# EF 400mm f/5.6L IS on the Way?



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 27, 2013)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/12/ef-400mm-f5-6l-is-on-the-way/"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/12/ef-400mm-f5-6l-is-on-the-way/">Tweet</a></div>
<p>We’ve heard, <a href="http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/Canon_new_lenses.html" target="_blank">along with others</a> that the EF 400 f/5.6L is hard to acquire in a few areas around the globe. This is leading to the suggestion that the little supertelephoto is being primed for replacement with an IS version.</p>
<p>We have said we’ve been told 2014 will be the “<a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/11/more-mentions-of-2014-being-the-year-of-the-lens-cr1/" target="_blank">year of the lens</a>“, and if that’s the case, a few of the lenses will definitely be of the niche variety. The lenses have lower production requirements and usually higher margins. The EF 400 f/5.6L, while a wonderful performer, would certainly benefit from the latest optics, IS and perhaps a bit of weight savings or length reduction.</p>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12129-USA/Canon_2526A004_400mm_f_5_6L_USM_Autofocus.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Canon EF 400 f/5.6L at B&H Photo</a></strong></p>
<p>Source: [<a href="http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/Canon_new_lenses.html" target="_blank">NL</a>]</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## Danack (Dec 27, 2013)

I'm definitely hoping that it gets replaced with a 400mm f4 IS lens at an affordable price.

I realise that both the 400mm f2.8 and 500mm f4 are really expensive, but the 300mm f4 is under £1000, so shurely a 400mm f4 could be made that isn't that expensive.


----------



## photonius (Dec 27, 2013)

Maybe Canon will finally move forward with a new 100-400 and 400mm IS, given that Tokina's new 100-600 - based on the first test pictures showing up - could provide a decent competition.


----------



## slclick (Dec 27, 2013)

I need a new 100-400 Mk2 and a 400 f/5.6 with IS comparison war to rage for many many moons like a hole in the head.

I'll never make a decision on a 400 with MORE options


----------



## mackguyver (Dec 27, 2013)

slclick said:


> I need a new 100-400 Mk2 and a 400 f/5.6 with IS comparison war to rage for many many moons like a hole in the head.
> 
> I'll never make a decision on a 400 with MORE options


I'm sure the new price tag might help, if recent increases (24-70, etc.) are anything to go by. If they really add IS and upgrade the optics, it will probably go for over $2k.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 27, 2013)

Danack said:


> I'm definitely hoping that it gets replaced with a 400mm f4 IS lens at an affordable price.
> 
> I realise that both the 400mm f2.8 and 500mm f4 are really expensive, but the 300mm f4 is under £1000, so shurely a 400mm f4 could be made that isn't that expensive.



A 400mm f/4 will be about the same size and weight as a 300mm f/2.8, unless it is a DO version, which is already available at an even higher price than the £5000 300mm f/2.8. So, I don't think a 400mm f/4 will be cheap.

If Canon is going to make something the size of 400mm f/4, my dream would be a super sharp f/5.6 500mm as a lightweight supertele that could combined with 1.4xTC.


----------



## kegressy (Dec 27, 2013)

The current 400 f5.6 L is a great lens but it could use IS for sure. 
Unfortunately the replacement rumor has been circulated since 2009 on the Internet and it is still just a rumor.


----------



## Lichtgestalt (Dec 27, 2013)

photonius said:


> given that Tokina's new 100-600 - based on the first test pictures showing up - could provide a decent competition.



???

you mean tamrons 150-600mm i guess....


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 27, 2013)

Lichtgestalt said:


> photonius said:
> 
> 
> > given that Tokina's new 100-600 - based on the first test pictures showing up - could provide a decent competition.
> ...


How many mm's pales in comparison to quality of optics.

For example, a 70-200F4IS will resolve more detail on a distant object than the Sigma 120-400. I am fairly willing to bet that an updated 400F5.6 will resolve more distant detail than a Tamron 150-600.

I will be first in line to pre-order this lens.....


----------



## Lichtgestalt (Dec 27, 2013)

slclick said:


> I need a new 100-400 Mk2 and a 400 f/5.6 with IS comparison war to rage for many many moons like a hole in the head.
> 
> I'll never make a decision on a 400 with MORE options



well i would be happy when finally some facts come from canon. 

i would pay 2000 euro (twice what i have to pay for the old) for a new and improved 100-400mm but nothing happens.
but the day i buy the old 100-400mm the new one will be announced... im sure.

the only good is that i don´t desperately need a new 100-400mm yet.


----------



## tron (Dec 27, 2013)

Would you mind putting a CR rating to this rumor?

I for one strongly doubt it. The story about shortages in specific items suggesting an upgrade has been used - and denied - many times in the past. If almost nobody buys an item why should the retails keep it in stock?

Edit: In addition, your B&H advertisement shows it in stock (same as Adorama and BuyDig)...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 27, 2013)

Danack said:


> ...shurely a 400mm f4 could be made that isn't that expensive.



As surely as you could use it to take pictures of rainbow-pooping unicorns. Unfortunately, the laws of physics and the principles of lens design are at odds with your surety.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 27, 2013)

tron said:


> Would you mind putting a CR rating to this rumor?
> 
> I for one strongly doubt it. The story about shortages in specific items suggesting an upgrade has been used - and denied - many times in the past. If almost nobody buys an item why should the retails keep it in stock?
> Edit: In addition, your B&H advertisement shows it in stock (same as Adorama and BuyDig)...



I will bet they sell a lot more of this lens than the 200-400.....

The old 400F5.6 is/was a decent selling lens. I have seen a lot of copies of it in the field, certainly more than the 600F4 or 800F5.6....

There is a market for a long prime under $8000.


----------



## slclick (Dec 27, 2013)

What is the price jump history of lenses that have had IS added in the past 10 years? $500-700+? It would make the 5.6 IS a 1999-2099 lens. Now factor in the more recent higher prices Canon has been starting with and it becomes a 2399 lens...regardless of all that conjecture, it's still a rumor. I can't buy a rumor.


----------



## tron (Dec 27, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > Would you mind putting a CR rating to this rumor?
> ...


I did not say it would be a bad idea. I for one would be seriously tempted.

I said I do not believe this rumor! Plain and simple!


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 27, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Danack said:
> 
> 
> > ...shurely a 400mm f4 could be made that isn't that expensive.
> ...



Neuro... Neuro... Neuro... (shaking my head in disbelief)... It's easy to make a 400F4 at a decent price.... after all, you can get a 800mmF8 mirror lens for $180... they should be able to make a 400F4 mirror lens for close to the same price.....

Now a _DECENT_ 400F4 lens is a bit harder.... Expect the same dimensions and price as a 300F2.8 or a 200F2.0.... and at the low low price of $6000 or more.... Perhaps Tamron or Sigma can come up with a cheaper version that isn't quite so sharp and does not work quite so well at the bargain price of $4000


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 27, 2013)

tron said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...



Fair comment, and I'm with you. As much as I would like this lens, I won't believe it until it is officially announced by Canon.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 27, 2013)

tron said:


> I did not say it would be a bad idea. I for one would be seriously tempted.
> I said I do not believe this rumor! Plain and simple!



That was my first reaction, and that the 100-400L needs an update more. But....the 100-400L outsells the 400/5.6 by a wide margin - and the zoom still sells well. Maybe it makes sense to Canon to release a new 400/5.6 IS prime with substantially better IQ than the 100-400L, inducing current 100-400L owners to buy the prime..._then_ (after a suitable delay) update the 100-400L with IQ almost equal to the new prime. 



Don Haines said:


> It's easy to make a 400F4 at a decent price.... after all, you can get a 800mmF8 mirror lens for $180... they should be able to make a 400F4 mirror lens for close to the same price.....



I thought about the mirror lens option, but that's probably even less likely than the aforementioned unicorn.


----------



## tron (Dec 27, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > I did not say it would be a bad idea. I for one would be seriously tempted.
> ...


I believe that we could have a 400mm f/4 at a decent price if its quality was ... non decent ;D
P.S Only this would be a 3rd party lens (I have omitted the *L* deliberately)... ;D


----------



## Haydn1971 (Dec 27, 2013)

Rather than a 400mm f5.6 IS or a 100-400mm, what about changing the game with a 200-500mm f4.0-5.6 IS for less than £3000 ?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 27, 2013)

tron said:


> I believe that we could have a 400mm f/4 at a decent price if its quality was ... non decent ;D
> P.S Only this would be a 3rd party lens (I have omitted the *L* deliberately)... ;D



We've now got a zoom that goes to 600mm f/6.3 at a decent price. We'll see how the quality turns out...


----------



## racebit (Dec 27, 2013)

My 400/5.6 is already IS. I always shoot at 1/1000. In fact it is super advanced IS because it freezes not only my movement but also target movement, whereas your IS only freezes your movement. 

I am raw guy, I always prefer prime lens without IS: faster AF, better IQ, cheaper, lighter, simpler, less parts to go wrong.

For the more sophisticated guys, it seems to me a zoom 100-400 IS may be better suited.

Regarding price of a 400 f/4, the price of lens is mainly dictated by the diameter of the front lens, that is by the ratio of focal length over f/ratio. So a 400/4 lens costs is near a 300/2.8 or a 600/5.6.
For the price of a 400/5.6 you can get a 300/4 and it would be possible to get a 600/8.


----------



## photonius (Dec 27, 2013)

Lichtgestalt said:


> photonius said:
> 
> 
> > given that Tokina's new 100-600 - based on the first test pictures showing up - could provide a decent competition.
> ...



oops, yes, of course.


----------



## docsmith (Dec 27, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > I did not say it would be a bad idea. I for one would be seriously tempted.
> ...



This thought crossed my mind as well. Canon has to figure out ways to make money after all. This could be a way.

I for one, hope this rumor is true. It was be great to see a 400 f/5.6 IS that is optically better. I bet it would sell even if it is in the ~$2,000 to $2,500 price range.

Regarding the thoughts of the 400 f/4 IS. I'd be tempted by this lens. The main problem I see is price point. Make it close enough to the 400 f/2.8 II that it doesn't hurt the f/2.8 sales and the f/4 likely doesn't sell very well. Price it in the ~$6,000 range, similar to the 200 f/2 or 300 f/2.8, and it may hurt the 400 f/2.8 II sales. 

I see Canon (over?) populating popular ranges like the 24-70 mm or 70-200. I am not sure they'd do the same thing with the super teles. Market may be too small. Two 300 mm primes and several zooms that end at 300 mm. Two 400 mm primes and two zooms that end at 400. One 500 mm, 600 mm and 800 mm prime. One zoom that, with built in extender, ends at 560 mm. Bigger the market, the more options you get.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 27, 2013)

A 100-400L update supercedes the need for a 400/5.6 IS.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 27, 2013)

Lee Jay said:


> A 100-400L update supercedes the need for a 400/5.6 IS.



Ahhh, but *who's* need? That was my point. You, me, lots of others want a new 100-400L, more than a 400/5.6 IS. But from Canon's perspective, the current 100-400L is still a very popular lens, and selling very well. Their need is to make a profit, the 100-400 is a cash (yen) cow, so why replace it now?


----------



## photonius (Dec 27, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> Lichtgestalt said:
> 
> 
> > photonius said:
> ...



yup, that's why Canon might have finally some competition to update their lenses, because the Tamron at 600mm might beat the current Canon 100-400 L @ 400 when cropped to correspond to 600. No side by side tests yet though in this early center test, it doesn't look too bad:
http://translate.google.ca/translate?hl=en&sl=ja&u=http://www.trinitylumberton.org/category29/&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://www.trinitylumberton.org/category29/%26newwindow%3D1


----------



## ScottyP (Dec 27, 2013)

The "evidence" seems pretty slim and purely circumstantial on this rumor. On the other hand, as profit margins go, it seems Canon could make a prime cheaper than a zoom, with fewer pieces of glass, and less going on mechanically (no zooming), so their profit margin could be easier to achieve with the prime. 

Also, given the sharpness advantages inherent in the simpler primes vs. the more expensive zooms, they may be able to achieve "decent-ness" (if not heavenly-inspired greatness) in IQ without really having to go all-out with super-expensive means in order to do it.

They may also feel that if they don't, then the others will. Sigma in particular should give them a little concern given their recent successes and good press, which gives them more "cred" than the Tokinas and Bowers, etc.. Sigma now sort of rivals OEM lenses in their public perception of quality and value. (at this point, some will disagree loudly) If the rumors of new Sigma 400, 500 and 600mm lenses are true, or if Canon just thinks they may be true, maybe Canon are feeling the pressure to respond and not simply surrender ground to Sigma by default?


----------



## hoodlum (Dec 27, 2013)

Lee Jay said:


> A 100-400L update supercedes the need for a 400/5.6 IS.



I believe this is what is happening. The 100-400 is also getting heavily discounted. 

A new 100-400L is just around the corner and will effectively replace both lenses.


----------



## tron (Dec 27, 2013)

hoodlum said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > A 100-400L update supercedes the need for a 400/5.6 IS.
> ...


Many lenses are heavily discounted these days. That proves nothing.


----------



## mackguyver (Dec 27, 2013)

tron said:


> hoodlum said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...


+1 - we see these low stock, out of stock, (false) discontinued listings, and assume a replacement is coming soon. If only it were true


----------



## slclick (Dec 27, 2013)

I enjoy both zooms and primes. But to say an improved 100-400 will make the 400 prime effectively replaced, well there are many prime tele shooters (BIRDERS!) who will have a field day with that comment. I think they both have their place. 

Now, which will I get? 

That my friend is the real conundrum.


----------



## mackguyver (Dec 27, 2013)

slclick said:


> I enjoy both zooms and primes. But to say an improved 100-400 will make the 400 prime effectively replaced, well there are many prime tele shooters (BIRDERS!) who will have a field day with that comment. I think they both have their place.
> 
> Now, which will I get?
> 
> That my friend is the real conundrum.


Rent them both


----------



## kirispupis (Dec 27, 2013)

I have owned the 100-400 in the past and currently have the 400/5.6 - though it is up for sale (because a 200-400/1.4x is arriving today!). The AF and image quality of the 400/5.6 beat the 100-400 hands down. It is also a much lighter lens. The 100-400 wins in terms of IS and flexibility. For me though with a 70-200/2.8 II already in the bag I could no longer justify carrying the 100-400 too given that a 2x III extender brought the 70-200/2.8 very close.

My major frustration with the 400/5.6 was IS and the near focusing distance. While for birds IS didn't matter because I used 1/1000 or more, at times I just wanted it for abstract images or landscapes and it was quite frustrating to still need to handhold it at 1/400. Also its magnification made it difficult for small birds when they came close.

If Canon does release an updated IS version whether I would buy it would depend on the close focusing distance. If they improve it then I would likely save up for a copy - even though I have the 200-400. There are times when the light weight and portability of the 400/5.6 win out. My guess is it would sell for a bit over $2k. I doubt Canon sees this as a 'compete' lens but it does make sense to replace it given the age of the current model.

I am not too interested in a 400/4. The 200-400 is far more versatile there.


----------



## slclick (Dec 27, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > I enjoy both zooms and primes. But to say an improved 100-400 will make the 400 prime effectively replaced, well there are many prime tele shooters (BIRDERS!) who will have a field day with that comment. I think they both have their place.
> ...



I tried but Roger said he didn't have any Unicorns farting rainbows.


----------



## mackguyver (Dec 27, 2013)

slclick said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > slclick said:
> ...


See if he has any beachfront property in Memphis ;D


----------



## LSV (Dec 27, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...



Which Memphis? The new one in Tennessee or the original Memphis in Egypt. I have some spare bitcoin rattling in my pocket.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 27, 2013)

Danack said:


> I'm definitely hoping that it gets replaced with a 400mm f4 IS lens at an affordable price.
> 
> I realise that both the 400mm f2.8 and 500mm f4 are really expensive, but the 300mm f4 is under £1000, so shurely a 400mm f4 could be made that isn't that expensive.



A 400 f/4 would be quite a bit larger, heavier and more expensive than a 300 f/4. Just look at the 300 2.8 compared to the 400 2.8! If it became too close to the 300 2.8 IS then people might just stick to using a 300 2.8 IS + 1.4x TC so I'm guessing that is why it's not been done.


----------



## CarlTN (Dec 27, 2013)

I have no interest in this lens. *Who else has no interest in this lens?* Is it just me? F/5.6 is only useful when you're already compromising because it's a zoom. I've tried the current 400 f/5.6. It's a fine lens for what it is, and considering its age. 

But I have no interest in an approx. $2000 fixed focal length 400mm f/5.6 lens. If it were f/5, maybe...but not f/5.6. If it were no more than $1450 at introduction? Perhaps, but I doubt it will be.

Before I spent $2000 on a lens like this, I would rather use other less costly lenses and save up to buy a used or refurb 400mm f/4L DO. It's entirely possible prices for those will dip into the low $4000's at some point, especially if a new f/4 model is never announced. If Canon ever get around to bringing out a new 400mm f/4 (whether DO or not), it will cost $9000, thus prices on used 400 DO's will go up, rather than down.

Just my opinion and my thought process, no doubt others will differ.


----------



## WillT (Dec 27, 2013)

Seems like they would fix the 100-400mm first. I will be replacing mine with the new Tamron if it is as sharp as the pictures suggest. My 100-400mm already has dust behind the front element at under a year use and not sharp at all. I get better shots with the 70-200mm cropped.


----------



## serendipidy (Dec 27, 2013)

tron said:


> hoodlum said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



They only get heavily discounted 6 months after I buy one ( I'm not joking) :'(


----------



## mackguyver (Dec 27, 2013)

serendipidy said:


> They only get heavily discounted 6 months after I buy one ( I'm not joking) :'(


You and me both - looking at the current double-dip deals going on, I could have saved well over $1,000 just on lenses if I had waited 6 months...



LSV said:


> Which Memphis? The new one in Tennessee or the original Memphis in Egypt. I have some spare bitcoin rattling in my pocket.


Tennessee, where Lensrentals is headquartered.


----------



## Eldar (Dec 27, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> serendipidy said:
> 
> 
> > They only get heavily discounted 6 months after I buy one ( I'm not joking) :'(
> ...


If you waited, a significant portion of your adult lives would have been spent without these lenses ... Buying was clearly the right decision


----------



## mackguyver (Dec 27, 2013)

Eldar said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > serendipidy said:
> ...


That's _exactly _how I look at it!


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Dec 27, 2013)

The 400 f5.6L is a really nice lens. It's sharp, light and it's AF is very fast. 
But the lack of IS is a pity and it's Min Focus distance is painfully long. For many the 300 f4 LIS with a 1.4x is a better prospect. 
If Canon can nail those issues, it'll be a far more versatile lens.


----------



## Menace (Dec 27, 2013)

slclick said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > slclick said:
> ...



Well he has only one Unicorn farting rainbows - and I have it on a long term rental


----------



## kirispupis (Dec 27, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> I have no interest in this lens. *Who else has no interest in this lens?* Is it just me? F/5.6 is only useful when you're already compromising because it's a zoom. I've tried the current 400 f/5.6. It's a fine lens for what it is, and considering its age.
> 
> But I have no interest in an approx. $2000 fixed focal length 400mm f/5.6 lens. If it were f/5, maybe...but not f/5.6. If it were no more than $1450 at introduction? Perhaps, but I doubt it will be.
> 
> ...



While I have never used the 400 DO myself, I know two people who have used this lens. Neither of them liked this lens and both sold their copies.

I admit that $2k for a fixed 400/5.6 with IS may seem steep, but what else of quality could you get for that money? A new 100-400 will certainly be closer to $3k. The Sigma + Tamron lenses in that price range are soft and slow. The old 120-300/2.8 performed poorly - though I haven't seen the new one.

Right now if you want a sharp + fast lens at 400mm the current 400/5.6 is really the only game in town. The same will likely be true of its successor. The fact is when you reach these lengths good glass does not come cheap.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 27, 2013)

kirispupis said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > I have no interest in this lens. *Who else has no interest in this lens?* Is it just me? F/5.6 is only useful when you're already compromising because it's a zoom. I've tried the current 400 f/5.6. It's a fine lens for what it is, and considering its age.
> ...


+1

And when the 100-400 and the 400F5.6 get updated, the 400F5.6 will have the lighter weight and higher IQ...

Right now, you have to spend $10,000 to get more resolving power than the 400F5.6, so a better version at $2000 or so will sell.


----------



## hoodlum (Dec 27, 2013)

The volume for the 400mm f5.6 is too low to fund the costs associated with a new design. The current 400mm f5.6 was designed when zooms didn't exist at this focal length and apeture.

I would prefer a slow 400-500mm prime as well but I realize this will never happen now. Zooms have taken over this range.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 28, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> I have no interest in this lens. *Who else has no interest in this lens?* Is it just me? F/5.6 is only useful when you're already compromising because it's a zoom. I've tried the current 400 f/5.6. It's a fine lens for what it is, and considering its age.



It is the most compact way to get 400mm that isn't f/8. It is noticeably more portable than the 300 2.8+TC (if slower) and faster than a 70-300+1.4x TC.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 28, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > I have no interest in this lens. *Who else has no interest in this lens?* Is it just me? F/5.6 is only useful when you're already compromising because it's a zoom. I've tried the current 400 f/5.6. It's a fine lens for what it is, and considering its age.
> ...



I'd say the 100-400L is a much more compact way to get 400mm f/5.6. The zoom is 3" shorter when retracted, making it a whole lot more convenient. When extended, the zoom is only 0.5" longer, and since it's hood is 0.5" shorter, when used properly (i.e., with the hood in place), the full length of the zoom and prime are the same.


----------



## CarlTN (Dec 28, 2013)

kirispupis said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > I have no interest in this lens. *Who else has no interest in this lens?* Is it just me? F/5.6 is only useful when you're already compromising because it's a zoom. I've tried the current 400 f/5.6. It's a fine lens for what it is, and considering its age.
> ...



My Sigma 120-400 is more than close enough to the sharpness of the Canon 400 f/5.6 prime, especially on my 6D. On a crop sensor the difference is a lot greater. But I have no serious interest in crop sensors anymore. And my Sigma costs less than half of $2000, it zooms, it has IS...and at the wider half of its zoom range it's as good or better than anything Canon makes. The long end really suffers more from a lack of contrast than a lack of resolution, but this is easily corrected in post, or even in camera if you just shoot jpegs. As for the AF speed, it's quite close to the AF speed of my new Canon 70-300L, if not matching it. So your "facts" differ from my facts.

If one needs the sharpest glass for a 70D or a new 1 series with 35+ MP, then I agree with you, $2000 is ok to pay. But for those of us who don't need any more than what 20MP on a full frame resolves, then $2000 for an f/5.6 prime is a waste.

If all you want is the best prime money can buy, but lighter weight and smaller size than the big superteles...*in another thread I already suggested that they make something like a 330mm f/3.5 IS with at least one, if not 2 built in TC's. *They could sell that for $5k to $6k US, and THAT would be worth it. But a $2000 400mm f/5.6 prime, or a new 100-400 for $3k, is definitely NOT worth the money to me.


----------



## CarlTN (Dec 28, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> kirispupis said:
> 
> 
> > CarlTN said:
> ...



Oh give me a break..."resolving power"?? Just how much into your image are you cropping? If you're cropping that much you just need more focal length.


----------



## kirispupis (Dec 28, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> My Sigma 120-400 is more than close enough to the sharpness of the Canon 400 f/5.6 prime, especially on my 6D. On a crop sensor the difference is a lot greater. But I have no serious interest in crop sensors anymore. And my Sigma costs less than half of $2000, it zooms, it has IS...and at the wider half of its zoom range it's as good or better than anything Canon makes. The long end really suffers more from a lack of contrast than a lack of resolution, but this is easily corrected in post, or even in camera if you just shoot jpegs. As for the AF speed, it's quite close to the AF speed of my new Canon 70-300L, if not matching it. So your "facts" differ from my facts.
> 
> If one needs the sharpest glass for a 70D or a new 1 series with 35+ MP, then I agree with you, $2000 is ok to pay. But for those of us who don't need any more than what 20MP on a full frame resolves, then $2000 for an f/5.6 prime is a waste.
> 
> If all you want is the best prime money can buy, but lighter weight and smaller size than the big superteles...*in another thread I already suggested that they make something like a 330mm f/3.5 IS with at least one, if not 2 built in TC's. *They could sell that for $5k to $6k US, and THAT would be worth it. But a $2000 400mm f/5.6 prime, or a new 100-400 for $3k, is definitely NOT worth the money to me.



I have used several of the Sigma zoom lenses before - my first telephoto zoom was a Sigma (the 80-400) - but when I moved to the Canon telephotos (100-400) there was a world of difference. Although Sigma is very innovative with their lenses - having interesting focal lengths like 120-300/2.8 - 300-800/5.6, and 200-500/2.8 they are not a company to look at for high quality telephotos. While I do give them marked improvement in their shorter focal length lenses, you get what you pay for with their telephotos (and maybe less so with their high end ones).

Personally I only use FF cameras. I own a 5D3 now and started with the original 5D. 

Ask anyone who truly cares about image quality and they will all say that TC's are really a last resort option. I own both a 1.4x and a 2x III and only resort to them when I absolutely must. The drop in image quality is simply too great. For that reason I almost never use my 2x - it is almost always my 1.4x on a 70-200/2.8 II. Perhaps some optical engineer will stun us, but right now any lens based off of multiple TCs will be junk.

In terms of justifying $2k for a good 400/5.6 that is easy. I recently justified $11k for an improvement over this lens. Given that I sell large prints of my works, this expense was justified. A few successful images can easily pay for it. I can see amateurs having difficulties with such a price, but anyone who makes money from their work can definitely justify it.


----------



## kirispupis (Dec 28, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > +1
> ...



Cropping is a fact of life for wildlife photographers. Regardless of how long a lens you have there are many times when your subject simply will not fit in the frame. This is especially true for birds. There are other times when the subject stays so briefly that I take the shot and recompose it by cropping later.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 28, 2013)

kirispupis said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



+1

With 840mm, I still need to crop.


----------



## Duade Paton (Dec 28, 2013)

I would find it unlikely Canon would replace the 400 5.6 before the 100-400L. The 400 5.6L was released in 1993 and is just as good today as it was then. IMO this lens is the hidden gem of Canon's Wildlife Line up. The lens is so sharp, light and fast it is ridiculous. Just look at Lens Rentals test of the 200-400 to see how close the 400 5.6 comes to that lens. 

The only problem with this lens is the MFD, 3.5m is too long. It is not a crippling problem as you can get super detailed portraits at 3.5m but it would be nice to get closer if needed.

I have used this lens extensively for nearly 2 years and I am its biggest supporter. I don't need the IS as I shoot handheld for BIF only and always have a high enough shutter speed. The rest of the time I usually use a tripod and whilst I aim for a SS of over 1/400 I have achieved plenty of sharp photos of birds just over 1/100. The new FF cameras and their high ISO abilities mean 5.6 is not such an issue any more.

I don't think I would update my 400 5.6L as I am very happy with what I get now. I would much rather they made a 500 5.6L.

A portrait showing the 3.5m mfd isn't always a problem.





Portrait of a Red-necked Stint, one of the worlds smallest shorebirds.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Dec 28, 2013)

I'd be all over this lens on release day.

-------

http://michaelhodgesfiction.com/


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 28, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Right now, you have to spend $10,000 to get more resolving power than the 400F5.6, so a better version at $2000 or so will sell.
> ...


Exactly.... I need more focal length but I do not have the $12,000 it costs to purchase it.


----------



## CarlTN (Dec 28, 2013)

kirispupis said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > My Sigma 120-400 is more than close enough to the sharpness of the Canon 400 f/5.6 prime, especially on my 6D. On a crop sensor the difference is a lot greater. But I have no serious interest in crop sensors anymore. And my Sigma costs less than half of $2000, it zooms, it has IS...and at the wider half of its zoom range it's as good or better than anything Canon makes. The long end really suffers more from a lack of contrast than a lack of resolution, but this is easily corrected in post, or even in camera if you just shoot jpegs. As for the AF speed, it's quite close to the AF speed of my new Canon 70-300L, if not matching it. So your "facts" differ from my facts.
> ...



Well, thanks for putting me in my place. How about you show me a full size image that would highlight where you needed more detail from it? And show me an image that you've made more than $1000 on. I want to see what a brilliant photographer you are.


----------



## CarlTN (Dec 28, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> kirispupis said:
> 
> 
> > CarlTN said:
> ...



Try a D800E...


----------



## CarlTN (Dec 28, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



Oh, so you're saying a new 400mm f/5.6 is going to be as sharp, or specifically it would have to be sharper than the 500mm f/4 ii or the 600mm f/4 ii? Get real, never going to happen.


----------



## HankMD (Dec 28, 2013)

tron said:


> Would you mind putting a CR rating to this rumor?
> 
> I for one strongly doubt it. The story about shortages in specific items suggesting an upgrade has been used - and denied - many times in the past.



This year (2013) was rumored to be "The Year for 400mm Lenses". : Still a few days to make it true but I am not hopeful.

That said, the business of making predictions is fraught with difficulties. Just ask Harold Camping.


----------



## CarlTN (Dec 28, 2013)

HankMD said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > Would you mind putting a CR rating to this rumor?
> ...



Quite impossible to do, since he's dead as of a couple weeks ago.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 28, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > CarlTN said:
> ...


No.

What I am saying is that the lenses that fit a Canon which have more resolving power than a 400F5.6 are all $10,000 or more in price.

I need more focal length. I would like an 800F5.6 or a 600F4. I can not afford them.

The 400F5.6 is the highest resolving lens THAT I CAN AFFORD. It costs about $1200 to $1300, about a tenth of what the big whites will set me back. If the new version sells for $2000 or $2500 it is still a lot less than the next lens up....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 28, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > With 840mm, I still need to crop.
> ...



I didn't say I needed more MP after cropping...I said I needed to crop. Are you saying that with a D800E, I wouldn't need to crop? Thanks for that useless pearl of non-wisdom. :


----------



## kirispupis (Dec 28, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> kirispupis said:
> 
> 
> > I have used several of the Sigma zoom lenses before - my first telephoto zoom was a Sigma (the 80-400) - but when I moved to the Canon telephotos (100-400) there was a world of difference. Although Sigma is very innovative with their lenses - having interesting focal lengths like 120-300/2.8 - 300-800/5.6, and 200-500/2.8 they are not a company to look at for high quality telephotos. While I do give them marked improvement in their shorter focal length lenses, you get what you pay for with their telephotos (and maybe less so with their high end ones).
> ...



This image is one that has earned me well over $1k. Besides selling several prints of it, it was the front page for Bing.com.




In terms of an image where more detail is desired, just ask any nature photographer. All of us have such images.


----------



## CarlTN (Dec 28, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



I'm saying if you like cropping, you can crop a lot more with it. Thanks for saying my pearls aren't wise or useful, I know I can always count on you for that!


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 28, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > CarlTN said:
> ...




OK, true :-[ ;D. (Although the 100-400L doesn't take a TC as well as this new one likely would and the AF on the 100-400L is a little on the sluggish side (but true enough a new 100-400L II would probably fix the AF right up.... it would probably cost a bit more than the prime though, although not radically more.) ;D)

currently i believe some shooters prefer the 400L over the 100-400L for the AF speed


----------



## serendipidy (Dec 28, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...



Me too! ;D


----------



## CarlTN (Dec 28, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



So you're saying that, since you need more focal length (or "effective" focal length), you're wanting to pair a lens that is even higher in resolution than the current 400mm f/5.6, to a 70D? And you are mainly shooting in bright daylight?


----------



## 9VIII (Dec 28, 2013)

I think Canon's lack of a 400f4 shouldn't be too surprising. Every time I try to think about the advantages, it always comes back to the 500f4 already filling 90% of what I would be looking for. It's lighter than either of the 200-400f4 zoom lenses out there, roughly the same size, and If you order from the right places the 500f4 is only a few thousand more than the 300f2.8. Chances are you're getting more value out of the 500f4 as is than you would out of any theoretical 400f4.

I would still be more tempted by a 600f5.6 without IS at a similar cost to the 300f2.8, and if they can update the 800f5.6 without inflating the prices like Nikon did it would make a perfect partner for the current 400f5.6.


----------



## 9VIII (Dec 28, 2013)

Thinking further along the 600f5.6 line, and I'm totally dreaming here, but if they could keep the sharpness around the same level as the 300f2.8, then a 600f5.6 on a crop sensor would virtually equal the 500f4+2xTC, while focusing faster. That I would put money down for.


----------



## revup67 (Dec 28, 2013)

I'm wondering why this post by the CR admin didn't rate this as a CR1, CR2, etc.



> The current 400 f5.6 L is a great lens but it could use IS for sure.
> Unfortunately the replacement rumor has been circulated since 2009 on the Internet and it is still just a rumor.



I couldn't agree more and also don't believe the 400mm 5.6 will disappear. As an example, you can still get multiple versions of the 24-70 L lens. The 400mm lens is inexpensive and razor sharp as it is. I find that shooting 1/1600 with birds in flight is still simply not fast enough. IS will only offer improvements with IQ at 1/400 or slower. For you birders out there waiting, just get this incredible lens as you may be missing many great shots while you ponder. This one taken at 1/5000 note the slight blur on rear wing of this Allen's Hummingbird. I'm not sure how much better a newer 400 can get than this




Allen's Hummingbird in flight (9103) by Revup67, on Flickr


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 28, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > CarlTN said:
> ...


Yes.

I shoot about half the time in good sunlight and for that I do not need IS, but the rest of the time it would be useful. In poorer light I have to get creative with supporting the lens and feel that IS would help, ( not critical, but would help) but what I am really hoping for is the improved optics that would allow this lens to work even better, particularly with a teleconverter.

There are several lenses that would do the job better (for me) than the 400F5.6....
400F5.6 - $1,525.46
500F4.0 - $10,509.00
400F2.8 - $11,638.96
600F4.0 - $12,983.56
200-400 - $13,220.96
800F5.6 - $14,114.43

This is what it would cost me today to get the various lenses where I live....and as you can see, there is quite the jump going above the 400F5.6 and that is why I would like to see an improved 400F5.6. 

I think that a 600F5.6 is out as it would be similar in size and cost to a 300F2.8, which around here sells for $7,880.75 and I would guess that a 500F5.6 would be somewhere around the $4000 range.

Yes, there is a Tamron 150-600 about to come out, but I really doubt it will out-resolve the current 400F5.6.

For me, the 400F5.6 is as good of a resolving lens as I can afford.


----------



## tron (Dec 28, 2013)

revup67 said:


> I'm wondering why this post by the CR admin didn't rate this as a CR1, CR2, etc.


Simply because this post intended to create many posts even if it is BS! I thought CR was better than NL.
Well, actually it is except when creating threads like that...


----------



## scottkinfw (Dec 28, 2013)

Shorten it, lighten it, and you can bet at introduction it will likely be closer to $2,800.00 USD.

Scott



mackguyver said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > I need a new 100-400 Mk2 and a 400 f/5.6 with IS comparison war to rage for many many moons like a hole in the head.
> ...


----------



## scottkinfw (Dec 28, 2013)

+1 to that



AlanF said:


> Danack said:
> 
> 
> > I'm definitely hoping that it gets replaced with a 400mm f4 IS lens at an affordable price.
> ...


----------



## AlanF (Dec 28, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> There are several lenses that would do the job better (for me) than the 400F5.6....
> 400F5.6 - $1,525.46
> 500F4.0 - $10,509.00
> 400F2.8 - $11,638.96
> ...



Don
As usual you have the answers spot on. The 400mm f/5.6 is a very good lens, but is not razor sharp as others keep saying. The optics could easily be improved to sharpen it significantly, and IS nowadays should be there. There needs to be lenses that the average person can afford so that superteles are not just the preserve of the lucky few who have the cash. Sigma or Tamron could make a really good prime but they have given them up for consumer tele-zooms.


----------



## johnhenry (Dec 28, 2013)

Not all that exciting a lens except for the IS.

It really doesn't blow up my skirt nor I suspec t of many people.

A 200 F/2.8,2.0 or 1.8 will equal its reach an f ratio with just the addition of a 2X convertor.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 28, 2013)

johnhenry said:


> A 200 F/2.8,2.0 or 1.8 will equal its reach an f ratio with just the addition of a 2X convertor.



The current 400/5.6 prime is already optically better than the 70-200/2.8L IS II + 2x TC, and the bare zoom is better than the bare 200/2.8 prime. A 2x TC results in a significant IQ loss - there's certainly a need for a native 400/5.6 lens.


----------



## Duade Paton (Dec 28, 2013)

AlanF said:


> The 400mm f/5.6 is a very good lens, but is not razor sharp as others keep saying. The optics could easily be improved to sharpen it significantly, and IS nowadays should be there.


I have used a 70-200, 300 2.8 IS II, 400 5.6L, 500 IS II and a 600 F4 with crop and FF cameras. I would have to say the IQ and Sharpness of the 400 5.6L is very good for its price point. I am continually impressed with the quality and sharpness I get from the lens and honestly don't know how much better they can make it without a large price increase. 

I will admit IS and a MFD of 1.5 would be welcomed but not at a large price increase. My main interest is sharpness and IQ and at the moment for $1200 this lens is a bargain.

Whilst this is not a strict comparison due to the different location and settings it still shows the performance of the 400 5.6L. One shot is with a 7D & 400 5.6L and the other a 1DX & 500 F4 IS II + 1.4x. Without looking at EXIF data can you easily tell which one was taken with $17,000 worth of gear to a kit worth $2000?


----------



## mrsfotografie (Dec 28, 2013)

Duade Paton said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > The 400mm f/5.6 is a very good lens, but is not razor sharp as others keep saying. The optics could easily be improved to sharpen it significantly, and IS nowadays should be there.
> ...



No, but then the light conditions are favorable for the 7D+the 400 5.6L combination. Nice photo by the way 

I saw the the 400 5.6L in a camera store today. Hadn't payed it much attention before, but it is surprisingly small and even thin looking, there was a 70-300L sitting next to it on the shelf, and it looked to me like the 70-300 despite being shorter (in retracted state) appeared to have more girth to it. The 400 5.6L is of no interest to me; too narrow an aperture and no IS.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 28, 2013)

AlanF said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > There are several lenses that would do the job better (for me) than the 400F5.6....
> ...



The 400F5.6 came out in May of 1993. In the last 21 years there have been great advances in the accuracy of machining. What we took for excellence twenty years ago is now commonplace. The advances in image quality of the big whites from series 1 to series 2 implies advances in optics, both in manufacture and computer aided design. The 400F5.6 was sharp for its time, but I would expect a new version to be much better as it should be both mechanically and optically superior.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 28, 2013)

Duade Paton said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > The 400mm f/5.6 is a very good lens, but is not razor sharp as others keep saying. The optics could easily be improved to sharpen it significantly, and IS nowadays should be there.
> ...


 
You can get great photos with most lenses if you are close enough to fill up the frame and rotten photos with the best lenses and gear if you are shooting under poor conditions and have to crop. So, without seeing the full frame of each or being given 100% crops instead of just seeing reduced size images at unknown crops you can't make any meaningful judgements.


----------



## Brainphotography (Dec 28, 2013)

Duade Paton said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > The 400mm f/5.6 is a very good lens, but is not razor sharp as others keep saying. The optics could easily be improved to sharpen it significantly, and IS nowadays should be there.
> ...


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Dec 28, 2013)

I've always found the 400mm f5.6 L to be very sharp. Ok, I find my 400mm f2.8 LIS is slightly sharper but that's comparing a much more expensive and faster optic. But it's certainly a bit sharper than the numerous 100-400 LIS and 300mm f4 LIS I've tried. But they are all sharp enough. If people find that any of the above lenses aren't sharp enough for them...then please get a grip...they are all sharp enough.


----------



## Brainphotography (Dec 28, 2013)

Duade Paton said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > The 400mm f/5.6 is a very good lens, but is not razor sharp as others keep saying. The optics could easily be improved to sharpen it significantly, and IS nowadays should be there.
> ...


NpHtDTV/0/L/PacificBlackDuckFlickr-L.jpg[/img]




[/quote]


Photo 1 looks like what I get with my 7d and 400 5.6 . I've had the 400 5.6 for quite a few years now. With aperture at 5.6 and 400mm we need as much light as possible. Boosting the ISO will add more noise and grain. At 400 mm there's usually some cropping as well. Im currently saving up for the 600 mark ii. You can definitely see that photo 2 has more pop and finer bokeh. 1dx with 600 ii is also a nice combo. My 85 1.2 ii has similar pop.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 28, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> The current 400/5.6 prime is already optically better than the 70-200/2.8L IS II + 2x TC, and the bare zoom is better than the bare 200/2.8 prime.



Which is why there's no need for a 400/5.6L IS if the 100-400L is replaced. The version II will very likely be better optically than the current 400/5.6L, have IS, focus just as well if not better, have better MFD and be able to zoom out as a bonus. Sure it will be expensive but who thinks a 400/5.6L II will come in under $2,500? The zoom will sell more and therefore benefit more from the cost reduction you get from volume production.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 28, 2013)

Lee Jay said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > The current 400/5.6 prime is already optically better than the 70-200/2.8L IS II + 2x TC, and the bare zoom is better than the bare 200/2.8 prime.
> ...


And the 400F5.6 II will be sharper and lighter.... And will sell a lot more copies than any of the big whites.... There is a market for both.... It is not a one or the other scenario.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 29, 2013)

Lee Jay said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > The current 400/5.6 prime is already optically better than the 70-200/2.8L IS II + 2x TC, and the bare zoom is better than the bare 200/2.8 prime.
> ...



I don't disagree, at least from the consumer's perspective. The zoom would be more popular. As I stated, from a business perspective, the current 100-400L sells well...very well! By some reports, Canon sells more 100-400's than 70-300L's, despite the latter being newer and sharper. If Canon has both a new 100-400 and a 400/5.6 designed and production-ready, it might make business sense to release the new prime first, wait a couple of years, then release the new zoom.


----------



## serendipidy (Dec 29, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



I'm an old man...I don't know if I can wait that long ;D


----------



## kirispupis (Dec 29, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Exactly. The other thing to consider is weight. It is quite a bit easier photographing BIF with the 400/5.6. I suggest everyone here who thinks a 400/5.6 is an unnecessary lens try one for a few days. For the price it is an amazing lens, as I expect any successor to be.


----------



## mb66energy (Dec 29, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> [...]
> 
> The 400F5.6 came out in May of 1993. In the last 21 years there have been great advances in the accuracy of machining. What we took for excellence twenty years ago is now commonplace. The advances in image quality of the big whites from series 1 to series 2 implies advances in optics, both in manufacture and computer aided design. The 400F5.6 was sharp for its time, but I would expect a new version to be much better as it should be both mechanically and optically superior.


Much better mechanically? Much better optically? I am not shure. Better optically: Yes. Better mechanically: Don't think. I reuse my 1.4 50mm S.S.C. with the EOS M and it is a very good lens optically but mechanically a dream compared to "modern" lenses.

Accuracy of machining is one thing - but quality control on a 7 lens optics is much easier than controling 12 or 15 lenses. If QC at Canon is o.k. the advances of machining aren't relevant.
And I am shure that computer aided design is standard since the late 1970s so the 5.6 400 for shure is a product of a computer optimized design.

The main cause of sharpness losses I observe with my tele lenses is due atmospheric effects - the lens is sharp like my 2.0 100 (one of the "sharpest" lenses) or the 2.8 100 macro (USM, non-IS).


----------



## Menace (Dec 29, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



+1

I'm sure both zoom and prime will sell pretty well but personally I'll only be interested in 400 5.6 II ideally with IS.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 29, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



It'll be lighter, slightly, and very little different optically unless the new 100-400L is a dog.

Let's say the new 100-400L is $2,500 and the new 400/5.6L IS is $2,200, the weight difference is 300g, and the optical difference is basically undetectable. How many people would give up the 100-399mm range for $300 and 300g? Some, for sure, but I don't think it would be very many. And, honestly, I think these assumptions are optimistic in favor of the prime.

I think the zoom would out-sell the prime 20:1.

Used to be primes had more advantages than they do now. But with zooms that are close to perfect optically and newer, lighter designs, primes have fewer advantages. Sure they still do have advantages, but mostly where you're desperate for extremes of speed or focal length.

Oh, and just so you know, of my 7 lenses, 4 are fixed focal length.


----------



## Sabaki (Dec 29, 2013)

I have a very sharp 400 f/5.6 but I reckon it falls slightly short of the amazing sharpness you would get with the 100mm L macro or 24-70 mk II. And I agree with the poster about the minimum MFD. 

So there's definitely room, although slight, for improvement. 

The 100-400 & 400mm f/5.6 will both be replaced and the prime will be sharper while the zoom more versatile. 
It would be awesome if the zoom could get close to the prime sharpness wise because there are situations (like a bird hide) where the animals get rather close and getting the whole of the bird in your shot is impossible. 

I'm excited though, let's see what happens


----------



## markesc (Dec 29, 2013)

I've lost patience.... pre-ordered the Tokina 150-600...

Worst case I'll just sell it, but I'm done waiting for Canon to pull it together and I'll gladly support the competition.

After renting the sigma 150-500 and canon 100-400, my conclusion with that was the 100-400 = more keepers, the sigma can give even better results if you're willing to live view focus/tons of time, however neither lens was I impressed with. Formerly owned (2009) the 70-200 f2.8 L is... a 2x ii on that one was a complete joke, but no extender = perfection!!

I do love the 70d+ 70-300 f4-5.6L I have currently, but I need more reach for my 5dmkiii, and I'm note attempting to pay the bills with this hobby, so I'm okay with 90% of the results for 10% of the price of the alternatives from Canon, after all, it should be about the idea, not the equipment! 

Will post examples once it arrives!

Photo is a cropped 5dmkiii + 70-300 L that I'll keep for hiking adventures!


----------



## 9VIII (Dec 29, 2013)

Honestly, as much as I love my 400mm prime, the trend does seem to indicate that Canon could get away with just introducing a new zoom lens that replaces both of the older lenses, and I would be happy with that.
The only thing that would hold it back in my mind is if they kept the push-pull zoom mechanism. I generally don't like telescoping lenses because of the possibility of wiggle it introduces, and including the extra dust problems I might actually pass on a telescoping MkII even if it performed significantly better. If it were push-pull and above $2K I would just throw that in a big white fund instead.

Whatever they do, I'm really, really hoping they keep the integrated hood. I absolutely adore that feature.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Dec 29, 2013)

9VIII said:


> Honestly, as much as I love my 400mm prime, the trend does seem to indicate that Canon could get away with just introducing a new zoom lens that replaces both of the older lenses, and I would be happy with that.
> The only thing that would hold it back in my mind is if they kept the push-pull zoom mechanism. I generally don't like telescoping lenses because of the possibility of wiggle it introduces, and including the extra dust problems I might actually pass on a telescoping MkII even if it performed significantly better. If it were push-pull and above $2K I would just throw that in a big white fund instead.
> 
> Whatever they do, I'm really, really hoping they keep the integrated hood. I absolutely adore that feature.



Not to start another push-pull dust bucket rave war, but have you actually used the 100-400? You can tighten the barrel with a friction adjust ring and I can testify there is absolutely no wobble whatsoever.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 29, 2013)

mrsfotografie said:


> Not to start another push-pull dust bucket rave war, but have you actually used the 100-400? You can tighten the barrel with a friction adjust ring and I can testify there is absolutely no wobble whatsoever.



+1, no wobble on the 100-400 or 28-300. 

Nor do I have any dust in mine after three years of use.

I hope the push-pull stays - makes it really fast to zoom, and allows you to *lock the zoom at the long end* or anywhere in between (whereas zoom locks on recent/most rotating zooms only allow locking in retracted position).


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 29, 2013)

A lot of people are asking why not replace it with a 10-400 in the lens lineup?

The point that a lot of people seem to be missing is probably the first thing that Canon considered.... Is there a market for this lens? I think we can all agree that the 100-400 will greatly outsell the 400F5.6, but that is not important. The real question is if there is a market for an updated 400F5.6.... And judging from the responses on this thread and it's activity, there seems to be demand. 

So it won't sell as well as a 100-400..... Whoop-de-do..... It will certainly outsell the 400f2.8 and the 400DO so why are you not calling out predictions of doom and gloom for those two lenses.... Or for that matter, the rest of the Big Whites?

Given the same level of technology a prime will always be lighter, less expensive, focus better, have higher IQ, and less copy variation than a zoom. There are less glass elements and that means less light loss through transmission and there will be less reflections. The optical path is optimized for a single length, not compromised for a range, and that gives you better IQ. The lack of zooming mechanism means that the prime is mechanically simpler, and that means stronger, lighter, and easier to build..... which gives you less copy variation and you are less likely to get the out of focus issues where the lens is slightly misaligned and one side focuses better than the other. There will always be people who will be willing to take this instead of the versatility of a zoom lens...

As long as Canon thinks there is a profitable market for a lens, it will continue to be sold.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 29, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> So it won't sell as well as a 100-400..... Whoop-de-do..... It will certainly outsell the 400f2.8 and the 400DO so why are you not calling out predictions of doom and gloom for those two lenses.... Or for that matter, the rest of the Big Whites?



You willing for it to cost what they cost?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 29, 2013)

Lee Jay said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > So it won't sell as well as a 100-400..... Whoop-de-do..... It will certainly outsell the 400f2.8 and the 400DO so why are you not calling out predictions of doom and gloom for those two lenses.... Or for that matter, the rest of the Big Whites?
> ...



It won't. $2K, give or take.


----------



## hoodlum (Dec 29, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



It would only cost that if it had similar volume to the zoom. The new zoom will likely cost $2.5+ when replaced. With much lower sales Canon would need $3k+ to make a new 400mm f5.6 viable. How many here would be willing to pay that? I would pay up to $3.5k for a very sharp 400mm f5.6 similar in quality to the 300mm f2.8 ii. But I still don't think it will happen.


----------



## hoodlum (Dec 29, 2013)

markesc said:


> I've lost patience.... pre-ordered the Tokina 150-600...



I did the same although mine will say Tamron on the side.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 29, 2013)

hoodlum said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



The logic is somewhat flawed..... Yes, the 400F5.6 will not have the economies of scale of a more popular 100-400, but it will contain less parts and be simpler to assemble. The 100-400 has 17 lens elements, the 400F5.6 has 7.... The 100-400 has mechanical zoom and focus mechanisms, the 400F5.6 just has focus. The 100-400 has a two-part body, the 400F5.6 is one part.... Mechanically, one is very complex and the other is very simple. The factors will balance out and I would expect the prices to be similar.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 29, 2013)

hoodlum said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



$2K, $3K+, we're both making this up (unless you work for Canon, I don't). But the zoom is more complex, with more elements, more mechanics, more electronics (e.g., variable aperture), and overall more complex design parameters. The current 100-400 without discounting is $1600, so $2K is quite reasonable for a new prime, and an increase of ~50% is consistent with a 'premium' for IS. Remember - Canon doesn't need the prime to outsell the zoom, just to deliver a return on investment. 

Suffice it to say that IF Canon releases a 400/5.6 IS, they'll do so at a price they feel is appropriate for the market. We can all make our choices then.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Dec 29, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > Not to start another push-pull dust bucket rave war, but have you actually used the 100-400? You can tighten the barrel with a friction adjust ring and I can testify there is absolutely no wobble whatsoever.
> ...



+1, the ability to lock at any focal length makes it like a bag of primes  I also like the fact that with this design your left hand is always near the end of the barrel, which is good for stability.


----------



## Menace (Dec 29, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> hoodlum said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



I for one want a 400 5.6 prime for all of the above reasons - others no doubt want the versatility of a zoom. There is room for both and i'm sure Canon have done their market research / homework.


----------



## dufflover (Dec 30, 2013)

The issue with a 400mm prime is the recent releases have somewhat proven a fairly (understatement) capable zoom can be made as the primes of old. OK so on hard numbers probably not, but you'd be hard pressed to find any _practical_ difference between say a 70-200mm II vs "budget prime" or 200-400/4 vs 400mm/4 DO. Or to put more simply, those are new zooms, new sharp zooms. An updated 100-400 would give a 400mm prime a run for it's money and probably be good enough to out-justify whatever extra sharpness a new 400mm prime would give. Now, there other reasons as mentioned such as price, complexity and weight. But imo Canon aren't exactly caring too much about "budget" of any whites, and the 100-400 is (relatively) light anyway, and as a bonus collapses into 70-200 ... presuming similar characteristics are maintained for any new version.

Unless it's a cheap-as-chips change to the existing 400mm/5.6 production line, I don't think they'll do it.


----------



## tapanit (Dec 30, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> +1, no wobble on the 100-400 or 28-300.
> 
> Nor do I have any dust in mine after three years of use.
> 
> I hope the push-pull stays - makes it really fast to zoom, and allows you to *lock the zoom at the long end* or anywhere in between (whereas zoom locks on recent/most rotating zooms only allow locking in retracted position).



Agreed. I've not dust I can see in my 100-400 after... what, almost 13 years by now, no wobble whatsoever, and I really like the ability to lock the zoom at any position. And it is indeed faster to zoom than the more usual twist mechanism.


----------



## mackguyver (Dec 30, 2013)

hoodlum said:


> markesc said:
> 
> 
> > I've lost patience.... pre-ordered the Tokina 150-600...
> ...


I lost patience as well and bought the 300 2.8 IS II to go with my Mk III extenders. The IS and IQ rock, but this combo is so much bigger, heavier, and damn, where did all my money go?


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 30, 2013)

hoodlum said:


> markesc said:
> 
> 
> > I've lost patience.... pre-ordered the Tokina 150-600...
> ...


I can see myself getting both.... The Tamron for the zoom range (150-600 goes with 70-200 with much less overlap than a 100-400 does), and the 400F5.6 for outstanding IQ...


----------



## unfocused (Dec 30, 2013)

A better and more interesting option would be a f5.6 500mm IS prime. It could still be affordable and would compete nicely against the new Tamron 150-600. Yeah, it would probably be at least twice the cost of the current 400mm 5.6 prime, but would still be a lot cheaper than the fast super telephotos.


----------



## mackguyver (Dec 30, 2013)

unfocused said:


> A better and more interesting option would be a f5.6 500mm IS prime. It could still be affordable and would compete nicely against the new Tamron 150-600. Yeah, it would probably be at least twice the cost of the current 400mm 5.6 prime, but would still be a lot cheaper than the fast super telephotos.


I know - to me a "f/6.3" 600mm IS prime would have better IQ for less money. I seriously doubt that any 4x zoom can overcome the trade-offs of a zoom lens. I will be very curious to see how the Tamron compares to the 300 2.8 IS II + 2xIII combo, though.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 30, 2013)

unfocused said:


> A better and more interesting option would be a f5.6 500mm IS prime. It could still be affordable and would compete nicely against the new Tamron 150-600. Yeah, it would probably be at least twice the cost of the current 400mm 5.6 prime, but would still be a lot cheaper than the fast super telephotos.



You would probably be looking at 1.5 to 1.8 Kilograms, a 92mm filter size and 100-105mm maximum diameter on a lens like that. That would be a big heavy expensive lens... until you compare it to the 500F4 which is 3.2Kilos and 146mm across and probably more than twice the price.

I think that there is a market for f5.6 versions of some of the big whites. The 500F4 would seem like the next logical contender for a mini "big white".


----------



## kirispupis (Dec 30, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > A better and more interesting option would be a f5.6 500mm IS prime. It could still be affordable and would compete nicely against the new Tamron 150-600. Yeah, it would probably be at least twice the cost of the current 400mm 5.6 prime, but would still be a lot cheaper than the fast super telephotos.
> ...



I agree that it would be very interesting to have a lens like this. In general I have always believed Canon (and most other manufacturers) have a hole in their lineup in terms of high quality telephotos. On the one side you have their 'budget' telephotos like the 400/5.6 and the 100-400 and on the other side you have their high end telephotos beginning with the 300/2.8 II. The problem is there's really nothing in between unless you buy used. So you either pay ~$1700 for the current 100-400 or you save up $7k for the 300/2.8 II (or more likely $10k and up for the 200-400 or 500/4).

What I would really like to see (well, maybe not so much now I have the 200-400) is something priced around $3500 that is a noticeable step up from the 400/5.6 and 100-400. It's hard to say if a 500/5.6 would be priced that low, but if they could pull it off I expect it would be a good seller.


----------



## photonius (Dec 30, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> hoodlum said:
> 
> 
> > markesc said:
> ...



how does the 300 f2.8 IS mark I compare to the mark II? The Tamron seems to beat the 300 f2.8 IS with 2x Mk III extender: http://translate.google.ca/translate?hl=en&sl=ja&u=http://www.trinitylumberton.org/category29/&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://www.trinitylumberton.org/category29/%26newwindow%3D1


----------



## AlanF (Dec 30, 2013)

photonius said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > hoodlum said:
> ...



The Series II is significantly better. See:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=739&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=2&LensComp=249&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

The crop on the trinity website is from the very centre, and I am willing to bet that the Tamron falls off rapidly away from the centre.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 31, 2013)

kirispupis said:


> In general I have always believed Canon (and most other manufacturers) have a hole in their lineup in terms of high quality telephotos. On the one side you have their 'budget' telephotos like the 400/5.6 and the 100-400 and on the other side you have their high end telephotos beginning with the 300/2.8 II. The problem is there's really nothing in between unless you buy used. So you either pay ~$1700 for the current 100-400 or you save up $7k for the 300/2.8 II (or more likely $10k and up for the 200-400 or 500/4).



I agree there's a gap, but it's been there long enough for Canon to have filled it, if they wanted to.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 31, 2013)

AlanF said:


> photonius said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...



It does not matter if the sharpness falls off away from the center because we are all able to perfectly track birds in flight, so only the central portion of the image needs to be sharp 

(If you look at the MTF curves, sharpness does fall off, but not as badly as I expected) One of the things I like most about the 400F5.6 is that the edges are WAY sharper than the 100-400.....


----------



## kirispupis (Dec 31, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> kirispupis said:
> 
> 
> > In general I have always believed Canon (and most other manufacturers) have a hole in their lineup in terms of high quality telephotos. On the one side you have their 'budget' telephotos like the 400/5.6 and the 100-400 and on the other side you have their high end telephotos beginning with the 300/2.8 II. The problem is there's really nothing in between unless you buy used. So you either pay ~$1700 for the current 100-400 or you save up $7k for the 300/2.8 II (or more likely $10k and up for the 200-400 or 500/4).
> ...



Very true, but that doesn't mean I can still wish they filled it. 

Then again from Canon's point of view:
- I purchased the 100-400
- I purchased the 70-200/2.8 II + 2x III. The image quality + AF was close enough to the 100-400 to no longer justify carrying it.
- I still wasn't happy with the image quality + AF, so I bought the 400/5.6
- I still wanted something with IS and a bit more reach, so after some time I used the money I was saving for the 600/4 II and bought a 200-400/1.4x with the justification that it is far more flexible.

So in the end Canon got a lot more money out of me than if they had just introduced a 500/5.6 IS in the first place.


----------



## photonius (Dec 31, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> It does not matter if the sharpness falls off away from the center because we are all able to perfectly track birds in flight, so only the central portion of the image needs to be sharp
> 
> (If you look at the MTF curves, sharpness does fall off, but not as badly as I expected) One of the things I like most about the 400F5.6 is that the edges are WAY sharper than the 100-400.....



I suspect the artistic qualities of your award winning photograph of a bird's ass might just beat the record price of Rhein II.


----------



## slclick (Dec 31, 2013)

That bird is really living on the edge


----------



## mackguyver (Dec 31, 2013)

kirispupis said:


> Very true, but that doesn't mean I can still wish they filled it.
> 
> Then again from Canon's point of view:
> - I purchased the 100-400
> ...


Sounds familiar - my path was 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 IS, 70-200 f/4L IS (+1.4x II), 400 f/5.6L, 300 f/2.8L IS II + 1.4xIII & 2xIII. I will say that the 400mm had me satisfied for many years.


----------



## BeenThere (Dec 31, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> kirispupis said:
> 
> 
> > In general I have always believed Canon (and most other manufacturers) have a hole in their lineup in terms of high quality telephotos. On the one side you have their 'budget' telephotos like the 400/5.6 and the 100-400 and on the other side you have their high end telephotos beginning with the 300/2.8 II. The problem is there's really nothing in between unless you buy used. So you either pay ~$1700 for the current 100-400 or you save up $7k for the 300/2.8 II (or more likely $10k and up for the 200-400 or 500/4).
> ...


Canon has tried intermediate tele solutions but they did not sell so well. For instance, I have an EF 500/f4.5 L Lens that I love and use a lot, (very sharp) but is now no longer produced and not replaced in Canon's line-up. I got this lens for air travel when the larger whites were just too large. When my 600/f4 died I did not replace it, just kept using the 500mm.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 31, 2013)

BeenThere said:


> Canon has tried intermediate tele solutions but they did not sell so well. For instance, I have an EF 500/f4.5 L Lens that I love and use a lot, (very sharp) but is now no longer produced and not replaced in Canon's line-up.



That's not really correct. The EF 500mm f/4L IS was, "Developed as a successor to the EF500mm f/4.5L USM." (link)

The old EF 500/4.5 was derived from the FD/NewFD 500/4.5, there was a 400/4.5 and a 600/4.5 in that mount, too.


----------



## BeenThere (Dec 31, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> BeenThere said:
> 
> 
> > Canon has tried intermediate tele solutions but they did not sell so well. For instance, I have an EF 500/f4.5 L Lens that I love and use a lot, (very sharp) but is now no longer produced and not replaced in Canon's line-up.
> ...


yes, but the 500/4 IS was larger, heavier, and more expensive. That is what I meant by the 500/4.5 being an intermediate tele in terms of size, weight and cost.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 31, 2013)

BeenThere said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > BeenThere said:
> ...



Makes sense, although I wouldn't call it intermediate in cost - the price relationships among its contemporary lenses 300/2.8L, 400/2.8L, 600/4L, all USM non-IS) were similar to that among the current MkII supertele lenses.


----------



## Phil L (Jan 1, 2014)

Danack said:


> I'm definitely hoping that it gets replaced with a 400mm f4 IS lens at an affordable price.



I would be hoping the exact same thing.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 1, 2014)

Phil L said:


> Danack said:
> 
> 
> > I'm definitely hoping that it gets replaced with a 400mm f4 IS lens at an affordable price.
> ...



Why not hope for Canon to give it away for free, that is no less likely to happen than an 'affordable' 400/4 (unless you consider the 300/2.8L IS II to be affordable).


----------



## slclick (Jan 1, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Phil L said:
> 
> 
> > Danack said:
> ...



I consider the 1499.00 300 f/4 IS affordable and then the next pricing tier for super teles starts at 5k, so a price of 2k to 4k would be sweet. But who am I to tell Canon to market their goods? 

And what would be a lens that would fall into that range? At the lower end, maybe a 400 5.6 IS. Or a 100-400 IS Mk2. And at the higher end ($4k) perhaps a 400 2.8 with no IS and a 200-400 f/4-5.6 with no extender.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 1, 2014)

slclick said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Phil L said:
> ...



400/4 is like 200/2, but a but more expensive. You won't see it for less than $5K in a prime, much less a zoom.


----------



## adhocphotographer (Jan 1, 2014)

I would be more interested in a new 300L f/4 IS II! But any new affordable telephoto prime would be most welcome in my opinion!


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jan 1, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> kirispupis said:
> 
> 
> > Very true, but that doesn't mean I can still wish they filled it.
> ...



Lol....I passed on the 100-400 LIS, and went straight for a 400mm f5.6 L. 
Then I took up a 70-200 f2.8 LIS II and 1.4x and 2x teles.
Then I sold the 400mm f5.6 L and picked up a 400mm f2.8 LIS.
Apart from the weight, I couldn't be happier!


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 2, 2014)

GMCPhotographics said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > kirispupis said:
> ...


Canon, the retailers, and eBay love us for sure!


----------

