New Lenses in January [CR1]

[Loswr]

I already have a razor sharp Canon EF300mm f/4L. This thing is razor sharp fully open. In addition this lens with my 1.4X II produced a little sharper images than my 100-400 at 400mm.

Interesting. I found just the opposite - my 100-400 @400mm beat the 300/4 IS + 1.4x II (and that seems to be a common theme from testers). That was with AFMA dialed in on both - without AMFA, the 100-400 would miss a bit at 400mm leading to reduced sharpness.

It's funny - you think something is razor sharp, then you see what razor sharp really is, say going from a 100-400 or 300/4 IS to a supertele prime.

Regardless, I expect a new 300/4 IS II would be noticeably better than the current 300/4 or the 100-400. I'd also expect a revised 100-400 to noticeably sharper, and I'd take that over the 300/4 II.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I already have a razor sharp Canon EF300mm f/4L. This thing is razor sharp fully open. In addition this lens with my 1.4X II produced a little sharper images than my 100-400 at 400mm.

Interesting. I found just the opposite - my 100-400 @400mm beat the 300/4 IS + 1.4x II (and that seems to be a common theme from testers). That was with AFMA dialed in on both - without AMFA, the 100-400 would miss a bit at 400mm leading to reduced sharpness.

It's funny - you think something is razor sharp, then you see what razor sharp really is, say going from a 100-400 or 300/4 IS to a supertele prime.

Regardless, I expect a new 300/4 IS II would be noticeably better than the current 300/4 or the 100-400. I'd also expect a revised 100-400 to noticeably sharper, and I'd take that over the 300/4 II.

The good thing about both the 300mm f/4 and the 100-400mm L is the relatively short minimum focus distance. I hope they do not screw that up by trying to make the lens smaller and lighter. A 11+ foot mfd like the 400mm f/5.6 is why I sold mine.

 

[tron]

I already have a razor sharp Canon EF300mm f/4L. This thing is razor sharp fully open. In addition this lens with my 1.4X II produced a little sharper images than my 100-400 at 400mm.

Interesting. I found just the opposite - my 100-400 @400mm beat the 300/4 IS + 1.4x II (and that seems to be a common theme from testers). That was with AFMA dialed in on both - without AMFA, the 100-400 would miss a bit at 400mm leading to reduced sharpness.

It's funny - you think something is razor sharp, then you see what razor sharp really is, say going from a 100-400 or 300/4 IS to a supertele prime.

Regardless, I expect a new 300/4 IS II would be noticeably better than the current 300/4 or the 100-400. I'd also expect a revised 100-400 to noticeably sharper, and I'd take that over the 300/4 II.

If you read again you will see I did not mention EF300 f/4L IS. I mentioned EF300mm f/4L (non-IS)

 

[Loswr]

If you read again you will see I did not mention EF300 f/4L IS. I mentioned EF300mm f/4L (non-IS)

Ahhhh...sorry!

 

[Pieces Of E]

Oh well, unless I win the lottery, my 300 f4L IS will have to do. Not that I have any complaints about it, mind you......but a new, lighter(?) 400 f4L with IS sure would be fun to sport around the wilds with.

 

[DigitalDivide]

A new 400 f/4 would seem to me to be a replacement for the largely unloved 400 f/4 DO, which sells for a little over $6K in the US. It would make sense to price it at somewhat more than the 300 f/2.8 IS II, but not too much more or they might lose sales to the 200-400 f/4 1.4xTC.

The 400 would likely appeal to those who need the reach, don't like the IQ of the old DO model, and can't afford the 400 f/2.8. Those who need the flexibility of a zoom and built in TC would go for the 200-400, but for ultimate IQ the 400 f/4 will most likely deliver in the way that the other recent big white updates have.

This would mean there is still a need for a 400 f/5.6 replacement, finally with IS. If they could deliver that for under $2K I would think it would be a big seller. Currently there is a huge gap between relatively affordable prosumer teles like the 300 f/4 and the cheapest serious pro models. The aging 100-400L and 400 f/5.6 are the only options if you need more than 300mm, unless you slap a 1.4xTC on the 300 (as I do). A 400 f/5.6 with the latet IS and high IQ would be a nice option, especially if used on APS-C for more reach.

 

[kubelik]

so a 400 f/4 probably won't be small or cheap ... but can't we get a 500 f/5.6 IS? the sigma superzooms that hit this focal length (150-500) aren't huge or hugely expensive. I'm sick of stuff that only goes out to 400mm. for your average consumer, you can get there with a 70-200 f/2.8 + 2x, a native 100-400, a 300 f/4 + 1.4x, the venerable 400 f/5.6 ... all of which puts you at roughly 400mm f/5.6. why can't we get something a little longer than that without having to spend $7k?

 

[westr70]

so a 400 f/4 probably won't be small or cheap ... but can't we get a 500 f/5.6 IS? the sigma superzooms that hit this focal length (150-500) aren't huge or hugely expensive. I'm sick of stuff that only goes out to 400mm. for your average consumer, you can get there with a 70-200 f/2.8 + 2x, a native 100-400, a 300 f/4 + 1.4x, the venerable 400 f/5.6 ... all of which puts you at roughly 400mm f/5.6. why can't we get something a little longer than that without having to spend $7k?

+1. right behind you on that.

 

[Razor2012]

Well at least I can buy a $500 2x III and have a 400 5.6.

 

[xps]

so a 400 f/4 probably won't be small or cheap ... but can't we get a 500 f/5.6 IS? the sigma superzooms that hit this focal length (150-500) aren't huge or hugely expensive. I'm sick of stuff that only goes out to 400mm. for your average consumer, you can get there with a 70-200 f/2.8 + 2x, a native 100-400, a 300 f/4 + 1.4x, the venerable 400 f/5.6 ... all of which puts you at roughly 400mm f/5.6. why can't we get something a little longer than that without having to spend $7k?

+1. right behind you on that.

+1 +1 +1

If they would do something like that, they would damage their cash cows. So, we all have to save a alot of money to get such long lenses.
But, maybe other companies will produce such a lens.
One of our cardiotechnicans owns an 70-200 Tamron 2.8 with an lot of letters behind. A lens of about 700 Euros. The lens makes wonderful pictures. My 70-200 2.8 LII too. But I paid nearly 2500€ for it.
So maybe tamron or another company will produce such a lens for us.
Maybe not as sharp as the original 7k Canons. But maybe a buyable 3,5k one...

 

[tron]

so a 400 f/4 probably won't be small or cheap ... but can't we get a 500 f/5.6 IS? the sigma superzooms that hit this focal length (150-500) aren't huge or hugely expensive. I'm sick of stuff that only goes out to 400mm. for your average consumer, you can get there with a 70-200 f/2.8 + 2x, a native 100-400, a 300 f/4 + 1.4x, the venerable 400 f/5.6 ... all of which puts you at roughly 400mm f/5.6. why can't we get something a little longer than that without having to spend $7k?

+1. right behind you on that.

+1 +1 +1

If they would do something like that, they would damage their cash cows. So, we all have to save a alot of money to get such long lenses.
But, maybe other companies will produce such a lens.
One of our cardiotechnicans owns an 70-200 Tamron 2.8 with an lot of letters behind. A lens of about 700 Euros. The lens makes wonderful pictures. My 70-200 2.8 LII too. But I paid nearly 2500€ for it.
So maybe tamron or another company will produce such a lens for us.
Maybe not as sharp as the original 7k Canons. But maybe a buyable 3,5k one...

If the 400 f/4L will cost so much (which I find very likely by the way) it will have to be a stellar lens. Otherwise the light and small 400/4.0 DO will suddenly look more interesting :

 

[jthomson]

so a 400 f/4 probably won't be small or cheap ... but can't we get a 500 f/5.6 IS? the sigma superzooms that hit this focal length (150-500) aren't huge or hugely expensive. I'm sick of stuff that only goes out to 400mm. for your average consumer, you can get there with a 70-200 f/2.8 + 2x, a native 100-400, a 300 f/4 + 1.4x, the venerable 400 f/5.6 ... all of which puts you at roughly 400mm f/5.6. why can't we get something a little longer than that without having to spend $7k?

Sigma could probably do it. Their 120-300mm F2.8 was around $3000 before the recent remodeling.
So they could do a similarly priced 400mm f4, maybe even a bit cheaper as primes use less glass, but their 300mm f2.8 prime was about the same price as the zoom so I would expect they'd charge a little more for a 400mm.

Sigmas' 500mm zooms are only f6.3 which is why they are not hugely expensive. Their 500mm f4.5 is around $5000

 

[tron]

Sigmas' 500mm zooms are only f6.3 which is why they are not hugely expensive. Their 500mm f4.5 is around $5000

In that case a 500mm f/5.6 lens would have reasonable cost say 2-3.5K even with stabilizer add on it...

 

[Steinn]

WHY not 400/4.5 or 5.6?

I should like to see a 400/5.6IS or a /4.5 as they in the FD-days

 

[Loswr]

so a 400 f/4 probably won't be small or cheap ... but can't we get a 500 f/5.6 IS? the sigma superzooms that hit this focal length (150-500) aren't huge or hugely expensive.

The Sigma xxx-500mm zooms aren't 500mm f/5.6, they are 500mm f/6.3. Sure, that doesn't sound like much...but 500/5.6 = 89mm, whereas 500/6.3 = 79mm. So, that innocent-sounding 1/3-stop translates to some elements needing to be 27% larger in area (which, of course, is the exact reason those less expensive Sigma zooms only open up to f/6.3). I wouldn't expect Canon to start releasing f/6.3 max aperture lenses anytime soon, and likewise, I expect high cost barrier to get over 420mm with a Canon lens that can AF on most bodies will remain in place.

 

[tron]

What if Canon with their know-how improve the quality of their 400 f/4.0 DO lens? That would produce an expensive lens but it would outshine others in terms of portability.

 

[kubelik]

so a 400 f/4 probably won't be small or cheap ... but can't we get a 500 f/5.6 IS? the sigma superzooms that hit this focal length (150-500) aren't huge or hugely expensive.

The Sigma xxx-500mm zooms aren't 500mm f/5.6, they are 500mm f/6.3. Sure, that doesn't sound like much...but 500/5.6 = 89mm, whereas 500/6.3 = 79mm. So, that innocent-sounding 1/3-stop translates to some elements needing to be 27% larger in area (which, of course, is the exact reason those less expensive Sigma zooms only open up to f/6.3). I wouldn't expect Canon to start releasing f/6.3 max aperture lenses anytime soon, and likewise, I expect high cost barrier to get over 420mm with a Canon lens that can AF on most bodies will remain in place.

still, the Sigma 500 f/4.5 is only $5K, and so a Sigma 500 f/5.6 would be, in my book at least, probably a reasonably-priced lens (especially for the length). Frankly though, I'd be happy with a true 480mm f/5.6, or 450mm f/5.6 ... anything to get out of the 400-420 range

 

[FarQinell]

<p>The second is said to be an EF 400 f/4L IS, no mention of it being a DO lens. With the price of the coming EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x, mixed with the also expensive 400 f/4 DO IS, there is probably a big market for a 400 f/4 prime that is “affordable”.</p>
<p><strong><span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">c</span>r</strong></p>
[/html]
[/quote]

Maybe this new 400/4 - if it ever comes - could have an integral 1.4TC - like the long awaited 200-400/4!
Don't hold your breath though you probably would have to wait years for it!

 

[jthomson]

Price of new lenses

Got into a bit of an arguement on another forum.
Produced this graph to back up my lens pricing.
Thought you might like to see it as well.
The blue dots are the following data taken from B&H
The Red dots are the estimated prices for new lenses based on the regressed equation of the data.


B&H $ (L/f) Lens
1049 ( 36) 100mm f2.8L IS
5999 ( 100) EF-200 f2L IS
7249 ( 107) EF-300 f2.8L IS II
11499 (143) EF-400 f2.8L IS II
10499 (125) EF-500 f4L IS II
12999 (150) EF-600 f4L IS II
13899 (143) EF-800 f5.6L IS

 

[Loswr]

Nice graph, but flawed (sorry!). Maybe it won't change the conclusion, but you're plotting iris diaphragm max diameter (focal length / f-number), and while that seems reasonable for a telephoto lens design, it breaks down for other lens designs. So, the 100L Macro that anchors the bottom of your regression curve isn't a valid data point (consider - what would the 14L would do to your curve, L/f = 5, $2124?).

The 300/4 IS and 400/5.6 are current and should be included, as should the other tele primes, the 135L and 200/2.8L II. I'd like to see the re-plot including those but excluding the 100L Macro.