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

[serendipidy]

A 100-400L update supercedes the need for a 400/5.6 IS.

I believe this is what is happening. The 100-400 is also getting heavily discounted.

A new 100-400L is just around the corner and will effectively replace both lenses.

Many lenses are heavily discounted these days. That proves nothing.

They only get heavily discounted 6 months after I buy one ( I'm not joking) :'(

 

[mackguyver]

They only get heavily discounted 6 months after I buy one ( I'm not joking) :'(

You and me both - looking at the current double-dip deals going on, I could have saved well over $1,000 just on lenses if I had waited 6 months...

Which Memphis? The new one in Tennessee or the original Memphis in Egypt. I have some spare bitcoin rattling in my pocket.

Tennessee, where Lensrentals is headquartered.

 

[Eldar]

They only get heavily discounted 6 months after I buy one ( I'm not joking) :'(

You and me both - looking at the current double-dip deals going on, I could have saved well over $1,000 just on lenses if I had waited 6 months...

If you waited, a significant portion of your adult lives would have been spent without these lenses ... Buying was clearly the right decision

 

[mackguyver]

They only get heavily discounted 6 months after I buy one ( I'm not joking) :'(

You and me both - looking at the current double-dip deals going on, I could have saved well over $1,000 just on lenses if I had waited 6 months...

If you waited, a significant portion of your adult lives would have been spent without these lenses ... Buying was clearly the right decision

That's exactly how I look at it!

 

[GMCPhotographics]

The 400 f5.6L is a really nice lens. It's sharp, light and it's AF is very fast.
But the lack of IS is a pity and it's Min Focus distance is painfully long. For many the 300 f4 LIS with a 1.4x is a better prospect.
If Canon can nail those issues, it'll be a far more versatile lens.

 

[Menace]

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.

Rent them both

I tried but Roger said he didn't have any Unicorns farting rainbows.

Well he has only one Unicorn farting rainbows - and I have it on a long term rental

 

[kirispupis]

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.

While I have never used the 400 DO myself, I know two people who have used this lens. Neither of them liked this lens and both sold their copies.

I admit that $2k for a fixed 400/5.6 with IS may seem steep, but what else of quality could you get for that money? A new 100-400 will certainly be closer to $3k. The Sigma + Tamron lenses in that price range are soft and slow. The old 120-300/2.8 performed poorly - though I haven't seen the new one.

Right now if you want a sharp + fast lens at 400mm the current 400/5.6 is really the only game in town. The same will likely be true of its successor. The fact is when you reach these lengths good glass does not come cheap.

 

[Don Haines]

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.

While I have never used the 400 DO myself, I know two people who have used this lens. Neither of them liked this lens and both sold their copies.

I admit that $2k for a fixed 400/5.6 with IS may seem steep, but what else of quality could you get for that money? A new 100-400 will certainly be closer to $3k. The Sigma + Tamron lenses in that price range are soft and slow. The old 120-300/2.8 performed poorly - though I haven't seen the new one.

Right now if you want a sharp + fast lens at 400mm the current 400/5.6 is really the only game in town. The same will likely be true of its successor. The fact is when you reach these lengths good glass does not come cheap.

+1

And when the 100-400 and the 400F5.6 get updated, the 400F5.6 will have the lighter weight and higher IQ...

Right now, you have to spend $10,000 to get more resolving power than the 400F5.6, so a better version at $2000 or so will sell.

 

[hoodlum]

The volume for the 400mm f5.6 is too low to fund the costs associated with a new design. The current 400mm f5.6 was designed when zooms didn't exist at this focal length and apeture.

I would prefer a slow 400-500mm prime as well but I realize this will never happen now. Zooms have taken over this range.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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.

It is the most compact way to get 400mm that isn't f/8. It is noticeably more portable than the 300 2.8+TC (if slower) and faster than a 70-300+1.4x TC.

 

[Loswr]

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.

It is the most compact way to get 400mm that isn't f/8. It is noticeably more portable than the 300 2.8+TC (if slower) and faster than a 70-300+1.4x TC.

I'd say the 100-400L is a much more compact way to get 400mm f/5.6. The zoom is 3" shorter when retracted, making it a whole lot more convenient. When extended, the zoom is only 0.5" longer, and since it's hood is 0.5" shorter, when used properly (i.e., with the hood in place), the full length of the zoom and prime are the same.

 

[CarlTN]

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.

While I have never used the 400 DO myself, I know two people who have used this lens. Neither of them liked this lens and both sold their copies.

I admit that $2k for a fixed 400/5.6 with IS may seem steep, but what else of quality could you get for that money? A new 100-400 will certainly be closer to $3k. The Sigma + Tamron lenses in that price range are soft and slow. The old 120-300/2.8 performed poorly - though I haven't seen the new one.

Right now if you want a sharp + fast lens at 400mm the current 400/5.6 is really the only game in town. The same will likely be true of its successor. The fact is when you reach these lengths good glass does not come cheap.

My Sigma 120-400 is more than close enough to the sharpness of the Canon 400 f/5.6 prime, especially on my 6D. On a crop sensor the difference is a lot greater. But I have no serious interest in crop sensors anymore. And my Sigma costs less than half of $2000, it zooms, it has IS...and at the wider half of its zoom range it's as good or better than anything Canon makes. The long end really suffers more from a lack of contrast than a lack of resolution, but this is easily corrected in post, or even in camera if you just shoot jpegs. As for the AF speed, it's quite close to the AF speed of my new Canon 70-300L, if not matching it. So your "facts" differ from my facts.

If one needs the sharpest glass for a 70D or a new 1 series with 35+ MP, then I agree with you, $2000 is ok to pay. But for those of us who don't need any more than what 20MP on a full frame resolves, then $2000 for an f/5.6 prime is a waste.

If all you want is the best prime money can buy, but lighter weight and smaller size than the big superteles...in another thread I already suggested that they make something like a 330mm f/3.5 IS with at least one, if not 2 built in TC's. They could sell that for $5k to $6k US, and THAT would be worth it. But a $2000 400mm f/5.6 prime, or a new 100-400 for $3k, is definitely NOT worth the money to me.

 

[CarlTN]

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.

While I have never used the 400 DO myself, I know two people who have used this lens. Neither of them liked this lens and both sold their copies.

I admit that $2k for a fixed 400/5.6 with IS may seem steep, but what else of quality could you get for that money? A new 100-400 will certainly be closer to $3k. The Sigma + Tamron lenses in that price range are soft and slow. The old 120-300/2.8 performed poorly - though I haven't seen the new one.

Right now if you want a sharp + fast lens at 400mm the current 400/5.6 is really the only game in town. The same will likely be true of its successor. The fact is when you reach these lengths good glass does not come cheap.

+1

And when the 100-400 and the 400F5.6 get updated, the 400F5.6 will have the lighter weight and higher IQ...

Right now, you have to spend $10,000 to get more resolving power than the 400F5.6, so a better version at $2000 or so will sell.

Oh give me a break..."resolving power"?? Just how much into your image are you cropping? If you're cropping that much you just need more focal length.

 

[kirispupis]

My Sigma 120-400 is more than close enough to the sharpness of the Canon 400 f/5.6 prime, especially on my 6D. On a crop sensor the difference is a lot greater. But I have no serious interest in crop sensors anymore. And my Sigma costs less than half of $2000, it zooms, it has IS...and at the wider half of its zoom range it's as good or better than anything Canon makes. The long end really suffers more from a lack of contrast than a lack of resolution, but this is easily corrected in post, or even in camera if you just shoot jpegs. As for the AF speed, it's quite close to the AF speed of my new Canon 70-300L, if not matching it. So your "facts" differ from my facts.

If one needs the sharpest glass for a 70D or a new 1 series with 35+ MP, then I agree with you, $2000 is ok to pay. But for those of us who don't need any more than what 20MP on a full frame resolves, then $2000 for an f/5.6 prime is a waste.

If all you want is the best prime money can buy, but lighter weight and smaller size than the big superteles...in another thread I already suggested that they make something like a 330mm f/3.5 IS with at least one, if not 2 built in TC's. They could sell that for $5k to $6k US, and THAT would be worth it. But a $2000 400mm f/5.6 prime, or a new 100-400 for $3k, is definitely NOT worth the money to me.

I have used several of the Sigma zoom lenses before - my first telephoto zoom was a Sigma (the 80-400) - but when I moved to the Canon telephotos (100-400) there was a world of difference. Although Sigma is very innovative with their lenses - having interesting focal lengths like 120-300/2.8 - 300-800/5.6, and 200-500/2.8 they are not a company to look at for high quality telephotos. While I do give them marked improvement in their shorter focal length lenses, you get what you pay for with their telephotos (and maybe less so with their high end ones).

Personally I only use FF cameras. I own a 5D3 now and started with the original 5D.

Ask anyone who truly cares about image quality and they will all say that TC's are really a last resort option. I own both a 1.4x and a 2x III and only resort to them when I absolutely must. The drop in image quality is simply too great. For that reason I almost never use my 2x - it is almost always my 1.4x on a 70-200/2.8 II. Perhaps some optical engineer will stun us, but right now any lens based off of multiple TCs will be junk.

In terms of justifying $2k for a good 400/5.6 that is easy. I recently justified $11k for an improvement over this lens. Given that I sell large prints of my works, this expense was justified. A few successful images can easily pay for it. I can see amateurs having difficulties with such a price, but anyone who makes money from their work can definitely justify it.

 

[kirispupis]

+1

And when the 100-400 and the 400F5.6 get updated, the 400F5.6 will have the lighter weight and higher IQ...

Right now, you have to spend $10,000 to get more resolving power than the 400F5.6, so a better version at $2000 or so will sell.

Oh give me a break..."resolving power"?? Just how much into your image are you cropping? If you're cropping that much you just need more focal length.

Cropping is a fact of life for wildlife photographers. Regardless of how long a lens you have there are many times when your subject simply will not fit in the frame. This is especially true for birds. There are other times when the subject stays so briefly that I take the shot and recompose it by cropping later.

 

[Loswr]

+1

And when the 100-400 and the 400F5.6 get updated, the 400F5.6 will have the lighter weight and higher IQ...

Right now, you have to spend $10,000 to get more resolving power than the 400F5.6, so a better version at $2000 or so will sell.

Oh give me a break..."resolving power"?? Just how much into your image are you cropping? If you're cropping that much you just need more focal length.

Cropping is a fact of life for wildlife photographers. Regardless of how long a lens you have there are many times when your subject simply will not fit in the frame. This is especially true for birds. There are other times when the subject stays so briefly that I take the shot and recompose it by cropping later.

+1

With 840mm, I still need to crop.

 

[Duade Paton]

I would find it unlikely Canon would replace the 400 5.6 before the 100-400L. The 400 5.6L was released in 1993 and is just as good today as it was then. IMO this lens is the hidden gem of Canon's Wildlife Line up. The lens is so sharp, light and fast it is ridiculous. Just look at Lens Rentals test of the 200-400 to see how close the 400 5.6 comes to that lens.

The only problem with this lens is the MFD, 3.5m is too long. It is not a crippling problem as you can get super detailed portraits at 3.5m but it would be nice to get closer if needed.

I have used this lens extensively for nearly 2 years and I am its biggest supporter. I don't need the IS as I shoot handheld for BIF only and always have a high enough shutter speed. The rest of the time I usually use a tripod and whilst I aim for a SS of over 1/400 I have achieved plenty of sharp photos of birds just over 1/100. The new FF cameras and their high ISO abilities mean 5.6 is not such an issue any more.

I don't think I would update my 400 5.6L as I am very happy with what I get now. I would much rather they made a 500 5.6L.

A portrait showing the 3.5m mfd isn't always a problem.

Portrait of a Red-necked Stint, one of the worlds smallest shorebirds.

 

[MichaelHodges]

I'd be all over this lens on release day.

-------

http://michaelhodgesfiction.com/

 

[Don Haines]

Right now, you have to spend $10,000 to get more resolving power than the 400F5.6, so a better version at $2000 or so will sell.

Oh give me a break..."resolving power"?? Just how much into your image are you cropping? If you're cropping that much you just need more focal length.

Exactly.... I need more focal length but I do not have the $12,000 it costs to purchase it.

 

[CarlTN]

My Sigma 120-400 is more than close enough to the sharpness of the Canon 400 f/5.6 prime, especially on my 6D. On a crop sensor the difference is a lot greater. But I have no serious interest in crop sensors anymore. And my Sigma costs less than half of $2000, it zooms, it has IS...and at the wider half of its zoom range it's as good or better than anything Canon makes. The long end really suffers more from a lack of contrast than a lack of resolution, but this is easily corrected in post, or even in camera if you just shoot jpegs. As for the AF speed, it's quite close to the AF speed of my new Canon 70-300L, if not matching it. So your "facts" differ from my facts.

If one needs the sharpest glass for a 70D or a new 1 series with 35+ MP, then I agree with you, $2000 is ok to pay. But for those of us who don't need any more than what 20MP on a full frame resolves, then $2000 for an f/5.6 prime is a waste.

If all you want is the best prime money can buy, but lighter weight and smaller size than the big superteles...in another thread I already suggested that they make something like a 330mm f/3.5 IS with at least one, if not 2 built in TC's. They could sell that for $5k to $6k US, and THAT would be worth it. But a $2000 400mm f/5.6 prime, or a new 100-400 for $3k, is definitely NOT worth the money to me.

I have used several of the Sigma zoom lenses before - my first telephoto zoom was a Sigma (the 80-400) - but when I moved to the Canon telephotos (100-400) there was a world of difference. Although Sigma is very innovative with their lenses - having interesting focal lengths like 120-300/2.8 - 300-800/5.6, and 200-500/2.8 they are not a company to look at for high quality telephotos. While I do give them marked improvement in their shorter focal length lenses, you get what you pay for with their telephotos (and maybe less so with their high end ones).

Personally I only use FF cameras. I own a 5D3 now and started with the original 5D.

Ask anyone who truly cares about image quality and they will all say that TC's are really a last resort option. I own both a 1.4x and a 2x III and only resort to them when I absolutely must. The drop in image quality is simply too great. For that reason I almost never use my 2x - it is almost always my 1.4x on a 70-200/2.8 II. Perhaps some optical engineer will stun us, but right now any lens based off of multiple TCs will be junk.

In terms of justifying $2k for a good 400/5.6 that is easy. I recently justified $11k for an improvement over this lens. Given that I sell large prints of my works, this expense was justified. A few successful images can easily pay for it. I can see amateurs having difficulties with such a price, but anyone who makes money from their work can definitely justify it.

Well, thanks for putting me in my place. How about you show me a full size image that would highlight where you needed more detail from it? And show me an image that you've made more than $1000 on. I want to see what a brilliant photographer you are.