EF 400mm f/5.6L IS on the Way?
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
My 400/5.6 is already IS. I always shoot at 1/1000. In fact it is super advanced IS because it freezes not only my movement but also target movement, whereas your IS only freezes your movement. 
I am raw guy, I always prefer prime lens without IS: faster AF, better IQ, cheaper, lighter, simpler, less parts to go wrong.
For the more sophisticated guys, it seems to me a zoom 100-400 IS may be better suited.
Regarding price of a 400 f/4, the price of lens is mainly dictated by the diameter of the front lens, that is by the ratio of focal length over f/ratio. So a 400/4 lens costs is near a 300/2.8 or a 600/5.6.
For the price of a 400/5.6 you can get a 300/4 and it would be possible to get a 600/8.
I am raw guy, I always prefer prime lens without IS: faster AF, better IQ, cheaper, lighter, simpler, less parts to go wrong.
For the more sophisticated guys, it seems to me a zoom 100-400 IS may be better suited.
Regarding price of a 400 f/4, the price of lens is mainly dictated by the diameter of the front lens, that is by the ratio of focal length over f/ratio. So a 400/4 lens costs is near a 300/2.8 or a 600/5.6.
For the price of a 400/5.6 you can get a 300/4 and it would be possible to get a 600/8.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
This thought crossed my mind as well. Canon has to figure out ways to make money after all. This could be a way.
I for one, hope this rumor is true. It was be great to see a 400 f/5.6 IS that is optically better. I bet it would sell even if it is in the ~$2,000 to $2,500 price range.
Regarding the thoughts of the 400 f/4 IS. I'd be tempted by this lens. The main problem I see is price point. Make it close enough to the 400 f/2.8 II that it doesn't hurt the f/2.8 sales and the f/4 likely doesn't sell very well. Price it in the ~$6,000 range, similar to the 200 f/2 or 300 f/2.8, and it may hurt the 400 f/2.8 II sales.
I see Canon (over?) populating popular ranges like the 24-70 mm or 70-200. I am not sure they'd do the same thing with the super teles. Market may be too small. Two 300 mm primes and several zooms that end at 300 mm. Two 400 mm primes and two zooms that end at 400. One 500 mm, 600 mm and 800 mm prime. One zoom that, with built in extender, ends at 560 mm. Bigger the market, the more options you get.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
Lee Jay said:
Ahhh, but who's need? That was my point. You, me, lots of others want a new 100-400L, more than a 400/5.6 IS. But from Canon's perspective, the current 100-400L is still a very popular lens, and selling very well. Their need is to make a profit, the 100-400 is a cash (yen) cow, so why replace it now?
Upvote
0
Don Haines said:
yup, that's why Canon might have finally some competition to update their lenses, because the Tamron at 600mm might beat the current Canon 100-400 L @ 400 when cropped to correspond to 600. No side by side tests yet though in this early center test, it doesn't look too bad:
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
Upvote
0
The "evidence" seems pretty slim and purely circumstantial on this rumor. On the other hand, as profit margins go, it seems Canon could make a prime cheaper than a zoom, with fewer pieces of glass, and less going on mechanically (no zooming), so their profit margin could be easier to achieve with the prime.
Also, given the sharpness advantages inherent in the simpler primes vs. the more expensive zooms, they may be able to achieve "decent-ness" (if not heavenly-inspired greatness) in IQ without really having to go all-out with super-expensive means in order to do it.
They may also feel that if they don't, then the others will. Sigma in particular should give them a little concern given their recent successes and good press, which gives them more "cred" than the Tokinas and Bowers, etc.. Sigma now sort of rivals OEM lenses in their public perception of quality and value. (at this point, some will disagree loudly) If the rumors of new Sigma 400, 500 and 600mm lenses are true, or if Canon just thinks they may be true, maybe Canon are feeling the pressure to respond and not simply surrender ground to Sigma by default?
Also, given the sharpness advantages inherent in the simpler primes vs. the more expensive zooms, they may be able to achieve "decent-ness" (if not heavenly-inspired greatness) in IQ without really having to go all-out with super-expensive means in order to do it.
They may also feel that if they don't, then the others will. Sigma in particular should give them a little concern given their recent successes and good press, which gives them more "cred" than the Tokinas and Bowers, etc.. Sigma now sort of rivals OEM lenses in their public perception of quality and value. (at this point, some will disagree loudly) If the rumors of new Sigma 400, 500 and 600mm lenses are true, or if Canon just thinks they may be true, maybe Canon are feeling the pressure to respond and not simply surrender ground to Sigma by default?
Upvote
0
+1 - we see these low stock, out of stock, (false) discontinued listings, and assume a replacement is coming soon. If only it were truetron said:
Upvote
0
I enjoy both zooms and primes. But to say an improved 100-400 will make the 400 prime effectively replaced, well there are many prime tele shooters (BIRDERS!) who will have a field day with that comment. I think they both have their place.
Now, which will I get?
That my friend is the real conundrum.
Now, which will I get?
That my friend is the real conundrum.
Upvote
0
I have owned the 100-400 in the past and currently have the 400/5.6 - though it is up for sale (because a 200-400/1.4x is arriving today!). The AF and image quality of the 400/5.6 beat the 100-400 hands down. It is also a much lighter lens. The 100-400 wins in terms of IS and flexibility. For me though with a 70-200/2.8 II already in the bag I could no longer justify carrying the 100-400 too given that a 2x III extender brought the 70-200/2.8 very close.
My major frustration with the 400/5.6 was IS and the near focusing distance. While for birds IS didn't matter because I used 1/1000 or more, at times I just wanted it for abstract images or landscapes and it was quite frustrating to still need to handhold it at 1/400. Also its magnification made it difficult for small birds when they came close.
If Canon does release an updated IS version whether I would buy it would depend on the close focusing distance. If they improve it then I would likely save up for a copy - even though I have the 200-400. There are times when the light weight and portability of the 400/5.6 win out. My guess is it would sell for a bit over $2k. I doubt Canon sees this as a 'compete' lens but it does make sense to replace it given the age of the current model.
I am not too interested in a 400/4. The 200-400 is far more versatile there.
My major frustration with the 400/5.6 was IS and the near focusing distance. While for birds IS didn't matter because I used 1/1000 or more, at times I just wanted it for abstract images or landscapes and it was quite frustrating to still need to handhold it at 1/400. Also its magnification made it difficult for small birds when they came close.
If Canon does release an updated IS version whether I would buy it would depend on the close focusing distance. If they improve it then I would likely save up for a copy - even though I have the 200-400. There are times when the light weight and portability of the 400/5.6 win out. My guess is it would sell for a bit over $2k. I doubt Canon sees this as a 'compete' lens but it does make sense to replace it given the age of the current model.
I am not too interested in a 400/4. The 200-400 is far more versatile there.
Upvote
0
See if he has any beachfront property in Memphis ;Dslclick said:mackguyver said:Rent them bothslclick said:
I tried but Roger said he didn't have any Unicorns farting rainbows.
Upvote
0
mackguyver said:See if he has any beachfront property in Memphis ;Dslclick said:mackguyver said:Rent them bothslclick said:
I tried but Roger said he didn't have any Unicorns farting rainbows.
Which Memphis? The new one in Tennessee or the original Memphis in Egypt. I have some spare bitcoin rattling in my pocket.
Upvote
0
Danack said:
A 400 f/4 would be quite a bit larger, heavier and more expensive than a 300 f/4. Just look at the 300 2.8 compared to the 400 2.8! If it became too close to the 300 2.8 IS then people might just stick to using a 300 2.8 IS + 1.4x TC so I'm guessing that is why it's not been done.
Upvote
0
I have no interest in this lens. Who else has no interest in this lens? Is it just me? F/5.6 is only useful when you're already compromising because it's a zoom. I've tried the current 400 f/5.6. It's a fine lens for what it is, and considering its age.
But I have no interest in an approx. $2000 fixed focal length 400mm f/5.6 lens. If it were f/5, maybe...but not f/5.6. If it were no more than $1450 at introduction? Perhaps, but I doubt it will be.
Before I spent $2000 on a lens like this, I would rather use other less costly lenses and save up to buy a used or refurb 400mm f/4L DO. It's entirely possible prices for those will dip into the low $4000's at some point, especially if a new f/4 model is never announced. If Canon ever get around to bringing out a new 400mm f/4 (whether DO or not), it will cost $9000, thus prices on used 400 DO's will go up, rather than down.
Just my opinion and my thought process, no doubt others will differ.
But I have no interest in an approx. $2000 fixed focal length 400mm f/5.6 lens. If it were f/5, maybe...but not f/5.6. If it were no more than $1450 at introduction? Perhaps, but I doubt it will be.
Before I spent $2000 on a lens like this, I would rather use other less costly lenses and save up to buy a used or refurb 400mm f/4L DO. It's entirely possible prices for those will dip into the low $4000's at some point, especially if a new f/4 model is never announced. If Canon ever get around to bringing out a new 400mm f/4 (whether DO or not), it will cost $9000, thus prices on used 400 DO's will go up, rather than down.
Just my opinion and my thought process, no doubt others will differ.
Upvote
0
Seems like they would fix the 100-400mm first. I will be replacing mine with the new Tamron if it is as sharp as the pictures suggest. My 100-400mm already has dust behind the front element at under a year use and not sharp at all. I get better shots with the 70-200mm cropped.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
