AlanF said:
That's a fact! It's been proposed to me on numerous occasions. I'm sure that it's nice; I just want something a little newer if I'm going to cough up well over a grand.
Upvote
0
Who would throw ~1200€ for new 300mm 4L IS II or 400mm 5.6L IS?
- Thread starter Steve Dmark2
- Start date
That's a fact! It's been proposed to me on numerous occasions. I'm sure that it's nice; I just want something a little newer if I'm going to cough up well over a grand.
How about just a brand new EF 400 f/4L IS USM prime? I'd throw $2.5K -$3K at that.
Dump the 300 f/4L IS and the old 400 f/5.6L.
I thought the f/5.6L was just too dark for me. F/4 or even f/3.5 would be nice in that price range for us mortals.
I don't particularly like the 100-400. One still ends up with f/5.6 at the long end.
I have the 70-200, but would rather not use an extender. I can skip 300mm.
If I could get half what I paid for that 2X III extender I'd sell it tomorrow. Great lens, just don't like it.
Dump the 300 f/4L IS and the old 400 f/5.6L.
I thought the f/5.6L was just too dark for me. F/4 or even f/3.5 would be nice in that price range for us mortals.
I don't particularly like the 100-400. One still ends up with f/5.6 at the long end.
I have the 70-200, but would rather not use an extender. I can skip 300mm.
If I could get half what I paid for that 2X III extender I'd sell it tomorrow. Great lens, just don't like it.
Upvote
0
Got one at work (400F5.6) and love it..... It's about 20 years old now.... Interestingly enough, it out-resolves the 800F5.6 FD lens when used with the FD to EOS converter, so we let the 800 go and kept the 400...chrysoberyl said:
I would not get the current 400F5.6 for home because the 100-400F5.6II is as good as the 400F5.6 at the long end.... but an updated version of the 300F4 (with teleconverter) or an updated 400F5.6 should outresolve the 100-400II for distant objects and be considerably lighter and better sealed.
However, only time will tell.... and while we wait, we speculate
Upvote
0
CanonFanBoy said:How about just a brand new EF 400 f/4L IS USM prime? I'd throw $2.5K -$3K at that.
Dump the 300 f/4L IS and the old 400 f/5.6L.
I thought the f/5.6L was just too dark for me. F/4 or even f/3.5 would be nice in that price range for us mortals.
I don't particularly like the 100-400. One still ends up with f/5.6 at the long end.
I have the 70-200, but would rather not use an extender. I can skip 300mm.
If I could get half what I paid for that 2X III extender I'd sell it tomorrow. Great lens, just don't like it.
Also a great lens, but hugh already a money i have to argue with my wife
Upvote
0
Don Haines said:Got one at work (400F5.6) and love it..... It's about 20 years old now.... Interestingly enough, it out-resolves the 800F5.6 FD lens when used with the FD to EOS converter, so we let the 800 go and kept the 400...chrysoberyl said:
I would not get the current 400F5.6 for home because the 100-400F5.6II is as good as the 400F5.6 at the long end.... but an updated version of the 300F4 (with teleconverter) or an updated 400F5.6 should outresolve the 100-400II for distant objects and be considerably lighter and better sealed.
However, only time will tell.... and while we wait, we speculate
Don, would you go for an EF 400mm f/4L IS USM with the blue goo at about $2.5-$3.5k? I know this is pure speculatory dreaming, but would it hold appeal for people in your opinion?
Upvote
0
CanonFanBoy said:
I think a 400 f/4 IS would sell really well at 2.5-3.5k USD. However, if it is L, then the price is too low! The 400 f/4 DO II is over 6k.
Upvote
0
If Canon made a non-DO 400 f/4 it would cost as much as the 300 2.8. The front element is practically the same size and would cost dearly. I don't see why Canon would make this lens if the 400DOII is already as sharp as the 300 2.8II.
Upvote
0
CanonFanBoy said:Don Haines said:Got one at work (400F5.6) and love it..... It's about 20 years old now.... Interestingly enough, it out-resolves the 800F5.6 FD lens when used with the FD to EOS converter, so we let the 800 go and kept the 400...chrysoberyl said:
I would not get the current 400F5.6 for home because the 100-400F5.6II is as good as the 400F5.6 at the long end.... but an updated version of the 300F4 (with teleconverter) or an updated 400F5.6 should outresolve the 100-400II for distant objects and be considerably lighter and better sealed.
However, only time will tell.... and while we wait, we speculate
Don, would you go for an EF 400mm f/4L IS USM with the blue goo at about $2.5-$3.5k? I know this is pure speculatory dreaming, but would it hold appeal for people in your opinion?
That lens at that price would be one heck of a deal! I can't see that lens being offered for under $6500 as you would expect it to be just slightly more than the 300F2.8...
As to a new 400 F5.6, I'd guess it would go for about $1600.... more than the 300F4 but less than the 100-400F5.6 II. That one would sorely tempt me as when you are looking for image quality, they is nothing like a prime.
Upvote
0
Don Haines said:CanonFanBoy said:Don Haines said:Got one at work (400F5.6) and love it..... It's about 20 years old now.... Interestingly enough, it out-resolves the 800F5.6 FD lens when used with the FD to EOS converter, so we let the 800 go and kept the 400...chrysoberyl said:
I would not get the current 400F5.6 for home because the 100-400F5.6II is as good as the 400F5.6 at the long end.... but an updated version of the 300F4 (with teleconverter) or an updated 400F5.6 should outresolve the 100-400II for distant objects and be considerably lighter and better sealed.
However, only time will tell.... and while we wait, we speculate
Don, would you go for an EF 400mm f/4L IS USM with the blue goo at about $2.5-$3.5k? I know this is pure speculatory dreaming, but would it hold appeal for people in your opinion?
That lens at that price would be one heck of a deal! I can't see that lens being offered for under $6500 as you would expect it to be just slightly more than the 300F2.8...
As to a new 400 F5.6, I'd guess it would go for about $1600.... more than the 300F4 but less than the 100-400F5.6 II. That one would sorely tempt me as when you are looking for image quality, they is nothing like a prime.
You're right. I didn't even know about the 400 DO.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
