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



## Steve Dmark2 (Sep 29, 2016)

Hello Everybody,

as i own a 300mm 4L IS lens which was released back in 1997 I desperatelly want to have the same lens with today advanced technology.
I don't need a zoom lens for the generally known reasons 

This is what i wish:

[list type=decimal]
[*]300mm 4L IS ii with similar performance with 1.4x and 2x teleconverters like the 300mm 2.8 ii
With todays stabilizer and USM autofocus.
Also I wish for weather sealing and that the lens hood is still integrated like current version.
I also wish the reduction of minimal focus distance to 1m (like the 100-400)
I Prefer the 300 with converters over the 400 because i can have aperture of 4 if i need.
[/list]


Or:

400mm 5.6L IS with todays stabilizer and USM autofocus.
Also a closer minimal focus distance is a given.

Give me your opinion if or which of the both lenses you want to see in 2017.


----------



## Maximilian (Sep 29, 2016)

Hi Steve! 

Personally I do not have the money to spend on a tele prime as well as a tele zoom. 
So my choice would be the opposite, meaning I'd go for a 100-400 mm zoom because it is more versatile for me.

But I also understand the advantages of a prime and that there should be a market for such lenses.
(And if I had the money I'd be interested in such a lens, too)

So now back to your initial question:
I'd prefer a 300/4L IS II if I could choose. 

Reasons:
It is a little bit smaller and lighter than the 400/5.6L if I look at the actual numbers. (4 cm)
It is more versatile, as you could combine it with a 1.4x TC and could still offer almost the same IQ than a native 400/5.6L.
So you have two lenses in one as you do not always need 400 mm reach.
And you have a f4 lens, that could help you in difficult light conditions like twilight and nightfall.

Of course I would expect the built and optical quality similar to the latest L releases as well as IS, weather sealing and so on. 

Although I suppose I won't buy neither of those two lenses I hope I will see both - or at least one - of those fantasy lenses because I want to know what IQ Canon can deliver with todays technology, esp. compared to the zoom. 

Maybe that would make me change my initial opinion


----------



## tron (Sep 29, 2016)

Steve Dmark2 said:


> Hello Everybody,
> 
> as i own a 300mm 4L IS lens which was released back in 1997 I desperatelly want to have the same lens with today advanced technology.
> I don't need a zoom lens for the generally known reasons
> ...


1. As I have an excellent 100-400 4.5-5.6L IS II I wouldn't care for 400 5.6 L IS.
2. I also have a much older than yours 300 f/4. The non-IS version: 300mm f/4L. It is sharper than IS version and remains excellent with 1.4X. So I would have no need for a new 300. But I understand that both desired prime lenses (if made by Canon) would be a terrific IQ and size combination.


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 29, 2016)

Why not wish for a 400mm f5.6 II with performance with extenders? 

it all depends on what you want to use the lens for.


----------



## nc0b (Sep 29, 2016)

I get better BIF results with my 400mm f/5.6 than my 100-400mm II. If the zoom had a second focus limiter option of 10m, the zoom would likely do as well. Unfortunately the zoom can focus hunt down to 3m and never recover. On the other hand, the zoom does well with the 1.4X TC III, while the prime does not.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Sep 29, 2016)

Definitely a 400mm 5.6L IS with todays stabilizer and USM autofocus. I'd cough up another $500 if it was f/5. I will not have the 100-400 II for all the usual reasons.

John


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 29, 2016)

chrysoberyl said:


> Definitely a 400mm 5.6L IS with todays stabilizer and USM autofocus. I'd cough up another $500 if it was f/5. I will not have the 100-400 II for all the usual reasons.
> 
> John



....'usual reasons'?


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 29, 2016)

chrysoberyl said:


> Definitely a 400mm 5.6L IS with todays stabilizer and USM autofocus. I'd cough up another $500 if it was f/5. I will not have the 100-400 II for all the usual reasons.
> 
> John


The 400F5.6 is lighter than the 100-400, an updated version will be sharper, it will cost less, and since it is a constant length, it will not be pumping dust and humidity through the lens and camera when it gets zoomed. The last point is a huge consideration when you are operating under adverse environmental conditions....


----------



## JonAustin (Sep 29, 2016)

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


----------



## j-nord (Sep 29, 2016)

This has been discussed quite a few times in the last year.

I have a 100-400ii but would still be interested in a *500* f5.6 IS to pair with it. 

I don't think there is a big market for a 400 5.6 IS since most people that still use the un-stabilized lens do so because they DO NOT want IS for BIF but do want a smaller lighter lens with that 10m AF stopper. 

However, I think a 500 f5.6 IS with good 10m AF stopper would have broader appeal for both 400 f5.6, 100-400II , and big white users though, probably being a bit more expensive than the 100-400ii. 300 f4 IS II also makes sense in the line up for portrait and outdoor sports and some casual wildlife.


----------



## streestandtheatres (Sep 30, 2016)

This makes sense to me. Though I would love to upgrade my 400 5.6 to an IS model. It's great for birds in flight at the moment, but it would also be useful to have IS for when the bird lands and I don't want to use 1/2000... I can see why a lot of people like the 100-400 but birds don't hang around and I find it easier to quickly compose a shot with a prime. I use the 8.5 to infinity nearly all the time.

I have no interest in a 300 f4.




j-nord said:


> This has been discussed quite a few times in the last year.
> 
> I have a 100-400ii but would still be interested in a *500* f5.6 IS to pair with it.
> 
> ...


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 30, 2016)

've had the version I lenses and would not have a interest in version II. I think that Canon is doing the right thing in making the original versions available at bargain prices, it lets those with less money to invest get a excellent lens.

A new version would double the price.


----------



## Steve Dmark2 (Sep 30, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> chrysoberyl said:
> 
> 
> > Definitely a 400mm 5.6L IS with todays stabilizer and USM autofocus. I'd cough up another $500 if it was f/5. I will not have the 100-400 II for all the usual reasons.
> ...



Heavier, less good weather sealing, AF Speed, AF Accuracy...


----------



## Steve Dmark2 (Sep 30, 2016)

I like the possibility to go to 4L because most birds hide in shades and it gives me lower ISO with my 7Dmark2. 
The converter build in would also be fun.

So I see that im not the only one interessted in such a lens type.
There is definitely a market for those!
But weird though that canon does not update theirs.
Even more weird that the third party lenses are not even existing.


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 30, 2016)

Steve Dmark2 said:


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



I agree it does seem weird but maybe their absence suggests there being no market for it. 
Anyone wanting a 400prime will value the f4/f2.8 models and maybe 400mm is getting to specialised that at f5.6 the zoom more versatile for their use.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Sep 30, 2016)

Steve Dmark2 said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > chrysoberyl said:
> ...



Sorry, I was disinclined to be repetitious and I posted something like this recently:

1.	Lighter weight.
2.	Smaller size.
3.	No dust and moisture huffing.
4.	Sharper edges.
5.	Less CA and flare because there are fewer elements.
6.	Fewer elements should also make it less expensive.
7.	Fewer elements should also result in faster and more accurate AF.
8.	No lens creep.

John


----------



## AlanF (Sep 30, 2016)

chrysoberyl said:


> Steve Dmark2 said:
> 
> 
> > Mikehit said:
> ...



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


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 30, 2016)

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


----------



## Steve Dmark2 (Oct 1, 2016)

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

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


----------



## Steve Dmark2 (Oct 1, 2016)

GMCPhotographics said:


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



Hello,

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

Cheers


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Oct 1, 2016)

Steve Dmark2 said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > To be frank, the 300mm f4 LIS is pretty much redundant after the 70-200 f2.8 LIS II and 1.4x TC were released. The 70-200 is sharper and better in every measurable way except weight.
> ...



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


----------



## JonAustin (Oct 1, 2016)

Steve Dmark2 said:


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



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

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


----------



## Steve Dmark2 (Oct 1, 2016)

JonAustin said:


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



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



GMCPhotographics said:


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



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

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


----------



## AlanF (Oct 1, 2016)

Steve Dmark2 said:


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



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

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


----------



## chrysoberyl (Oct 1, 2016)

AlanF said:


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



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


----------



## AlanF (Oct 1, 2016)

chrysoberyl said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > 2. Smaller? The 100-400 is shorter when retracted to 100mm.
> ...



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


----------



## Drum (Oct 1, 2016)

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


----------



## 9VIII (Oct 2, 2016)

AlanF said:


> chrysoberyl said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...



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


----------



## MrFotoFool (Oct 2, 2016)

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


----------



## pwp (Oct 2, 2016)

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

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

-pw


----------



## AlanF (Oct 2, 2016)

9VIII said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > chrysoberyl said:
> ...



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


----------



## 9VIII (Oct 2, 2016)

AlanF said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...



Ah, I see what's going on now.

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

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

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


----------



## 4mrfannwskptc (Oct 4, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> Steve Dmark2 said:
> 
> 
> > Even more weird that the third party lenses are not even existing.
> ...


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 4, 2016)

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


----------



## NancyP (Oct 4, 2016)

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


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 4, 2016)

AlanF said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...


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

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


----------



## FECHariot (Oct 4, 2016)

MrFotoFool said:


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



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


----------



## AlanF (Oct 4, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > 9VIII said:
> ...



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


----------



## chrysoberyl (Oct 4, 2016)

AlanF said:


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



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


----------



## AlanF (Oct 4, 2016)

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


----------



## chrysoberyl (Oct 4, 2016)

AlanF said:


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



That's a fact! It's been proposed to me on numerous occasions. I'm sure that it's nice; I just want something a little newer if I'm going to cough up well over a grand.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 11, 2016)

How about just a brand new EF 400 f/4L IS USM prime? I'd throw $2.5K -$3K at that. 

Dump the 300 f/4L IS and the old 400 f/5.6L.

I thought the f/5.6L was just too dark for me. F/4 or even f/3.5 would be nice in that price range for us mortals. 

I don't particularly like the 100-400. One still ends up with f/5.6 at the long end.

I have the 70-200, but would rather not use an extender. I can skip 300mm.

If I could get half what I paid for that 2X III extender I'd sell it tomorrow. Great lens, just don't like it.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 11, 2016)

chrysoberyl said:


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


Got one at work (400F5.6) and love it..... It's about 20 years old now.... Interestingly enough, it out-resolves the 800F5.6 FD lens when used with the FD to EOS converter, so we let the 800 go and kept the 400...

I would not get the current 400F5.6 for home because the 100-400F5.6II is as good as the 400F5.6 at the long end.... but an updated version of the 300F4 (with teleconverter) or an updated 400F5.6 should outresolve the 100-400II for distant objects and be considerably lighter and better sealed.

However, only time will tell.... and while we wait, we speculate


----------



## Steve Dmark2 (Oct 13, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> How about just a brand new EF 400 f/4L IS USM prime? I'd throw $2.5K -$3K at that.
> 
> Dump the 300 f/4L IS and the old 400 f/5.6L.
> 
> ...



Also a great lens, but hugh already a money i have to argue with my wife


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 13, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> chrysoberyl said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...



Don, would you go for an EF 400mm f/4L IS USM with the blue goo at about $2.5-$3.5k? I know this is pure speculatory dreaming, but would it hold appeal for people in your opinion?


----------



## Random Orbits (Oct 14, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Don, would you go for an EF 400mm f/4L IS USM with the blue goo at about $2.5-$3.5k? I know this is pure speculatory dreaming, but would it hold appeal for people in your opinion?



I think a 400 f/4 IS would sell really well at 2.5-3.5k USD. However, if it is L, then the price is too low! The 400 f/4 DO II is over 6k.


----------



## arbitrage (Oct 14, 2016)

If Canon made a non-DO 400 f/4 it would cost as much as the 300 2.8. The front element is practically the same size and would cost dearly. I don't see why Canon would make this lens if the 400DOII is already as sharp as the 300 2.8II.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 14, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > chrysoberyl said:
> ...



That lens at that price would be one heck of a deal! I can't see that lens being offered for under $6500 as you would expect it to be just slightly more than the 300F2.8...

As to a new 400 F5.6, I'd guess it would go for about $1600.... more than the 300F4 but less than the 100-400F5.6 II. That one would sorely tempt me as when you are looking for image quality, they is nothing like a prime.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 14, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



You're right. I didn't even know about the 400 DO.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Oct 14, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Don, would you go for an EF 400mm f/4L IS USM with the blue goo at about $2.5-$3.5k? I know this is pure speculatory dreaming, but would it hold appeal for people in your opinion?



It would appeal to me. You should do a poll...


----------

