New Lens Information for Photokina

[MichaelHodges]

If it is not broke don't fix it! I hope Canon Never messes with the 5.6 400. It is a perfect lens for the size, weight, price and does exactly what it does with no crap added. IS will only add weight and Jack the price sky high out of most peoples price range, if you want newer optics and IS look at the 2.8 II USM or the new f4 and be ok to pony up the crazy extra cost but don't ruin it for everyone else who can't afford, don't want IS, carry extra weight. In USA you can find them used for $900 in great condition and the sharpness is so good you can crop the crap out of the image even on a 1.6 sensor, that is why the 5.6 is a perfect BIF lens, all you have to do is point it and get center spot focus then hit the shutter....amazing Bird pictures easily!

How would making a new 400 5.6 IS ruin the current non-IS version?

 

[Omni Images]

My thinking also MichaelHodges
Sure it's not broke, but it's old technology for sure ... I'd pay a few extra hundred $s for a new version ... if price is that big of a deal a second hand one would still be an option.
But surely now after 20 years a tweak here and there on what is such a great lens would be about due and make it the all time BEST lens for image quality V price .. it kills it already.
IS .. maybe will cost em what ? 20 bucks ... $50 to add, weight not even an issue ... new lens coating .. perhaps a tweak to the lenses themselves .. REALLY would want to see a closer min focus distance down to perhaps 1.8m
This is the only thing stopping from buying this lens over the 300 F4 .. it focus's down to 1.8m ... you can get that close to birds and other wildlife so a 1.8m focus is not an outrageous ask. 1.2 if we could....

So in closing I would like to see a new 300F4 and a 400F5.6 with new gen IS and lens coating along with a close min focus for both.
I'm not a fan of the 100-400 ... I would buy a prime over the zoom any day. I doubt any birders would even use the 100-399mm anyway .....

 

[Mitch.Conner]

Great! Three lenses in which I have absolutely no interest. Canon is saving me money all over the place!

There are three lenses that interest me right now and, would you believe it, they're all Tamrons!

If Canon were to introduce any three lenses, you can guarantee that a fair share of photographers out there will have zero interest in the products.

Each one of these rumoured lenses, if well executed, could have a great reputation and sales for their segment - regardless of whether they suit my needs or yours.

The 100-400L replacement is already 10 years overdue. A 24-70/2.8 IS is also way overdue. Yet, they're looking at a 400/4DO II that maybe a few thousand people will buy, ever while these mainstream lenses are missing?

+1

 

[Steve]

One question, when did I ever say the 400 DO wasn't sharp or took TC's well? Because it reads to me like he is calling people that say those things idiots, and his images prove they are.

Nope, you said "horrible bokeh". There are several pictures in that post (and elsewhere on the internet) showing the bokeh of the lens. It is not, in any way, "horrible".

What he doesn't show you is stuff like this that demonstrates what DO do to bokeh and how they handle specular highlights, you might have noticed not one of Mr Morris' images has any specular highlights, did you wonder why? No, of course you didn't, you are too obtuse to do that.

No, its probably because it isn't actually a problem in real world shooting situations and you are blowing it way out of proportion. Bryan from The Digital Picture had this to say about it:

"The Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO IS USM Lens has been criticized for its poor specular highlight bokeh (OOF blur quality), but I have seldom encountered this problem. Specular highlights can have a target-appearance at worst - concentric circles instead of a smooth blur. I can't say I like the bokeh of this lens more than Canon's other 400mm Lenses, but the 400mm focal length combined with a relatively wide aperture can very nicely separate a subject from its background."

If you are happy to pay $6,500 for a lens that does that then I suspect you are the idiot, after buying them for that much many owners are happy to sell them for $3,500 to get rid of them, maybe they are the idiots.

One thing I will agree with you on is that I think the lens is too expensive and a new version isn't likely to be cheaper. It would be stellar if it was priced at about 2/3 or 1/2 of the 300 f2.8 IS II. One of the promises of DO technology is that it is easier to eliminate chromatic aberration (a huge problem with traditional optical designs lens manufacturers have struggled with for decades that, curiously, doesn't completely invalidate the entire technology...) so fluorite lens elements aren't needed for high end telephotos which should make them cheaper to manufacture but, well, Canon. *shrug*

One last thing - that photo you posted is pretty disingenuous. Were you just not going to mention that it was taken with the very different 70-300 f4-5.6 DO? Just going to allow that to be inferred by people who didn't bother to do a reverse GIS? The 70-300 DO exhibits far more problems than the 400 f4 DO and is reviewed a lot more harshly for a number of reasons related to its IQ. If you've got a sample that demonstrates the absolutely horrendous disaster that is the 400 f4 DO, I'm all eyes, but make sure its the 400 f4 DO and not that other lens.

 

[wtlloyd]

Wow, good catch.
Upvote for you!
For folks who don't know, in Windows a right click on image, and "Search Google for this image" is about as easy as can be.

One question, when did I ever say the 400 DO wasn't sharp or took TC's well? Because it reads to me like he is calling people that say those things idiots, and his images prove they are.

Nope, you said "horrible bokeh". There are several pictures in that post (and elsewhere on the internet) showing the bokeh of the lens. It is not, in any way, "horrible".

What he doesn't show you is stuff like this that demonstrates what DO do to bokeh and how they handle specular highlights, you might have noticed not one of Mr Morris' images has any specular highlights, did you wonder why? No, of course you didn't, you are too obtuse to do that.

No, its probably because it isn't actually a problem in real world shooting situations and you are blowing it way out of proportion. Bryan from The Digital Picture had this to say about it:

"The Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO IS USM Lens has been criticized for its poor specular highlight bokeh (OOF blur quality), but I have seldom encountered this problem. Specular highlights can have a target-appearance at worst - concentric circles instead of a smooth blur. I can't say I like the bokeh of this lens more than Canon's other 400mm Lenses, but the 400mm focal length combined with a relatively wide aperture can very nicely separate a subject from its background."

If you are happy to pay $6,500 for a lens that does that then I suspect you are the idiot, after buying them for that much many owners are happy to sell them for $3,500 to get rid of them, maybe they are the idiots.

One thing I will agree with you on is that I think the lens is too expensive and a new version isn't likely to be cheaper. It would be stellar if it was priced at about 2/3 or 1/2 of the 300 f2.8 IS II. One of the promises of DO technology is that it is easier to eliminate chromatic aberration (a huge problem with traditional optical designs lens manufacturers have struggled with for decades that, curiously, doesn't completely invalidate the entire technology...) so fluorite lens elements aren't needed for high end telephotos which should make them cheaper to manufacture but, well, Canon. *shrug*

One last thing - that photo you posted is pretty disingenuous. Were you just not going to mention that it was taken with the very different 70-300 f4-5.6 DO? Just going to allow that to be inferred by people who didn't bother to do a reverse GIS? The 70-300 DO exhibits far more problems than the 400 f4 DO and is reviewed a lot more harshly for a number of reasons related to its IQ. If you've got a sample that demonstrates the absolutely horrendous disaster that is the 400 f4 DO, I'm all eyes, but make sure its the 400 f4 DO and not that other lens.

 

[mrsfotografie]

Wow, good catch.
Upvote for you!
For folks who don't know, in Windows a right click on image, and "Search Google for this image" is about as easy as can be.

One question, when did I ever say the 400 DO wasn't sharp or took TC's well? Because it reads to me like he is calling people that say those things idiots, and his images prove they are.

Nope, you said "horrible bokeh". There are several pictures in that post (and elsewhere on the internet) showing the bokeh of the lens. It is not, in any way, "horrible".

What he doesn't show you is stuff like this that demonstrates what DO do to bokeh and how they handle specular highlights, you might have noticed not one of Mr Morris' images has any specular highlights, did you wonder why? No, of course you didn't, you are too obtuse to do that.

No, its probably because it isn't actually a problem in real world shooting situations and you are blowing it way out of proportion. Bryan from The Digital Picture had this to say about it:

"The Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO IS USM Lens has been criticized for its poor specular highlight bokeh (OOF blur quality), but I have seldom encountered this problem. Specular highlights can have a target-appearance at worst - concentric circles instead of a smooth blur. I can't say I like the bokeh of this lens more than Canon's other 400mm Lenses, but the 400mm focal length combined with a relatively wide aperture can very nicely separate a subject from its background."

If you are happy to pay $6,500 for a lens that does that then I suspect you are the idiot, after buying them for that much many owners are happy to sell them for $3,500 to get rid of them, maybe they are the idiots.

One thing I will agree with you on is that I think the lens is too expensive and a new version isn't likely to be cheaper. It would be stellar if it was priced at about 2/3 or 1/2 of the 300 f2.8 IS II. One of the promises of DO technology is that it is easier to eliminate chromatic aberration (a huge problem with traditional optical designs lens manufacturers have struggled with for decades that, curiously, doesn't completely invalidate the entire technology...) so fluorite lens elements aren't needed for high end telephotos which should make them cheaper to manufacture but, well, Canon. *shrug*

One last thing - that photo you posted is pretty disingenuous. Were you just not going to mention that it was taken with the very different 70-300 f4-5.6 DO? Just going to allow that to be inferred by people who didn't bother to do a reverse GIS? The 70-300 DO exhibits far more problems than the 400 f4 DO and is reviewed a lot more harshly for a number of reasons related to its IQ. If you've got a sample that demonstrates the absolutely horrendous disaster that is the 400 f4 DO, I'm all eyes, but make sure its the 400 f4 DO and not that other lens.

Thanks, for killing another internet lie.

And no thanks for making me want the 400 DO even more

 

[Steve]

I would have thought that people who have enough money to sink into Canon lenses would keep it sophisticated. How naïve of me.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this was poorly phrased but just so you know, this is an extremely offensive, classist thing to say. A person's worth and personality does not track with the size of their bank account.

 

[LovePhotography]

I would have thought that people who have enough money to sink into Canon lenses would keep it sophisticated. How naïve of me.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this was poorly phrased but just so you know, this is an extremely offensive, classist thing to say. A person's worth and personality does not track with the size of their bank account.

True. Didn't mean it that way.

 

[Steve]

True. Didn't mean it that way.

I didn't think you did, I'm just a bit sensitive. As a relatively poor person, the whole "more money = better than" culture we have here in the US gets to me sometimes.

 

[ewg963]

The 40mm pancake turned out to be quite popular so maybe this 24mm one will too .... but wait EF-S? Now that just seems a little bit silly to me. Why restrict it to crop only? And without IS? This thing had better be under $100 because otherwise why would anyone need this? The kit lens does f/3.5 IS at 24mm, right? And if you want a quality 24mm prime there's the ~ $500 EF 24mm f/2.8 IS (which is pretty small already IMO).

The 24-105 could be a cheaper FF option. Some people were banging on about that here so I guess there might be a demand but seriously? So you fork out $1600 on a FF 6D right? Assuming you went body only. And then you go an pair it with, what I assume will be, a cheap kit lens with compromised IQ? Why? Why not just stick with a rebel and a 18-55 kit lens if you're a cheapo? Having a FF camera means you give a s___ about IQ. This rumor makes no sense.

And a 400mm DO version 2? because the the original was so popular right?? Right?

Where is the 100-400 replacement and where is our 50mm IS?

I have a feeling the next rumor will say "Sorry no 7D replacement, just a white powershot with instagram built in".

+10000000000000000000000000

 

[Ekpil]

What do we need....
Still waiting for the new EF 600mm f/4L IS USM Extender 1.4x (600mm 4.0 / 840mm 5.6)

There is no need for a new EF 800mm /5.6

 

[dolina]

What do we need....
Still waiting for the new EF 600mm f/4L IS USM Extender 1.4x (600mm 4.0 / 840mm 5.6)

There is no need for a new EF 800mm /5.6

Ships in volume 2020... that's when the new 800 is needed.

 

[Don Haines]

No 100-400 replacement! This is the first time in a long long time that the rumour has been no replacement. Four years of saying it will come and now "no it won't".

First 100-400 rumour that I believe and I will be the first to laugh if it is wrong again

 

[mrsfotografie]

No 100-400 replacement! This is the first time in a long long time that the rumour has been no replacement. Four years of saying it will come and now "no it won't".

First 100-400 rumour that I believe and I will be the first to laugh if it is wrong again

I think everybody's got it wrong and it will be a 400-100L, and it will be reverse engineered from the original.

 

[jrista]

Great! Three lenses in which I have absolutely no interest. Canon is saving me money all over the place!

There are three lenses that interest me right now and, would you believe it, they're all Tamrons!

If Canon were to introduce any three lenses, you can guarantee that a fair share of photographers out there will have zero interest in the products.

Each one of these rumoured lenses, if well executed, could have a great reputation and sales for their segment - regardless of whether they suit my needs or yours.

The 100-400L replacement is already 10 years overdue. A 24-70/2.8 IS is also way overdue. Yet, they're looking at a 400/4DO II that maybe a few thousand people will buy, ever while these mainstream lenses are missing?

I think it really depends on how it reviews, and how light weight it really is. The original 400 DO had certain problems due to the diffraction grating approach they used. If Canon figured out particle dispersion DO, then the IQ could rival that of standard optics, but in a much smaller package.

If it reviews well, I think plenty of people would buy one. The original reviewed ok, with the exception that the softish glow caused by the diffraction grating was usually mentioned as the primary detractor.

 

[Vgramatikov]

400/4 DO is nice.

I need 200-500 4.0-5.6 L I S 8)

 

[tayassu]

I need 200-500 4.0-5.6 L I S 8)

As far as I remember, there is a pretty good 200-560 4.0-5.6 L IS...

 

[chitownjeff]

But wait! We were told in this CR2 back in May that the next "L" lens announcement would be the 100-400 replacement! Or wait, maybe it was this CR2 from January 2009.

The way this site keeps falling for rumors of a new 100-400 is becoming reminiscent of this:

I heard it's going to be beta tested at the next Olympics

 

[mrsfotografie]

I need 200-500 4.0-5.6 L I S 8)

As far as I remember, there is a pretty good 200-560 4.0-5.6 L IS...

If only every wish were answered that perfectly

 

[Lee Jay]

I am not asking anybody to do a hand hold test for me, I am suggesting they do it for themselves and put the "reach advantage" myth to death once and for all.

Maybe you don't see a difference, but I do.

Three cameras (5D, 20D [same pixel size as 5DII]), T2i [same pixel size as 60D/7D]), two different lenses (100-400L, 70-200/2.8L IS II), two different targets, all handheld, all with AF, all the same result - smaller pixels win easily.

Neither lens was shot at optimal aperture or focal length (70-200 at 200mm and f/4, 100-400L at 300mm and f/5.6).