Why no 400mm f/4L IS exists?

[Loswr]

I really think the 500f4 is the ultimate "middle class" big white.

Does that make my 300 f/2.8 IS II low class? If so, it sure didn't feel that way when I paid my AMEX bill that month. I'm just kidding, but I've never heard the big whites discussed in terms of class

Well, I don;t know about 'ultimate' but mathematically, 500 is exactly in the middle of a range running from 200 to 800.

 

[Sella174]

... because there is no need for such a lens.

Why?

There's already five pretty decent lenses covering that focal length: the f/2.8L IS II, the f/4 DO IS, the f/5.6L, the 100–400mm f/4.5–5.6L IS, and the 200–400mm f/4L IS. Of these lenses, there are three that offer f/4 IS and thus another one would be serious competition for them all.

 

[Loswr]

There's already five pretty decent lenses covering that focal length: the f/2.8L IS II, the f/4 DO IS, the f/5.6L, the 100–400mm f/4.5–5.6L IS, and the 200–400mm f/4L IS. Of these lenses, there are three that offer f/4 IS and thus another one would be serious competition for them all.

There are 11 pretty decent EF lenses covering the 200mm focal length, and of those there are four that offer f/4 IS. I don't think Canon is too converned with multiple lenses covering a given focal length. Generally, more choices are a good thing - as long as Canon sets a price that provides a return on investment for a given number of units sold, it's a win.

It's also worth noting that two of those three lenses that provide 400mm f/4 IS are quite new, and deliver substantially better optical performance than the 400/4 DO. Given that, there is quite likely a market for a 400mm f/4 IS lens that delivers optical performance on par with the recent MkII supertele lenses as a price that's around that of the current 400/4 DO, i.e. $4K cheaper than the 400/2.8 II or 200-400/4+1.4x.

 

[Sella174]

There are 11 pretty decent EF lenses covering the 200mm focal length ...

Now that's very interesting, as Canon only has three 50mm lenses and two each of 35mm and 24mm, and just one 28mm lens.

 

[mackguyver]

There are 11 pretty decent EF lenses covering the 200mm focal length ...

Now that's very interesting, as Canon only has three 50mm lenses and two each of 35mm and 24mm, and just one 28mm lens.

Now it looks like you're changing your definition to include primes only plus you're forgetting the TS-E 24mm f/3.5II and 28 f/1.8. If you include zooms, Canon has too many to count that cover the 24-28-35-50mm focal lengths.

 

[mrsfotografie]

I found a little used Nikon 200-400mm f/4 VR on my local craigslist. A local doctor had bought it and used it twice. I even bought a used D300s to use playing with it, and a gimbal head, and was still below $3300. Considering how over priced Nikon lenses usually are, I'll have no problem selling for a lot more if I ever do it.

That is the only Nikon lens I wish Canon had in its line-up (next to /other than the 200-400 1.4x). A former colleague of mine has it and it is absofabolutelyfantastic

 

[cayenne]

Wish you were correct about being able to get a 500 f4L IS II for less than $10K. Lowest price listed on current canon price watch is $10,187.

Try visiting our friendly neighbors to the north…. Camera Canada has it for $9730, and with the current exchange rate that works out to US $8740.

Would that lens bought "up north", still have a US warranty? Is the warranty for North America in general, or is it specifically for CA or US, etc?

 

[NancyP]

Don't put off getting the non-IS 400mm f/5.6L if you really want to shoot birds in flight or reasonably well lit birds/ wildlife. The non-IS lens demands good technique, but technique can be learned. This is a great budget birding lens with reliable quick AF. We shall see how the new Tamron 150-600 does in terms of speedy and accurate AF.

 

[Sella174]

Now it looks like you're changing your definition to include primes only plus you're forgetting the TS-E 24mm f/3.5II and 28 f/1.8. If you include zooms, Canon has too many to count that cover the 24-28-35-50mm focal lengths.

Yeah, you're right ... serves me right for trying to be clever.

 

[mackguyver]

Yeah, you're right ... serves me right for trying to be clever.

It happens to the best of us - TGIF

 

[9VIII]

I really think the 500f4 is the ultimate "middle class" big white.

Does that make my 300 f/2.8 IS II low class? If so, it sure didn't feel that way when I paid my AMEX bill that month. I'm just kidding, but I've never heard the big whites discussed in terms of class

I'm just thinking about how the 400f2.8, 600f4, and 800f5.6 all seem to fit into roughly the same size and price category.
The 200-400+1.4xTC probably fits in there too, but just for the price.
I just did some cost/mm calculations though, and they do all end up roughly the same. Though the US dealers seem to set all big whites on the same cost/mm as the 300f2.8 bare, where Canadian dealers put the 500mm+ lenses closer to the cost/mm of the 300f2.8 with a 1.4x TC (including price of TC).
I think the difference may be in part due to MAP policies between the two Canon distributors. We've seen B&H give discounts when asked, though it's hard to say how close they would come to price matching.

 

[Loswr]

Would that lens bought "up north", still have a US warranty? Is the warranty for North America in general, or is it specifically for CA or US, etc?

I'm pretty sure the warranty is for North America and both Canada and the USA are covered.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

There's already five pretty decent lenses covering that focal length: the f/2.8L IS II, the f/4 DO IS, the f/5.6L, the 100–400mm f/4.5–5.6L IS, and the 200–400mm f/4L IS. Of these lenses, there are three that offer f/4 IS and thus another one would be serious competition for them all.

There are 11 pretty decent EF lenses covering the 200mm focal length, and of those there are four that offer f/4 IS. I don't think Canon is too converned with multiple lenses covering a given focal length. Generally, more choices are a good thing - as long as Canon sets a price that provides a return on investment for a given number of units sold, it's a win.

It's also worth noting that two of those three lenses that provide 400mm f/4 IS are quite new, and deliver substantially better optical performance than the 400/4 DO. Given that, there is quite likely a market for a 400mm f/4 IS lens that delivers optical performance on par with the recent MkII supertele lenses as a price that's around that of the current 400/4 DO, i.e. $4K cheaper than the 400/2.8 II or 200-400/4+1.4x.

+1 ... I'd add that there'd be many hobbyists who'd want to buy a 400 f/5.6 L IS version, coz not everyone can afford $6000+ for a 400mm prime lens ... but I bet there would be a lot of people willing to buy a 400mm f/5.6 IS lens at around $2000 to $2500, besides the people who are willing to buy the $6000, 400mm f/4 lenses will continue to buy them regardless of a f/5.6 at a much lower price.

 

[King Eyre]

I'd take issue with anyone who says the 400 DO isn't as sharp as other more recent lenses.
I use one with a 1DX and 1.4 and 2X TC and have some really excellent results...the only thing I'd say is it needs a wee tweak in PP on the contrast front.....and it can be picked up very reasonably second hand.

As I'm getting a bit long in the tooth (!!) I find the weight (or lack of it) with the DO is a very considerable advantage.....and I use it a lot even although I also have a 300 2.8 mk2.

I suspect a lot of people who criticise the 400 DO haven't actually used it...!!

George.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

I'd take issue with anyone who says the 400 DO isn't as sharp as other more recent lenses.
I use one with a 1DX and 1.4 and 2X TC and have some really excellent results...the only thing I'd say is it needs a wee tweak in PP on the contrast front.....and it can be picked up very reasonably second hand.

As I'm getting a bit long in the tooth (!!) I find the weight (or lack of it) with the DO is a very considerable advantage.....and I use it a lot even although I also have a 300 2.8 mk2.

I suspect a lot of people who criticise the 400 DO haven't actually used it...!!

George.

Just looked up the weight of EF 400mm f/4 DO IS lens and was surprised to see that it weighs same as the Sigma 150-500 OS lens ... that's quite impressive.

 

[King Eyre]

Well I'm hoping to borrow a 200-400 +T/C next month (March) to take to Tanzania and Kenya on safari, will be interested to try it but it's a really heavy beast and that's fine when you are shooting from a vehicle but I certainly couldn't use it hand held for more than a couple of minutes!!

I think, although I can't prove it, the a/f system on the 1 Dx is also helping the performance of the 400 DO.

Be interesting if any other DO fans are backing me up!!!....

 

[J.R.]

Thanks everyone for commenting. I've "convinced" myself that I "need" to get a 400mm f/4L IS for myself and so will be buying the 200-400mm f/4L IS later this March. I've given up my earlier plans (for now) for the 300 f/2.8L II and the 600 f/4L II in favour of the zoom. Versatility first and the speciality lens can follow later.

I'd consider the DO lens but am just not convinced with it given that I cannot even try one in my country (nobody I know has this lens and it hopelessly out of stock with the Canon stores here).

Cheers ... J.R.

 

[King Eyre]

Thanks everyone for commenting. I've "convinced" myself that I "need" to get a 400mm f/4L IS for myself and so will be buying the 200-400mm f/4L IS later this March. I've given up my earlier plans (for now) for the 300 f/2.8L II and the 600 f/4L II in favour of the zoom. Versatility first and the speciality lens can follow later.

I'd consider the DO lens but am just not convinced with it given that I cannot even try one in my country (nobody I know has this lens and it hopelessly out of stock with the Canon stores here).

Cheers ... J.R.

That's a real shame you can't try one, I don't know why Canon don't push it more!!
Well I'm sure you'll love the 200-560 f4-5.6 (which is what it really is...!!) but I hope you aren't planning to carry it a long way!!

Don't know where you are geographically, I've lent mine to a few guys in Scotland and they've al bought them!!

 

[King Eyre]

Another thought....can't you speak to your local CPS guy???usually they will help.

 

[J.R.]

That's a real shame you can't try one, I don't know why Canon don't push it more!!
Well I'm sure you'll love the 200-560 f4-5.6 (which is what it really is...!!) but I hope you aren't planning to carry it a long way!!

Don't know where you are geographically, I've lent mine to a few guys in Scotland and they've al bought them!!

I plan to carry it in my car for the long hauls and thereafter with a tripod (with gimbal) / monopod. That said, I think I need to hit the gym and work on my upper body, I might be able to use it handheld for more than a couple of minutes ;D

I'm based in India and the DO lenses are seldom seen here (at least I haven't seen any).