2.8 and the 400DO so why are you not calling out predictions of doom and gloom for those two lenses.... Or for that matter, the rest of the Big Whites?

You willing for it to cost what they cost?

 

[Loswr]

So it won't sell as well as a 100-400..... Whoop-de-do..... It will certainly outsell the 400f2.8 and the 400DO so why are you not calling out predictions of doom and gloom for those two lenses.... Or for that matter, the rest of the Big Whites?

You willing for it to cost what they cost?

It won't. $2K, give or take.

 

[hoodlum]

So it won't sell as well as a 100-400..... Whoop-de-do..... It will certainly outsell the 400f2.8 and the 400DO so why are you not calling out predictions of doom and gloom for those two lenses.... Or for that matter, the rest of the Big Whites?

You willing for it to cost what they cost?

It won't. $2K, give or take.

It would only cost that if it had similar volume to the zoom. The new zoom will likely cost $2.5+ when replaced. With much lower sales Canon would need $3k+ to make a new 400mm f5.6 viable. How many here would be willing to pay that? I would pay up to $3.5k for a very sharp 400mm f5.6 similar in quality to the 300mm f2.8 ii. But I still don't think it will happen.

 

[hoodlum]

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

I did the same although mine will say Tamron on the side.

 

[Don Haines]

So it won't sell as well as a 100-400..... Whoop-de-do..... It will certainly outsell the 400f2.8 and the 400DO so why are you not calling out predictions of doom and gloom for those two lenses.... Or for that matter, the rest of the Big Whites?

You willing for it to cost what they cost?

It won't. $2K, give or take.

It would only cost that if it had similar volume to the zoom. The new zoom will likely cost $2.5+ when replaced. With much lower sales Canon would need $3k+ to make a new 400mm f5.6 viable. How many here would be willing to pay that? I would pay up to $3.5k for a very sharp 400mm f5.6 similar in quality to the 300mm f2.8 ii. But I still don't think it will happen.

The logic is somewhat flawed..... Yes, the 400F5.6 will not have the economies of scale of a more popular 100-400, but it will contain less parts and be simpler to assemble. The 100-400 has 17 lens elements, the 400F5.6 has 7.... The 100-400 has mechanical zoom and focus mechanisms, the 400F5.6 just has focus. The 100-400 has a two-part body, the 400F5.6 is one part.... Mechanically, one is very complex and the other is very simple. The factors will balance out and I would expect the prices to be similar.

 

[Loswr]

So it won't sell as well as a 100-400..... Whoop-de-do..... It will certainly outsell the 400f2.8 and the 400DO so why are you not calling out predictions of doom and gloom for those two lenses.... Or for that matter, the rest of the Big Whites?

You willing for it to cost what they cost?

It won't. $2K, give or take.

It would only cost that if it had similar volume to the zoom. The new zoom will likely cost $2.5+ when replaced. With much lower sales Canon would need $3k+ to make a new 400mm f5.6 viable. How many here would be willing to pay that? I would pay up to $3.5k for a very sharp 400mm f5.6 similar in quality to the 300mm f2.8 ii. But I still don't think it will happen.

$2K, $3K+, we're both making this up (unless you work for Canon, I don't). But the zoom is more complex, with more elements, more mechanics, more electronics (e.g., variable aperture), and overall more complex design parameters. The current 100-400 without discounting is $1600, so $2K is quite reasonable for a new prime, and an increase of ~50% is consistent with a 'premium' for IS. Remember - Canon doesn't need the prime to outsell the zoom, just to deliver a return on investment.

Suffice it to say that IF Canon releases a 400/5.6 IS, they'll do so at a price they feel is appropriate for the market. We can all make our choices then.

 

[mrsfotografie]

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.

+1, no wobble on the 100-400 or 28-300.

Nor do I have any dust in mine after three years of use.

I hope the push-pull stays - makes it really fast to zoom, and allows you to lock the zoom at the long end or anywhere in between (whereas zoom locks on recent/most rotating zooms only allow locking in retracted position).

+1, the ability to lock at any focal length makes it like a bag of primes I also like the fact that with this design your left hand is always near the end of the barrel, which is good for stability.

 

[Menace]

So it won't sell as well as a 100-400..... Whoop-de-do..... It will certainly outsell the 400f2.8 and the 400DO so why are you not calling out predictions of doom and gloom for those two lenses.... Or for that matter, the rest of the Big Whites?

You willing for it to cost what they cost?

It won't. $2K, give or take.

It would only cost that if it had similar volume to the zoom. The new zoom will likely cost $2.5+ when replaced. With much lower sales Canon would need $3k+ to make a new 400mm f5.6 viable. How many here would be willing to pay that? I would pay up to $3.5k for a very sharp 400mm f5.6 similar in quality to the 300mm f2.8 ii. But I still don't think it will happen.

The logic is somewhat flawed..... Yes, the 400F5.6 will not have the economies of scale of a more popular 100-400, but it will contain less parts and be simpler to assemble. The 100-400 has 17 lens elements, the 400F5.6 has 7.... The 100-400 has mechanical zoom and focus mechanisms, the 400F5.6 just has focus. The 100-400 has a two-part body, the 400F5.6 is one part.... Mechanically, one is very complex and the other is very simple. The factors will balance out and I would expect the prices to be similar.

I for one want a 400 5.6 prime for all of the above reasons - others no doubt want the versatility of a zoom. There is room for both and i'm sure Canon have done their market research / homework.

 

[dufflover]

The issue with a 400mm prime is the recent releases have somewhat proven a fairly (understatement) capable zoom can be made as the primes of old. OK so on hard numbers probably not, but you'd be hard pressed to find any practical difference between say a 70-200mm II vs "budget prime" or 200-400/4 vs 400mm/4 DO. Or to put more simply, those are new zooms, new sharp zooms. An updated 100-400 would give a 400mm prime a run for it's money and probably be good enough to out-justify whatever extra sharpness a new 400mm prime would give. Now, there other reasons as mentioned such as price, complexity and weight. But imo Canon aren't exactly caring too much about "budget" of any whites, and the 100-400 is (relatively) light anyway, and as a bonus collapses into 70-200 ... presuming similar characteristics are maintained for any new version.

Unless it's a cheap-as-chips change to the existing 400mm/5.6 production line, I don't think they'll do it.

 

[tapanit]

+1, no wobble on the 100-400 or 28-300.

Nor do I have any dust in mine after three years of use.

I hope the push-pull stays - makes it really fast to zoom, and allows you to lock the zoom at the long end or anywhere in between (whereas zoom locks on recent/most rotating zooms only allow locking in retracted position).

Agreed. I've not dust I can see in my 100-400 after... what, almost 13 years by now, no wobble whatsoever, and I really like the ability to lock the zoom at any position. And it is indeed faster to zoom than the more usual twist mechanism.

 

[mackguyver]

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

I did the same although mine will say Tamron on the side.

I lost patience as well and bought the 300 2.8 IS II to go with my Mk III extenders. The IS and IQ rock, but this combo is so much bigger, heavier, and damn, where did all my money go?

 

[Don Haines]

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

I did the same although mine will say Tamron on the side.

I can see myself getting both.... The Tamron for the zoom range (150-600 goes with 70-200 with much less overlap than a 100-400 does), and the 400F5.6 for outstanding IQ...

 

[unfocused]

A better and more interesting option would be a f5.6 500mm IS prime. It could still be affordable and would compete nicely against the new Tamron 150-600. Yeah, it would probably be at least twice the cost of the current 400mm 5.6 prime, but would still be a lot cheaper than the fast super telephotos.

 

[mackguyver]

A better and more interesting option would be a f5.6 500mm IS prime. It could still be affordable and would compete nicely against the new Tamron 150-600. Yeah, it would probably be at least twice the cost of the current 400mm 5.6 prime, but would still be a lot cheaper than the fast super telephotos.

I know - to me a "f/6.3" 600mm IS prime would have better IQ for less money. I seriously doubt that any 4x zoom can overcome the trade-offs of a zoom lens. I will be very curious to see how the Tamron compares to the 300 2.8 IS II + 2xIII combo, though.

 

[Don Haines]

A better and more interesting option would be a f5.6 500mm IS prime. It could still be affordable and would compete nicely against the new Tamron 150-600. Yeah, it would probably be at least twice the cost of the current 400mm 5.6 prime, but would still be a lot cheaper than the fast super telephotos.

You would probably be looking at 1.5 to 1.8 Kilograms, a 92mm filter size and 100-105mm maximum diameter on a lens like that. That would be a big heavy expensive lens... until you compare it to the 500F4 which is 3.2Kilos and 146mm across and probably more than twice the price.

I think that there is a market for f5.6 versions of some of the big whites. The 500F4 would seem like the next logical contender for a mini "big white".

 

[kirispupis]

A better and more interesting option would be a f5.6 500mm IS prime. It could still be affordable and would compete nicely against the new Tamron 150-600. Yeah, it would probably be at least twice the cost of the current 400mm 5.6 prime, but would still be a lot cheaper than the fast super telephotos.

You would probably be looking at 1.5 to 1.8 Kilograms, a 92mm filter size and 100-105mm maximum diameter on a lens like that. That would be a big heavy expensive lens... until you compare it to the 500F4 which is 3.2Kilos and 146mm across and probably more than twice the price.

I think that there is a market for f5.6 versions of some of the big whites. The 500F4 would seem like the next logical contender for a mini "big white".

I agree that it would be very interesting to have a lens like this. In general I have always believed Canon (and most other manufacturers) have a hole in their lineup in terms of high quality telephotos. On the one side you have their 'budget' telephotos like the 400/5.6 and the 100-400 and on the other side you have their high end telephotos beginning with the 300/2.8 II. The problem is there's really nothing in between unless you buy used. So you either pay ~$1700 for the current 100-400 or you save up $7k for the 300/2.8 II (or more likely $10k and up for the 200-400 or 500/4).

What I would really like to see (well, maybe not so much now I have the 200-400) is something priced around $3500 that is a noticeable step up from the 400/5.6 and 100-400. It's hard to say if a 500/5.6 would be priced that low, but if they could pull it off I expect it would be a good seller.

 

[photonius]

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

I did the same although mine will say Tamron on the side.

I lost patience as well and bought the 300 2.8 IS II to go with my Mk III extenders. The IS and IQ rock, but this combo is so much bigger, heavier, and damn, where did all my money go?

how does the 300 f2.8 IS mark I compare to the mark II? The Tamron seems to beat the 300 f2.8 IS with 2x Mk III extender: http://translate.google.ca/translate?hl=en&sl=ja&u=http://www.trinitylumberton.org/category29/&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://www.trinitylumberton.org/category29/%26newwindow%3D1

 

[AlanF]

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

I did the same although mine will say Tamron on the side.

I lost patience as well and bought the 300 2.8 IS II to go with my Mk III extenders. The IS and IQ rock, but this combo is so much bigger, heavier, and damn, where did all my money go?

how does the 300 f2.8 IS mark I compare to the mark II? The Tamron seems to beat the 300 f2.8 IS with 2x Mk III extender: http://translate.google.ca/translate?hl=en&sl=ja&u=http://www.trinitylumberton.org/category29/&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://www.trinitylumberton.org/category29/%26newwindow%3D1

The Series II is significantly better. See:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=739&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=2&LensComp=249&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

The crop on the trinity website is from the very centre, and I am willing to bet that the Tamron falls off rapidly away from the centre.