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

[CarlTN]

+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.

Try a D800E...

 

[CarlTN]

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.

Oh, so you're saying a new 400mm f/5.6 is going to be as sharp, or specifically it would have to be sharper than the 500mm f/4 ii or the 600mm f/4 ii? Get real, never going to happen.

 

[HankMD]

Would you mind putting a CR rating to this rumor?

I for one strongly doubt it. The story about shortages in specific items suggesting an upgrade has been used - and denied - many times in the past.

This year (2013) was rumored to be "The Year for 400mm Lenses". : Still a few days to make it true but I am not hopeful.

That said, the business of making predictions is fraught with difficulties. Just ask Harold Camping.

 

[CarlTN]

Would you mind putting a CR rating to this rumor?

I for one strongly doubt it. The story about shortages in specific items suggesting an upgrade has been used - and denied - many times in the past.

This year (2013) was rumored to be "The Year for 400mm Lenses". : Still a few days to make it true but I am not hopeful.

That said, the business of making predictions is fraught with difficulties. Just ask Harold Camping.

Quite impossible to do, since he's dead as of a couple weeks ago.

 

[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.

Oh, so you're saying a new 400mm f/5.6 is going to be as sharp, or specifically it would have to be sharper than the 500mm f/4 ii or the 600mm f/4 ii? Get real, never going to happen.

No.

What I am saying is that the lenses that fit a Canon which have more resolving power than a 400F5.6 are all $10,000 or more in price.

I need more focal length. I would like an 800F5.6 or a 600F4. I can not afford them.

The 400F5.6 is the highest resolving lens THAT I CAN AFFORD. It costs about $1200 to $1300, about a tenth of what the big whites will set me back. If the new version sells for $2000 or $2500 it is still a lot less than the next lens up....

 

[Loswr]

With 840mm, I still need to crop.

Try a D800E...

I didn't say I needed more MP after cropping...I said I needed to crop. Are you saying that with a D800E, I wouldn't need to crop? Thanks for that useless pearl of non-wisdom. :

 

[kirispupis]

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.

This image is one that has earned me well over $1k. Besides selling several prints of it, it was the front page for Bing.com.


In terms of an image where more detail is desired, just ask any nature photographer. All of us have such images.

 

[CarlTN]

With 840mm, I still need to crop.

Try a D800E...

I didn't say I needed more MP after cropping...I said I needed to crop. Are you saying that with a D800E, I wouldn't need to crop? Thanks for that useless pearl of non-wisdom. :

I'm saying if you like cropping, you can crop a lot more with it. Thanks for saying my pearls aren't wise or useful, I know I can always count on you for that!

 

[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.

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.

OK, true :-[ ;D. (Although the 100-400L doesn't take a TC as well as this new one likely would and the AF on the 100-400L is a little on the sluggish side (but true enough a new 100-400L II would probably fix the AF right up.... it would probably cost a bit more than the prime though, although not radically more.) ;D)

currently i believe some shooters prefer the 400L over the 100-400L for the AF speed

 

[serendipidy]

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!

Me too! ;D

 

[CarlTN]

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.

Oh, so you're saying a new 400mm f/5.6 is going to be as sharp, or specifically it would have to be sharper than the 500mm f/4 ii or the 600mm f/4 ii? Get real, never going to happen.

No.

What I am saying is that the lenses that fit a Canon which have more resolving power than a 400F5.6 are all $10,000 or more in price.

I need more focal length. I would like an 800F5.6 or a 600F4. I can not afford them.

The 400F5.6 is the highest resolving lens THAT I CAN AFFORD. It costs about $1200 to $1300, about a tenth of what the big whites will set me back. If the new version sells for $2000 or $2500 it is still a lot less than the next lens up....

So you're saying that, since you need more focal length (or "effective" focal length), you're wanting to pair a lens that is even higher in resolution than the current 400mm f/5.6, to a 70D? And you are mainly shooting in bright daylight?

 

[9VIII]

I think Canon's lack of a 400f4 shouldn't be too surprising. Every time I try to think about the advantages, it always comes back to the 500f4 already filling 90% of what I would be looking for. It's lighter than either of the 200-400f4 zoom lenses out there, roughly the same size, and If you order from the right places the 500f4 is only a few thousand more than the 300f2.8. Chances are you're getting more value out of the 500f4 as is than you would out of any theoretical 400f4.

I would still be more tempted by a 600f5.6 without IS at a similar cost to the 300f2.8, and if they can update the 800f5.6 without inflating the prices like Nikon did it would make a perfect partner for the current 400f5.6.

 

[9VIII]

Thinking further along the 600f5.6 line, and I'm totally dreaming here, but if they could keep the sharpness around the same level as the 300f2.8, then a 600f5.6 on a crop sensor would virtually equal the 500f4+2xTC, while focusing faster. That I would put money down for.

 

[revup67]

I'm wondering why this post by the CR admin didn't rate this as a CR1, CR2, etc.

The current 400 f5.6 L is a great lens but it could use IS for sure.
Unfortunately the replacement rumor has been circulated since 2009 on the Internet and it is still just a rumor.

I couldn't agree more and also don't believe the 400mm 5.6 will disappear. As an example, you can still get multiple versions of the 24-70 L lens. The 400mm lens is inexpensive and razor sharp as it is. I find that shooting 1/1600 with birds in flight is still simply not fast enough. IS will only offer improvements with IQ at 1/400 or slower. For you birders out there waiting, just get this incredible lens as you may be missing many great shots while you ponder. This one taken at 1/5000 note the slight blur on rear wing of this Allen's Hummingbird. I'm not sure how much better a newer 400 can get than this


Allen's Hummingbird in flight (9103) by Revup67, on Flickr

 

[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.

Oh, so you're saying a new 400mm f/5.6 is going to be as sharp, or specifically it would have to be sharper than the 500mm f/4 ii or the 600mm f/4 ii? Get real, never going to happen.

No.

What I am saying is that the lenses that fit a Canon which have more resolving power than a 400F5.6 are all $10,000 or more in price.

I need more focal length. I would like an 800F5.6 or a 600F4. I can not afford them.

The 400F5.6 is the highest resolving lens THAT I CAN AFFORD. It costs about $1200 to $1300, about a tenth of what the big whites will set me back. If the new version sells for $2000 or $2500 it is still a lot less than the next lens up....

So you're saying that, since you need more focal length (or "effective" focal length), you're wanting to pair a lens that is even higher in resolution than the current 400mm f/5.6, to a 70D? And you are mainly shooting in bright daylight?

Yes.

I shoot about half the time in good sunlight and for that I do not need IS, but the rest of the time it would be useful. In poorer light I have to get creative with supporting the lens and feel that IS would help, ( not critical, but would help) but what I am really hoping for is the improved optics that would allow this lens to work even better, particularly with a teleconverter.

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.

 

[tron]

I'm wondering why this post by the CR admin didn't rate this as a CR1, CR2, etc.

Simply because this post intended to create many posts even if it is BS! I thought CR was better than NL.
Well, actually it is except when creating threads like that...

 

[scottkinfw]

Shorten it, lighten it, and you can bet at introduction it will likely be closer to $2,800.00 USD.

Scott

I need a new 100-400 Mk2 and a 400 f/5.6 with IS comparison war to rage for many many moons like a hole in the head.

I'll never make a decision on a 400 with MORE options

I'm sure the new price tag might help, if recent increases (24-70, etc.) are anything to go by. If they really add IS and upgrade the optics, it will probably go for over $2k.

 

[scottkinfw]

+1 to that

I'm definitely hoping that it gets replaced with a 400mm f4 IS lens at an affordable price.

I realise that both the 400mm f2.8 and 500mm f4 are really expensive, but the 300mm f4 is under £1000, so shurely a 400mm f4 could be made that isn't that expensive.

A 400mm f/4 will be about the same size and weight as a 300mm f/2.8, unless it is a DO version, which is already available at an even higher price than the £5000 300mm f/2.8. So, I don't think a 400mm f/4 will be cheap.

If Canon is going to make something the size of 400mm f/4, my dream would be a super sharp f/5.6 500mm as a lightweight supertele that could combined with 1.4xTC.

 

[AlanF]

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.

 

[johnhenry]

Not all that exciting a lens except for the IS.

It really doesn't blow up my skirt nor I suspec t of many people.

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.