# Canon - Give us 400/5.6L IS NOW!!



## stein (Mar 5, 2015)

Dear Canon,
why can't you add IS to a new 400/5.6L in your setup, 10000' of bird/action photographers would buy a lightweight, top-quality lens of this caliber the first week out on the market!? 
High-ISO and better cameras is perfect for such a lens!
OR you could look up in your museum the even older 400/4.5 and remake that, that used to be a nice lens in the old FD-era 
Back to the drawing-table NOW!
Stein,Tromsø, Norway


----------



## AlanF (Mar 5, 2015)

Canon has just done that. A new lens just as sharp as the old, and they have added a zoom down to 100mm as well. It also closes up small for ease of packing.


----------



## Dave685 (Mar 5, 2015)

Totally agree Stein and add to that a 500/5.6L & 600/5.6L as now with better performing cameras many of us don't need faster lenses. I rarely use my 500/4L wider than f5.6 and it's main advantage would be when used with an extender as at f8 AF can be a little slow and centre point only. However this is a small price to pay for the portability of such lenses not to mention the much lower prices. Although I accept the new 100-400 II is a very good all round lens it's image quality will always fall short of that produced by a prime which would be especially noticeable when used with an extender. A new 400/5.6L would I accept probable be a little longer than the new 100-400 II but lighter and cheaper also when you speak to owners of that lens most say that most of the time they use it at the 400mm end which isn't even a true 400mm!

Dare I say it I would consider moving to Nikon for such lenses!!!!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 5, 2015)

AlanF said:


> Canon has just done that. A new lens just as sharp as the old, and they have added a zoom down to 100mm as well. It also closes up small for ease of packing.



+1

Or you could wait...


----------



## bholliman (Mar 5, 2015)

AlanF said:


> Canon has just done that. A new lens just as sharp as the old, and they have added a zoom down to 100mm as well. It also closes up small for ease of packing.



True, great lens, but also double the price.

The old 400/5.6 has a significant advantage in weight (1250g vs. 1640g for the 100-400II) and slightly better corner sharpness looking at the TDP data. Since I don't use focal lengths above 200mm that often, I am finding it difficult to justify to myself paying $2.2K for a lens that will get infrequent use. I assume I'll still use my 70-200/2.8 II for anything 200mm and under, so if I bought a 100-400, it would be used primarily at 400. At this point I'm still leaning toward buying one of the venerable 400/5.6's, maybe used. An new IS version would undoubtedly add another $500 to the price tag, but I would consider one if it were available.


----------



## Plainsman (Mar 5, 2015)

Canon are already supplying the market with the superb 400/4DO and 100-400 II.

What more do you want? Why can't people just be grateful?

A 400/5.6 IS would require a complete re design and would cost roughly the same as the 100-400 II.

Canon have a hugely variable lens production line which I am sure they would like to downsize in favour of zooms and DO lenses.

I've had two 400/5.6s and they are good lenses but at 400 you are absolutely stuffed if the subject of your photo is only slightly to big!!


----------



## anolis23 (Mar 5, 2015)

bholliman said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > Canon has just done that. A new lens just as sharp as the old, and they have added a zoom down to 100mm as well. It also closes up small for ease of packing.
> ...



I agree the old lens is lighter, but the new 100-400 ii is significantly more compact, which to my opinion makes it even more portable. I can have my camera with lens attached in a larger variety of camera bags than with the 400 5.6, which I sold after buying the 100-400 ii. For now in real world use I have not seen any differences in sharpness between the two lenses, which is quite impressive, considering it is a zoom vs prime, plus the addition of IS and an amazing close focusing distance. The performance of the 100-400 ii with extender is also much better than on the 400 prime. In this video I actually gave a quick take on both lenses: http://youtu.be/uAMoWZYTico 

That said, the 400 5.6 is a great lens and you can't get anything better at that price point! IS indeed would make it spectacular!


----------



## AlanF (Mar 5, 2015)

And f/4.5 is not a sensible choice of aperture. It won't AF with a Canon 1.4xTC on many cameras or with a Canon 2xTC on any (apart from liveview).


----------



## Joey (Mar 5, 2015)

AlanF said:


> Canon has just done that. A new lens just as sharp as the old, and they have added a zoom down to 100mm as well. It also closes up small for ease of packing.


+1


----------



## scottkinfw (Mar 5, 2015)

I have a 400 5.6 and it is wonderful! I enjoy the compact light portability for travel- especially where strict wight restrictions and space restrictions apply on airlines. The images it produces are most excellent by all standards with my 5D III. IS would be nice, better IQ, smaller and lighter would be nice too. The lens is well built, and it was very inexpensive. I know that this lens is OLD OLD OLD, however a newer version would have to be a grand slam out of the ball park for me to consider buying one.

Sorry to be Debbie Downer, but I'm glad I have such a great copy.

sek


----------



## NancyP (Mar 5, 2015)

I think that the current 400 f/5.6L fills a unique niche, "inexpensive lightweight prime supertelephoto with fast AF", that allows beginners to try working with a supertelephoto and (once techniques are learned) get really good photos. The qualityrice ratio is highly favorable. The focal length is ideal for beginning bird photographers. I know that I wasn't ready to plunk down the money for an f/4 supertelephoto when I started, and I didn't know how I would do in shooting handheld. Certainly it is better to learn handheld shooting on this lens than on a 500 f/4 (particularly the version 1 at 4 kg). At the time I bought the 400 f/5.6L, it had by a good margin the best image quality in lenses under $2,000.00. I considered the 100-400L IS v.1 but since I had a 70-200 f/4L plus a 1.4x TC, I didn't feel that I needed another zoom. There are more choices now for the budget birder, many people will go for the Tamron 150-600 or save up for the 100-400L IS II. The next step up for me would be an f/4 supertelephoto.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 5, 2015)

NancyP said:


> I think that the current 400 f/5.6L fills a unique niche, "inexpensive lightweight prime supertelephoto with fast AF", that allows beginners to try working with a supertelephoto and (once techniques are learned) get really good photos. The qualityrice ratio is highly favorable. The focal length is ideal for beginning bird photographers. I know that I wasn't ready to plunk down the money for an f/4 supertelephoto when I started, and I didn't know how I would do in shooting handheld. Certainly it is better to learn handheld shooting on this lens than on a 500 f/4 (particularly the version 1 at 4 kg). At the time I bought the 400 f/5.6L, it had by a good margin the best image quality in lenses under $2,000.00. I considered the 100-400L IS v.1 but since I had a 70-200 f/4L plus a 1.4x TC, I didn't feel that I needed another zoom. There are more choices now for the budget birder, many people will go for the Tamron 150-600 or save up for the 100-400L IS II. The next step up for me would be an f/4 supertelephoto.


I agree, and if a 400F5.6 version II came out, you could expect much better performance than the 100-400 MkII. I think it would sell.


----------



## Mharwood16 (Mar 5, 2015)

I totally agree! I've thought about that lens for a long time, and a new IS version would probably tip the scales for me! As long as the new version didn't take a massive leap in price!


----------



## 9VIII (Mar 5, 2015)

Forget 400f5.6 IS, they can make the prime almost as compact as the zoom with a 400f5.6 DO IS.

Trouble is, they're not going to make another 400f5.6 prime lens because if they did it would make their entire line of Big Whites obsolite. I have no doubt that the best optical formula for that combination would be both inexpensive and one of the sharpest lenses ever produced.

Canon can't have that.
(Unless we convinced them that we would still buy it for $3,000 and let them have twice as much profit as normal, that might work.)

The best we can hope for is a new Sigma 400f5.6 (the old one was actually better than the Canon to begin with, under the Global Vision line it would slaughter the competition. I know you're giving up native AF at that point, but it's the only option that has a realistic chance).

Basically your options are: the old lens, the zoom, or pony up $8,000 and join the Big White club.


----------



## NancyP (Mar 5, 2015)

The DO technology is still expensive and takes the lenses out of the "beginner" range. The old 400 f/4 DO was three or four times as expensive as the 400 f/5.6, and I believe that the current new 400 f/4 DO is ~$7,000.00+ . If they could figure out how to make a DO lens both good and inexpensive, they could sell a bunch of new 400 f/5.6 DO IS as "expensive beginner supertelephoto lenses". One of the problems in choosing which lenses to design is estimating demand, plant capacity, new investment.

Tamron has handed both Canon and Nikon (particularly Nikon) their collective *ss*s on a plate with the 150-600 for less than $1,100.00.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 6, 2015)

I doubt if there would be many buyers, most have bought or are waiting for the 100-400mm L MK II. Adding in all the wanted features will raise the price to close to $2,000, and it will still be too long, and will not focus closely.

I think that Canon should keep churning out the existing lens, pricing everyone out of the market is not a good move.


----------



## bholliman (Mar 6, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I think that Canon should keep churning out the existing lens, pricing everyone out of the market is not a good move.



+1 Probably the best solution for Canon and the consumers. A new IS lens would be close to the 100-400 II in price so probably wouldn't sell and/or hurt sales of the zoom. The old 400/5.6 selling for $1,100 is a good deal and gives budget super tele photographers a nice entry level option.


----------



## mpphoto (Mar 6, 2015)

I would be interested in a 400mm f/5.6L IS, but I know the price would be higher than I want to pay. I like my Tamron 150-600mm and it is a good value. However, its weight is bothering me more often. A 400mm lightweight lens for around $900-1000 used would be great. Well, that is what the current 400mm f/5.6L is, but the lack of IS scared me off. I ended up buying a used 300mm f/4L IS that fit my budget. I will pair it up with a 1.4x III extender I already have. Hopefully this will produce decent image quality. I have seen some pretty good photos from the 300mm f/4L IS + 1.4x III combo. It's the best solution I could come up with, based on my budget and what is on the market.

I think a lot of people want a light 400mm with IS for less than $2000. I'm not sure if physics and economics will allow this. The 100-400mm II is close to $2k, but it outweighs the 400mm f/5.6L by about 12 ounces.


----------



## unfocused (Mar 6, 2015)

Personally, I'd prefer a 200 mm f2.8 prime with IS that could be paired with one of the new 2x converters for a 400 mm f5.6 prime. More compact than the 400 mm prime, more versatile and probably would sell better. 

But, I don't think that's going to happen either. It seems most buyers prefer zooms and the new generation of zooms seem to rival the primes and sell just fine, so I don't see much incentive for Canon to update these primes.


----------



## e_honda (Mar 6, 2015)

Both the 300 f/4L IS and 400 f/5.6L could use updating, but I don't see it happening anytime soon. Not with the new zooms that go up to those ranges.

Plus if they update these 2 primes and make them that much better, they run the risk of cutting into the sales of the more expensive (and profitable) 300 f/2.8L and 400L DO lenses.


----------



## NancyP (Mar 6, 2015)

The people who shoot 300 f/2.8L IS and 400 f/4D DO IS are shooting at f/2.8 or f/4, that's why they pay the big bucks.


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 6, 2015)

I wanted won for many years, but gave up waiting. Luckily during that time I was saving up for a 300 f/2.8 IS II. If it was today, I'd probably buy at 400 DO II, but I'm happy with the lens. I really miss being able to pack a 400mm lens in a small bag, however, so the 100-400 II may be on my list sometime down the road.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 6, 2015)

NancyP said:


> The people who shoot 300 f/2.8L IS and 400 f/4D DO IS are shooting at f/2.8 or f/4, that's why they pay the big bucks.



And 600 f/5.6 and 800 f/8 with the 2xTC III, which is a huge attraction of these lenses. The thought of a hand-holdable 800mm makes me drool.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Mar 6, 2015)

AlanF said:


> Canon has just done that. A new lens just as sharp as the old, and they have added a zoom down to 100mm as well. It also closes up small for ease of packing.


+1, with the new 100-400mm II available and good performance, I don't see much need of releasing a new 400/5.6L


----------



## YuengLinger (Mar 6, 2015)

Moot point now!


----------



## pierrebird (Mar 6, 2015)

+100 with Stein
I am mostly shooting birds while actively birdwatching (not sitting in a blind with a tripod for hours).
I don't need/want a zoom, I have no use for a 400/500/600 weighing more than 1,5kg, price being irrelevant.
I want a 400/5,6 IS I can carry around while running around using my binoculars and carrying my spotting scope.
The only option right now is the 400/5,6 (no IS, old lens) or the 300/4 IS (loss in IQ, old IS)….
So I think the 400/5,6 IS is overdue )))


----------



## AlanF (Mar 6, 2015)

pierrebird said:


> +100 with Stein
> I am mostly shooting birds while actively birdwatching (not sitting in a blind with a tripod for hours).
> I don't need/want a zoom, I have no use for a 400/500/600 weighing more than 1,5kg, price being irrelevant.
> I want a 400/5,6 IS I can carry around while running around using my binoculars and carrying my spotting scope.
> ...



I am over 70 and can handle the 100-400mm with ease for hiking for hours, and now my wife is doing so as well. How old are you? 80 or 90? Or, maybe, 100?


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 6, 2015)

What is wrong with people?

If someone wants a 400F5.6 prime, what's wrong with that? The old version was/is a very nice lens and it has a loyal following. It sold well.... not as well as the 100-400 mark I did, but certainly well enough to stay in production for 20 years... but then again, when the ranges overlap zooms always outsell primes..... and for some strange reason Canon keeps on producing primes.

Canon has been upgrading their long primes to Mark II versions.... this is the last one to go. When it happens, I expect that the new version will sell quite well. I know I will get one. BTW, I have a 150-600 already. Yes, it covers the same range as a 400F5.6 prime would, but zoom lenses and primes are two different beasts and there is a need/market for both. Just because you don't want one or would be happy with a zoom does not mean that everyone would.


----------



## YuengLinger (Mar 6, 2015)

AlanF said:


> pierrebird said:
> 
> 
> > +100 with Stein
> ...



Boy, I love straight talk. +1!


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 7, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > pierrebird said:
> ...


And I single pass portage my camping gear, food, and a cedar-canvas canoe..... and I like the lighter 400F5.6


----------



## candc (Mar 7, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...



Can you take pictures while you are portaging?


----------



## DominoDude (Mar 7, 2015)

^ Looks at the photo above and thinks a suitable caption could be: "Under the canoe-py"


----------



## pierrebird (Mar 7, 2015)

AlanF said:


> I am over 70 and can handle the 100-400mm with ease for hiking for hours, and now my wife is doing so as well. How old are you? 80 or 90? Or, maybe, 100?



I think you are missing my point… Here is what The-Digital-Picture review says about the new 100-400 IS II versus the "venerable" 400/5.6 :

…The 400 f/5.6L has been in the Canon lineup for 5 years longer than the original 100-400 L IS, yet it is a very good performing lens with image quality essentially equivalent to the 100-400 L II and less distortion (compared at 400mm). The 400 f/5.6L is lighter, longer and considerably less expensive, but this lens is sorely missing image stabilization. I find the zoom to be a far more useful lens…

So…. a "new" 400/5.6 with IS would be a far more usable lens to me (and a few others )


----------



## AlanF (Mar 7, 2015)

pierrebird said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > I am over 70 and can handle the 100-400mm with ease for hiking for hours, and now my wife is doing so as well. How old are you? 80 or 90? Or, maybe, 100?
> ...



The last sentence you quote is: "I find the zoom to be a far more useful lens. " Just place yourself in Canon Marketing: a "far more useful lens" is going to sell far more than a "far less useful lens" of similar price. So, methinks you are going to have a very long wait for Canon to produce a new 400mm f/5.6 II with IS. Having said that, if they did produce one at reasonable price and it was much sharper than the zoom, I would buy one. But, I am not going hold my breath, and I am already having great fun with the exceptional 100-400mm II.


----------



## takesome1 (Mar 8, 2015)

pierrebird said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > I am over 70 and can handle the 100-400mm with ease for hiking for hours, and now my wife is doing so as well. How old are you? 80 or 90? Or, maybe, 100?
> ...



Yes a new 400 f/5.6 with 4 stops of IS would be far more useable from my point of view. Especially if it has a true 400mm length unlike the 100- almost 400mm II.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 8, 2015)

candc said:


> Can you take pictures while you are portaging?


Surprisingly, I have never taken a still DIGITAL picture while portaging the canoe. Got a few Kodachrome slides and have shot video with a p/s several times, but nothing with a digital SLR.

Nice looking canoe.... Western Red cedar planking? .... and is that the end of a half rib I see? Not to many build with them, but it sure makes kneeling a lot more comfortable...

Think I will start a new thread.... my canoe...


----------



## candc (Mar 8, 2015)

I agree you should start that thread. Its an American Traders "Trader" it's a really nice wood/epoxy flatwater canoe. The half ribs are good for kneeling and setting your beer down. I have a couple smaller American traders canoes which I also like but my favorite is this chestnut prospector. Bill Mason would approve?


----------



## AlanF (Mar 8, 2015)

takesome1 said:


> pierrebird said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...



The focal length of the 400mm f/5.6 L at its minimal focal distance of 3500mm is 375mm. Both the 400mm f/5.6 L and the 100-400mm II reach their quoted 400mm only at long distances, not short.


----------



## Finn M (Mar 8, 2015)

mpphoto said:


> I would be interested in a 400mm f/5.6L IS, but I know the price would be higher than I want to pay. I like my Tamron 150-600mm and it is a good value. However, its weight is bothering me more often. A 400mm lightweight lens for around $900-1000 used would be great. Well, that is what the current 400mm f/5.6L is, but the lack of IS scared me off. I ended up buying a used 300mm f/4L IS that fit my budget. I will pair it up with a 1.4x III extender I already have. Hopefully this will produce decent image quality.



Why didn't you buy a secondhand EF 100-400/4,5-5,6L IS mk.I instead!? 
It has IS, it has better IQ than the 300 + 1,4x Extender and it costs about $ 900-1000 used. And you get zoom as a bonus.....


----------



## RGF (Mar 11, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > Canon has just done that. A new lens just as sharp as the old, and they have added a zoom down to 100mm as well. It also closes up small for ease of packing.
> ...



I just got the 100-400 II and it is a great lens. Makes a 400 F5.6 hardly desirable


----------



## Act444 (Mar 14, 2015)

I'd rather a 500 5.6 in the 2-3K price range. The only native option for 500mm is the 500 f4 which most have to sell a kidney for.


----------

