Patent: Canon EF 70-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS

[StudentOfLight]

Canon EF 100-300mm f/4 L IS with built in 1.4x TC sounds like a much better proposition. In my mind this sort of lens will satisfy the needs of the people looking for a replacement to the 100-400 push-pull zoom and it sits obediently below the 200-400mm f/4 1.4x TC.

With TC-on that would give 140-420 f/5.6. If priced between $2100-2600 and the IQ at f/4 matched the 100mm macro (non-L) and 300mm IS then I'd say they have a winner.

P.S. (100macro non-L) + (300mm f/4L IS) + (1.4x TC) = $2550

 

[sagittariansrock]

I was talking about the 70mm wide end - it's probably there to go along with Canon's new 24-70 lenses and to phase out the 24-105, but the 70-100 range will come at a cost and it's doubtful how many people will need this part on a tele lens... if you want flexible get a 70-300L as this is much more portable.

There are many times with my 70-200 when I find that 70mm is just barely wide enough for me not to have to change lenses. The wide end of my 100-400 requires me to pop on the 40/2.8 more than a 70-400 would.

+1. I am still rediscovering focal lengths and field of view with my recent shift to FF, and I just shot a group photo with 12 people, spaced nicely apart at 70mm. That 30mm will allow a lot of flexibility, IMO.

 

[Lee Jay]

I can see many applications, especially in sports and action. I shot a lot with the 300 F/2.8 IS II last year, and definitely was aching for some extra reach.

No doubt a lot of people are, I was talking about the 70mm wide end - it's probably there to go along with Canon's new 24-70 lenses and to phase out the 24-105, but the 70-100 range will come at a cost and it's doubtful how many people will need this part on a tele lens... if you want flexible get a 70-300L as this is much more portable.

I shoot aircraft (often R/C) all the time, and they go from "dot in the distance" where proper framing means around 4,000mm to landing 20 feet away, which means more like 40mm. They can do this in a matter of seconds. Even at full-scale airshows, I usually use my 70-200/2.8L IS II with 2x TC III and when the planes land and taxi by the crowd, I have to take the teleconverter off and even then sometimes 70mm isn't wide enough.

So, yeah, the wide end would be most helpful to me, even though I'd use it at the long end most of the time.

 

[mrsfotografie]

I love my 70-300mm (great IQ, and still so portable). I expect any 70-400mm will be significantly larger (& more expensive) - but would be a great 'zoom' birding lens.

I just got my 70-300 last Saturday, went to an orchid & butterfly garden straight afterwards to test it and instantly fell in love with this lens! Immediately thereafter I thought about my 100-400 and how it could really use an update because it's getting a little long in the tooth. If you consider the fact that my 70-300L is pin-sharp at 300mm and f/5.6 the need to update the 100-400 becomes even more apparent. Considering my L lens line-up it's the oldest model there and the only one without 'weather sealing' (FWIW). Very interested to see what Canon comes up with. Until then I think my 70-300L will see more use outside of 'travel' that I initially bought it for.

 

[JonAustin]

... I would rather see something in the 200-460mm f4-5.6 range ...

... if the replacement for the 100-400 is going to be extended in range and noticeably larger, I'd much prefer the extended range at the long end e.g. 100-500 or 150-500 ...

+1

I really don't want much overlap with my 70-200, and would prefer the extra range on the long end. And anything more than a 3x zoom in this FL range has too much potential to "strain" IQ, IMO. I'd love to see something anywhere in the range of 150-450 to 180-540 f/4-5.6.

Canon EF 100-300mm f/4 L IS with built in 1.4x TC sounds like a much better proposition. In my mind this sort of lens will satisfy the needs of the people looking for a replacement to the 100-400 push-pull zoom and it sits obediently below the 200-400mm f/4 1.4x TC.

With TC-on that would give 140-420 f/5.6. If priced between $2100-2600 and the IQ at f/4 matched the 100mm macro (non-L) and 300mm IS then I'd say they have a winner.

P.S. (100macro non-L) + (300mm f/4L IS) + (1.4x TC) = $2550

The notion of a 100-300 f/4 + 1.4TC is also intriguing. It's wishful thinking that it's price would equal the $2,550 sum of the prices of a 100 macro + 300 f/4 + 1.4x TC, but I'd willingly shell out up to $1,000 more for a lens like this.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

It would be nice if they got it down to 70mm. IMO,on FF, that makes a lot of difference, then it can be more useful as a general/landscape lens as well as a reach/wildlife lens.

I wonder if it could match the 70-300L and 70-200 f/4 IS over those ranges in terms of IQ.

 

[Marauder]

Rather surprised by this one. I mean, I fully expect the 100-400 replacement this year--it's long overdue. But I expected it to be a 100-400 F4-5.6. A 70-400 is a bit out of left field. On the one hand, I can see how an extra 30 at the wide end will have a bigger impact on framing than an extra 50 at the long end would. And I get how it matches better with the 24-70 and competes with the 80-400 from Nikon. But still, if I was going to have to pay a weight/size penalty, I'd MUCH rather it be at the long end! If I'm putting a long lens on, it means I'm trying to catch something very distant, or moderately distant, and very tiny, like a bird. I'd sooner see a 100-450, or +1 on preferring a 100-500 or 150-500 lens. Or for that matter, simply the 100-400 F4-5.6 that was previously rumoured--same range, and slightly faster at the narrow end.

I spend most of my time at 400 with my current 100-400 installed, often only zooming out to acquire the subject, before zooming out again. Any time I do need to stay zoomed out, I generally find the 100 is either sufficient, or I'm grabbing my second body with a shorter lens. I rarely ever long for a wider fov on my 100-400....but I FREQUENTLY wish I had even more reach!

Whatever the final format, I fully expect the 100-400 replacement to be much sharper than the current, and thus a worthwhile upgrade. That being said, if it comes out at 70-400, I'd be buying it in spite of the fact that it starts at 70....not because it starts at 70. It will be wasted weight and bulk, as far as I'm concerned. I'd rather have the extra weight put into a slight aperture improvement, or an improvement at the long end...and I suspect that might be the general consensus for most current users of the 100-400!

 

[Sporgon]

<p>2014 will see the replacement of the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS

I've just seen some pink elephants swimming in my beer :

 

[Lee Jay]

It will be wasted weight and bulk, as far as I'm concerned.

Probably a negligible amount. The Sony 70-400/4-5.6 weighs 1.5kg versus the 100-400L at 1.4kg, and Sony's lenses aren't exactly known for their light weight.

The long end drives the size of lenses of this type. The only real way to make them smaller at all is to go to a prime, and the 400/5.6L is still 1.25kg even though it lacks IS.

In other words, I suspect the 70-100 range on a lens such as this adds barely anything to the weight. Maybe an ounce or two.

 

[Loswr]

...I suspect the 70-100 range on a lens such as this adds barely anything to the weight. Maybe an ounce or two.

I'm more worried about what it might subtract from the IQ...

 

[Lee Jay]

...I suspect the 70-100 range on a lens such as this adds barely anything to the weight. Maybe an ounce or two.

I'm more worried about what it might subtract from the IQ...

It's a bigger issue if the lens has to cross into retrofocus territory (like the 28-300L does). Remember, the Sigma 50-500 is actually better than the 150-500.

 

[9VIII]

How about a 500mm f/5.6 L prime to replace the 400mm f/5.6?

I actually think that would be better than a 600f5.6, given that 500f5.6 is only an 89mm diameter front element, with modern design they might be able to keep the weight similar and price it under $4,000, anything 600f5.6 would still be heavy and expensive compared to the 400f5.6.

I keep wondering if Canon would come out with a 200-600 F5.6....

It would probably cost $3500 or so, but it fit in nicely above the 70-200's and by keeping the zoom ratio to 3-1 they could keep the kind of IQ that we expect from a L lens.... A 6X zoom is a bit harder to keep hi IQ on....

I think that's wishful thinking. 600f5.6 is the same as the 300f2.8, and then the extra cost with zooming? Now, maybe they don't have to pack it full of Fluorite, but I really don't think Canon would ever sell a 600mm anything for anything near what we would consider reasonable.
Hopefully competition proves me wrong though.

 

[Marauder]

It will be wasted weight and bulk, as far as I'm concerned.

Probably a negligible amount. The Sony 70-400/4-5.6 weighs 1.5kg versus the 100-400L at 1.4kg, and Sony's lenses aren't exactly known for their light weight.

The long end drives the size of lenses of this type. The only real way to make them smaller at all is to go to a prime, and the 400/5.6L is still 1.25kg even though it lacks IS.

In other words, I suspect the 70-100 range on a lens such as this adds barely anything to the weight. Maybe an ounce or two.

It will be wasted weight and bulk, as far as I'm concerned.[/quote]

Probably a negligible amount. The Sony 70-400/4-5.6 weighs 1.5kg versus the 100-400L at 1.4kg, and Sony's lenses aren't exactly known for their light weight.

The long end drives the size of lenses of this type. The only real way to make them smaller at all is to go to a prime, and the 400/5.6L is still 1.25kg even though it lacks IS.

In other words, I suspect the 70-100 range on a lens such as this adds barely anything to the weight. Maybe an ounce or two.
[/quote]

I think I made an assumption on weight and bulk, given that the previous spec for a 100-400 replacement was touted as being a F4-5.6 100-400 and this one is a F4.5-5.6 70-400. It seems like they've traded the slightly wider aperture of the previous prototype (at the wide end) for the extra 30mm of wide-angle focal length. I felt that implied that they have to use a slightly narrower aperture to provide the extra 30mm and keep within a specified weight limit. In essence, it was no more than a "guess" on my part.

Whatever format it takes, be it 100-400 or 70-400, I expect the lens will be a major improvement on the current model. I just don't think it being a 70-400, rather than a 100-400 adds any value to me regardless. Even on those occasions when I do zoom out on my 100-400, I usually find myself around 150, 200, 250 or 300. And when I do use 100, I don't think I'd gain much by being able to go to 70. Even if the weight, bulk and/or $ cost is negligible, it doesn't seem to be a very worthwhile change to me. I'd rather gain at the telephoto end. But it will be AF speed and IQ improvements that really decide if this new lens is a winner!

 

[Rienzphotoz]

Good range ... if the IQ is good, it'll make a nice second lens for many to complement the 24-70

 

[RGF]

I would like see a 70-300 F4 better then the current 70-300L and take 1.4 converter.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I'd expect to see a new 70-400 take advantage of the same design techniques as the 70-300 and use other tricks to save weight. It should be shorter and lighter than the current 100-400L. The cost per pound will jump dramatically.

The issue with rear focusing groups is that TC's often can't be used because the focusing group hits it as it moves. Of course, the design can be changed to allow it, it depends on the design choices made.
I haven't seen a well done comparison of the Tamron against the Canon 100-400 with TC, but they should be similar based on what I've seen so far. Testing those long focal length lenses is very difficult, so we may not have a lot of good test data to pour over.

 

[dufflover]

As soon as a new Canon 400 gives up it's size advantage there already are existing competitors such as the Sigmas and Tamron. I have no doubt any new Canon L would blow those out of the water (given the 100-400L is still competitive with the Bigmas) but when it gives up it's size advantage, personally I'd rather stick with my Sigma 120-300 OS (with it's decent 400mm f/4.5 or f/5). The collapsed size of a 100-400 is the main reason why I re-bought one.

It probably could be shorter, but obviously the patent says they aren't going down that route, at least for this particular design.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

It probably could be shorter, but obviously the patent says they aren't going down that route, at least for this particular design.

How is it obvious?

There are two patents, and I read thru both of them. One common theme was to make the lenses shorter and smaller in diameter. They do not give sizes and weights for the possible designs, but do emphasize that they are giving the size a high priority, at least, that's what my interpretation was.

" In recent years, as for the imaging device using a solid state image pickup device, advanced features and the whole equipment are miniaturized. And it is small, and is a high zooming ratio, and the photographing optical system used for it is required to be a zoom lens of high resolving power moreover. To be a zoom lens which has a vibration proof function (it corrects) which reduces the blur of the image which originates in the vibration at the time of taking a photograph, etc., and is produced etc. is demanded. "

"According to the present invention, the whole system with high-speed, easy vibration control operation and easy maintaining optical performance good, even if it faces vibration control is small, and the zoom lens of a high zooming ratio is obtained. "

 

[Lee Jay]

I just don't think it being a 70-400, rather than a 100-400 adds any value to me regardless.

Think about it like this.

With Canon finally getting the clue about f/8 AF points, this lens could be a 100-560/6.3-8 with a 1.4x TC attached.

 

[mrsfotografie]

I was talking about the 70mm wide end - it's probably there to go along with Canon's new 24-70 lenses and to phase out the 24-105, but the 70-100 range will come at a cost and it's doubtful how many people will need this part on a tele lens... if you want flexible get a 70-300L as this is much more portable.

There are many times with my 70-200 when I find that 70mm is just barely wide enough for me not to have to change lenses. The wide end of my 100-400 requires me to pop on the 40/2.8 more than a 70-400 would. Also, Nikon has an 80-400…

Yes, given good image quality (and I think Canon can deliver), a 70-400 would be a very useful and exciting range.