Who would throw ~1200€ for new 300mm 4L IS II or 400mm 5.6L IS?

[GMCPhotographics]

To be frank, the 300mm f4 LIS is pretty much redundant after the 70-200 f2.8 LIS II and 1.4x TC were released. The 70-200 is sharper and better in every measurable way except weight.
The 400mm f5.6 L, which used to be photographer's birds in flight lens of choice...is pretty much redundant since the new 100-400 f5.6 LIS II.

Hello,

Not only weight, but also Pricing.
The reason why somebody buys a 300mm 4L IS is the pricing very well below 2k. The 70-200 IS ii tops that line.

Cheers

Well...save up and get the newer and better lens. The only reason the 400 and 300 are so cheap is that they are very very old designs and Canon still has legacy stock to shift.

 

[JonAustin]

But put the 400mm 5.6L IS ontodays technology and it would beat again the 100-400 5.6 II.

I'm presuming that the "IS" after "400mm 5.6" was a typo (wishful thinking?) in your post, but you raise an interesting point. It would be informative to see a head-to-head comparison of the 400/5.6 against the 100-400 II on a 5Ds or 5DIV.

I'd still trade in my 100-400 II for a 300mm 4L IS II with built-in 1.4x extender.

 

[Steve Dmark2]

I'm presuming that the "IS" after "400mm 5.6" was a typo (wishful thinking?) in your post, but ...

IS because if an update comes, then it comes with IS for sure.

... The only reason the 400 and 300 are so cheap is that they are very very old designs and Canon still has legacy stock to shift.

Well why they don't use all the "old" corpses, and fit in new AF, new IS and better glass ;D

But yes 300mm 4L ISii with 1.4 build in for ~1500€ would be my dream lens.

 

[AlanF]

...
4. Sharper edges? The 100-400mm II has better MTFs than the 400mm f/5.6 for both edge sharpness as well resolution - https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/page/3/
5. Less CA? The 400mm f/5.6 has more CA - http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/612-canon400f56ff?start=1 http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/896-canon100400f4556is2?start=1
...

But put the 400mm 5.6L IS ontodays technology and it would beat again the 100-400 5.6 II.
[/quote]

You wrote you wouldn't have the the 100-400mm II because of reasons that are unwarranted. That lens has remarkable lack of CA at 400mm and an edge sharpness is barely behind the 400mm f/2.8 II and 400mm DO II.

 

[chrysoberyl]

2. Smaller? The 100-400 is shorter when retracted to 100mm.
3. Huffing? The discussions are hardly full of complaints.
4. Sharper edges? The 100-400mm II has better MTFs than the 400mm f/5.6 for both edge sharpness as well resolution - https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/page/3/
5. Less CA? The 400mm f/5.6 has more CA - http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/612-canon400f56ff?start=1 http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/896-canon100400f4556is2?start=1

2. Smaller. OK, I'll grant you 2. Unless it's a DO f/5.6, which seems unlikely and expensive.
3. Huffing. Read more in this forum; even at this early stage, there are reports that the II is worse than the I. In any case, I do not want those problems.
4. Sharper edges? The 100-400mm II has better MTFs than the 400mm f/5.6 for both edge sharpness as well resolution - https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/page/3/. This discussion is about a II, not the old version. I firmly belief that an upgrade would be better than the 100-400 II.
5. Less CA? The 400mm f/5.6 has more CA - http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/612-canon400f56ff?start=1 http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/896-canon100400f4556is2?start=1 Once again, this discussion is about a II, not the old version. I firmly belief that an upgrade would be better than the 100-400 II.

 

[AlanF]

2. Smaller? The 100-400 is shorter when retracted to 100mm.
3. Huffing? The discussions are hardly full of complaints.
4. Sharper edges? The 100-400mm II has better MTFs than the 400mm f/5.6 for both edge sharpness as well resolution - https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/page/3/
5. Less CA? The 400mm f/5.6 has more CA - http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/612-canon400f56ff?start=1 http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/896-canon100400f4556is2?start=1

2. Smaller. OK, I'll grant you 2. Unless it's a DO f/5.6, which seems unlikely and expensive.
3. Huffing. Read more in this forum; even at this early stage, there are reports that the II is worse than the I. In any case, I do not want those problems.
4. Sharper edges? The 100-400mm II has better MTFs than the 400mm f/5.6 for both edge sharpness as well resolution - https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/page/3/. This discussion is about a II, not the old version. I firmly belief that an upgrade would be better than the 100-400 II.
5. Less CA? The 400mm f/5.6 has more CA - http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/612-canon400f56ff?start=1 http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/896-canon100400f4556is2?start=1 Once again, this discussion is about a II, not the old version. I firmly belief that an upgrade would be better than the 100-400 II.

I have both the 100-400mm II and the current ultimate hand-holdable upgraded 400mm, the 400mm f/4 DO II, and I find the 100-400mm II a really great lens. It is not soft at edges, has no detectable CA and packs away neatly for travel. Do you use a 100-400mm II and actually know anything about it first hand?

 

[Drum]

Updated versions of both lenses would in no way be anywhere near the €1200 price tag that you have quoted in the title. €2500 would be a more realistic target price, which would immediately make you look at the versatile amazing (IMHO) 100-400ii.

 

[9VIII]

2. Smaller? The 100-400 is shorter when retracted to 100mm.
3. Huffing? The discussions are hardly full of complaints.
4. Sharper edges? The 100-400mm II has better MTFs than the 400mm f/5.6 for both edge sharpness as well resolution - https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/page/3/
5. Less CA? The 400mm f/5.6 has more CA - http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/612-canon400f56ff?start=1 http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/896-canon100400f4556is2?start=1

2. Smaller. OK, I'll grant you 2. Unless it's a DO f/5.6, which seems unlikely and expensive.
3. Huffing. Read more in this forum; even at this early stage, there are reports that the II is worse than the I. In any case, I do not want those problems.
4. Sharper edges? The 100-400mm II has better MTFs than the 400mm f/5.6 for both edge sharpness as well resolution - https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/page/3/. This discussion is about a II, not the old version. I firmly belief that an upgrade would be better than the 100-400 II.
5. Less CA? The 400mm f/5.6 has more CA - http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/612-canon400f56ff?start=1 http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/896-canon100400f4556is2?start=1 Once again, this discussion is about a II, not the old version. I firmly belief that an upgrade would be better than the 100-400 II.

I have both the 100-400mm II and the current ultimate hand-holdable upgraded 400mm, the 400mm f/4 DO II, and I find the 100-400mm II a really great lens. It is not soft at edges, has no detectable CA and packs away neatly for travel. Do you use a 100-400mm II and actually know anything about it first hand?

I'm not sure what MTF charts you guys are looking at but on the Lensrentals chart the tangential lines of the 400f5.6 Prime are half a point ahead of the 100-400MkII from 12mm outwards, and at the frame edge the Prime is wholly superior.
The Prime lens is much more optically balanced.

 

[MrFotoFool]

I had a used copy of the 300 f4L (non IS) which was great until I could afford a 70-200 f2.8L (with extender) for the zoom versatility. I was recently in Alaska with my brother who uses Nikon's new 300 f4 with diffractive optics. I could not believe how small it is! Now that is a 300 f4 that makes sense.

 

[pwp]

I traded a truly fantastic 300 f/4is for a 300 f2.8is. I wish I'd kept it. There's room in my kit for both. The f/4is was so light and compact I would take it with me far more often. Even wide open it was was pin sharp, and with a X1.4 extender showed little loss of quality. It's true benefits lie in its incredible $ value, it's light weight, it's compact size and it's added bonus of having a very close minimum focus distance. I used to have a client who liked the food shots I did with it. While obviously coming a distant second to the 300 f/2.8is in terms of AF speed it was non slouch. I shot a lot of action sports with it. Don't expect envious and admiring looks from the crowd, but who cares? Those looks are usually more likely to be perceived than real. It may be a relic from last century, but it remains one of Canons true sleepers, a great performer for a bargain price.

Get one second hand, and if it doesn't suit you, you won't lose a penny at resale time. This lens has a devoted following. With a X1.4 extender you've got a highly viable 420mm f/5.6 is.

-pw

 

[AlanF]

2. Smaller? The 100-400 is shorter when retracted to 100mm.
3. Huffing? The discussions are hardly full of complaints.
4. Sharper edges? The 100-400mm II has better MTFs than the 400mm f/5.6 for both edge sharpness as well resolution - https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/page/3/
5. Less CA? The 400mm f/5.6 has more CA - http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/612-canon400f56ff?start=1 http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/896-canon100400f4556is2?start=1

2. Smaller. OK, I'll grant you 2. Unless it's a DO f/5.6, which seems unlikely and expensive.
3. Huffing. Read more in this forum; even at this early stage, there are reports that the II is worse than the I. In any case, I do not want those problems.
4. Sharper edges? The 100-400mm II has better MTFs than the 400mm f/5.6 for both edge sharpness as well resolution - https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/page/3/. This discussion is about a II, not the old version. I firmly belief that an upgrade would be better than the 100-400 II.
5. Less CA? The 400mm f/5.6 has more CA - http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/612-canon400f56ff?start=1 http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/896-canon100400f4556is2?start=1 Once again, this discussion is about a II, not the old version. I firmly belief that an upgrade would be better than the 100-400 II.

I have both the 100-400mm II and the current ultimate hand-holdable upgraded 400mm, the 400mm f/4 DO II, and I find the 100-400mm II a really great lens. It is not soft at edges, has no detectable CA and packs away neatly for travel. Do you use a 100-400mm II and actually know anything about it first hand?

I'm not sure what MTF charts you guys are looking at but on the Lensrentals chart the tangential lines of the 400f5.6 Prime are half a point ahead of the 100-400MkII from 12mm outwards, and at the frame edge the Prime is wholly superior.
The Prime lens is much more optically balanced.

Here are the charts we are looking at, put side by side, with the left hand one flipped horizontally in the manner of Lensrentals. Where it counts for a telephoto lens, the large inner circle, the 100-400mm II is better at the edge sharpness MTFs (10 lp/mm), and for resolution at more lp/mm, is streets ahead. Saying the prime is more balanced optically is like saying someone has a balanced personality because they have a chip on each shoulder.
Charts are produced by Lensrentals.

 

[9VIII]

2. Smaller? The 100-400 is shorter when retracted to 100mm.
3. Huffing? The discussions are hardly full of complaints.
4. Sharper edges? The 100-400mm II has better MTFs than the 400mm f/5.6 for both edge sharpness as well resolution - https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/page/3/
5. Less CA? The 400mm f/5.6 has more CA - http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/612-canon400f56ff?start=1 http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/896-canon100400f4556is2?start=1

2. Smaller. OK, I'll grant you 2. Unless it's a DO f/5.6, which seems unlikely and expensive.
3. Huffing. Read more in this forum; even at this early stage, there are reports that the II is worse than the I. In any case, I do not want those problems.
4. Sharper edges? The 100-400mm II has better MTFs than the 400mm f/5.6 for both edge sharpness as well resolution - https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/page/3/. This discussion is about a II, not the old version. I firmly belief that an upgrade would be better than the 100-400 II.
5. Less CA? The 400mm f/5.6 has more CA - http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/612-canon400f56ff?start=1 http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/896-canon100400f4556is2?start=1 Once again, this discussion is about a II, not the old version. I firmly belief that an upgrade would be better than the 100-400 II.

I have both the 100-400mm II and the current ultimate hand-holdable upgraded 400mm, the 400mm f/4 DO II, and I find the 100-400mm II a really great lens. It is not soft at edges, has no detectable CA and packs away neatly for travel. Do you use a 100-400mm II and actually know anything about it first hand?

I'm not sure what MTF charts you guys are looking at but on the Lensrentals chart the tangential lines of the 400f5.6 Prime are half a point ahead of the 100-400MkII from 12mm outwards, and at the frame edge the Prime is wholly superior.
The Prime lens is much more optically balanced.

Here are the charts we are looking at, put side by side, with the left hand one flipped horizontally in the manner of Lensrentals. Where it counts for a telephoto lens, the large inner circle, the 100-400mm II is better at the edge sharpness MTFs (10 lp/mm), and for resolution at more lp/mm, is streets ahead. Saying the prime is more balanced optically is like saying someone has a balanced personality because they have a chip on each shoulder.
Charts are produced by Lensrentals.

Ah, I see what's going on now.

I'm talking about "corner sharpness" and "IQ at the edge of the frame".

The 100-400MkII is sharper at the center of the frame, but on the TDP samples it's a very slight improvement, and overall contrast is better on the Prime. If you were going to shoot Full Frame I'm confident most people would prefer the Prime.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=278&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

It's kind of a shame that as soon as you Zoom to 300mm the IQ is practically perfect, I still wish they would just make these things 200-400 and actually give it the best image possible at the long end.
That probably cuts out way too many people who want a walk-around lens though.
I just hope that Tamron G2 pans out, the moon shots with that thing should be crazy good.

 

[4mrfannwskptc]

Even more weird that the third party lenses are not even existing.

But Nikon has 3 different lenses that could be considered competitors.


https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?&ci=274&N=4288584247+4261208104+4108103566+4094906844&origSearch=Nikon%20300mm%20F4

Since I already have the 1.4x III teleconverter. I'd opt for an updated version of the 300mm F4.

 

[Mikehit]

Steve Dmark2 was referring to no competitor for the 400mm which I took to mean direct competitor(ie. another 400mm). Even Canon make 300mm f4.

 

[NancyP]

I would like the 500 f/5.6 L IS as well, particularly if it paired well with TC 1.4x III. I think that I could handle and transport that easily. But, I doubt that they would make one - they have a lot of products out there in the super-tele range. I love the 400 f/5.6L for BIF, but it does take some continuing practice. Only 7 elements - of course it weighs just 1.1 kg. Practically speaking, the new 100-400 would seem to be a do-it-all lens. I don't see a big market for the 400 f/5.6L IS, it would be a specialty lens, just like the non-IS original is now.

 

[Don Haines]

2. Smaller? The 100-400 is shorter when retracted to 100mm.
3. Huffing? The discussions are hardly full of complaints.
4. Sharper edges? The 100-400mm II has better MTFs than the 400mm f/5.6 for both edge sharpness as well resolution - https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/page/3/
5. Less CA? The 400mm f/5.6 has more CA - http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/612-canon400f56ff?start=1 http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/896-canon100400f4556is2?start=1

2. Smaller. OK, I'll grant you 2. Unless it's a DO f/5.6, which seems unlikely and expensive.
3. Huffing. Read more in this forum; even at this early stage, there are reports that the II is worse than the I. In any case, I do not want those problems.
4. Sharper edges? The 100-400mm II has better MTFs than the 400mm f/5.6 for both edge sharpness as well resolution - https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/page/3/. This discussion is about a II, not the old version. I firmly belief that an upgrade would be better than the 100-400 II.
5. Less CA? The 400mm f/5.6 has more CA - http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/612-canon400f56ff?start=1 http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/896-canon100400f4556is2?start=1 Once again, this discussion is about a II, not the old version. I firmly belief that an upgrade would be better than the 100-400 II.

I have both the 100-400mm II and the current ultimate hand-holdable upgraded 400mm, the 400mm f/4 DO II, and I find the 100-400mm II a really great lens. It is not soft at edges, has no detectable CA and packs away neatly for travel. Do you use a 100-400mm II and actually know anything about it first hand?

I'm not sure what MTF charts you guys are looking at but on the Lensrentals chart the tangential lines of the 400f5.6 Prime are half a point ahead of the 100-400MkII from 12mm outwards, and at the frame edge the Prime is wholly superior.
The Prime lens is much more optically balanced.

Here are the charts we are looking at, put side by side, with the left hand one flipped horizontally in the manner of Lensrentals. Where it counts for a telephoto lens, the large inner circle, the 100-400mm II is better at the edge sharpness MTFs (10 lp/mm), and for resolution at more lp/mm, is streets ahead. Saying the prime is more balanced optically is like saying someone has a balanced personality because they have a chip on each shoulder.
Charts are produced by Lensrentals.

yes, but we were talking about a NEW 300f4 or a NEW 400f5.6, either of which should be sharper than the 100-400 II. The fact that people are arguing about the relative quality of a brand new lens and a 25 year old design speaks well for the original. Add in a fluorite element, new coatings, and the order of magnitude more precise manufacturing tolerances since then, and most particularly an optical design optimized for a single focal length, and you have superior optics....

The question becomes: Do you prefer the versatility of a zoom or the lighter weight and superior optics of a prime? Each will have adherents. There is no universal "this one is better" answer.

 

[FECHariot]

I had a used copy of the 300 f4L (non IS) which was great until I could afford a 70-200 f2.8L (with extender) for the zoom versatility. I was recently in Alaska with my brother who uses Nikon's new 300 f4 with diffractive optics. I could not believe how small it is! Now that is a 300 f4 that makes sense.

That lens does seem real cool and I bet a lot of people would buy a Canon version. Its shorter than the 6" requirement at a lot of sports venues which is also a plus for many. However, for me personally the biggest hand up I have with the 100-400 II is the price more than the size. Nikon's new 300/4 is the same price as the 100-400 II now and at that point I would rather have the convenience of the zoom. What I like about the current 300/4 IS from Canon is the price and I may try to pick one up.

 

[AlanF]

2. Smaller? The 100-400 is shorter when retracted to 100mm.
3. Huffing? The discussions are hardly full of complaints.
4. Sharper edges? The 100-400mm II has better MTFs than the 400mm f/5.6 for both edge sharpness as well resolution - https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/page/3/
5. Less CA? The 400mm f/5.6 has more CA - http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/612-canon400f56ff?start=1 http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/896-canon100400f4556is2?start=1

2. Smaller. OK, I'll grant you 2. Unless it's a DO f/5.6, which seems unlikely and expensive.
3. Huffing. Read more in this forum; even at this early stage, there are reports that the II is worse than the I. In any case, I do not want those problems.
4. Sharper edges? The 100-400mm II has better MTFs than the 400mm f/5.6 for both edge sharpness as well resolution - https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/page/3/. This discussion is about a II, not the old version. I firmly belief that an upgrade would be better than the 100-400 II.
5. Less CA? The 400mm f/5.6 has more CA - http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/612-canon400f56ff?start=1 http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/896-canon100400f4556is2?start=1 Once again, this discussion is about a II, not the old version. I firmly belief that an upgrade would be better than the 100-400 II.

I have both the 100-400mm II and the current ultimate hand-holdable upgraded 400mm, the 400mm f/4 DO II, and I find the 100-400mm II a really great lens. It is not soft at edges, has no detectable CA and packs away neatly for travel. Do you use a 100-400mm II and actually know anything about it first hand?

I'm not sure what MTF charts you guys are looking at but on the Lensrentals chart the tangential lines of the 400f5.6 Prime are half a point ahead of the 100-400MkII from 12mm outwards, and at the frame edge the Prime is wholly superior.
The Prime lens is much more optically balanced.

Here are the charts we are looking at, put side by side, with the left hand one flipped horizontally in the manner of Lensrentals. Where it counts for a telephoto lens, the large inner circle, the 100-400mm II is better at the edge sharpness MTFs (10 lp/mm), and for resolution at more lp/mm, is streets ahead. Saying the prime is more balanced optically is like saying someone has a balanced personality because they have a chip on each shoulder.
Charts are produced by Lensrentals.

yes, but we were talking about a NEW 300f4 or a NEW 400f5.6, either of which should be sharper than the 100-400 II. The fact that people are arguing about the relative quality of a brand new lens and a 25 year old design speaks well for the original. Add in a fluorite element, new coatings, and the order of magnitude more precise manufacturing tolerances since then, and most particularly an optical design optimized for a single focal length, and you have superior optics....

The question becomes: Do you prefer the versatility of a zoom or the lighter weight and superior optics of a prime? Each will have adherents. There is no universal "this one is better" answer.

It was stated that the old 400/5.6 had superior edge sharpness and CA to the new 100-400mm II, and I was correcting that misinformation. Any discussion about hypothetical new lenses is simply speculation and it should be utterly clear I was not discussing them.

 

[chrysoberyl]

It was stated that the old 400/5.6 had superior edge sharpness and CA to the new 100-400mm II, and I was correcting that misinformation. Any discussion about hypothetical new lenses is simply speculation and it should be utterly clear I was not discussing them.

Thanks for clarifying, AlanF. When did the discussion of the current 400 5.6 come up? I am surprised that it did, given the subject.

 

[AlanF]

Don't be surprised, it always comes up - the current 400/5.6 has a vocal fan club.