# Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L IS Mentioned [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 13, 2015)

```
<p>It’s been a long time since anyone gave a mention to a replacement for the Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L, one of Canon’s best optical performers. We were told a few years ago that Canon was going to be replacing all of the 400mm lenses in their lineup. The EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II was first and then the EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II, which caught us a bit by surprise. Soon after we got the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II, which is as highly regarded as we thought it would be. That leaves one of the best kept secrets in Canon’s lens lineup, the EF 400mm f/5.6L.</p>
<p>We’re now told that an IS version of this prime is in the works and if things go to plan, we’ll see it some time in 2016. Canon does recognize a need for such a lens, especially for birders who like the lower weight and price when compared to the faster primes and the zoom.</p>
<p>More to come…</p>
```


----------



## Maximilian (Mar 13, 2015)

Interesting - though also not really believable after the 100-400 II appeared. 
[CR1] seems to be right rating because there are a lot more lenses that need an update. 

But for those wanting this lens I hope this is also true.


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 13, 2015)

I gave up waiting on this lens, but I think I'd buy one in a heartbeat if they actually made it. The best thing about the 400 f/5.6 is that with its small size and weight you can almost always take it with you - I can't say the same with my 300 f/2.8 IS II.


----------



## procentje20 (Mar 13, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> I gave up waiting on this lens, but I think I'd buy one in a heartbeat if they actually made it. The best thing about the 400 f/5.6 is that with its small size and weight you can almost always take it with you - I can't say the same with my 300 f/2.8 IS II.



Small size? Isn't it as large as a tamron 150-600?

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Product-Images.aspx?Lens=278&LensComp=0&LensComp2=929

I always thought the lens lookes like a 200mm with a 2x converter attached.


----------



## Khufu (Mar 13, 2015)

It's definitely not though, the closest lens element is way down the barrel, maybe between 1/2 - 2/3 of the length away!

I totally get where Mackguyver's coming from; this thing's only as excessive to "lug around" as chucking a small flask of coffee in your bag... It's much slimmer and lighter than other >400mm lenses! Certainly a better tool than the lens left at home


----------



## Chaitanya (Mar 13, 2015)

I would like to see 400 f/4 or 500f/5.6 lens in line up costing around 2500-3500$. this would be a serious step before the 300 f/2.8 and longer/faster/expensive lenses in Canon super-tele lineup.


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 13, 2015)

Yes, it's all relative. It was my "big" lens before I got the 300 f/2.8, but it now seems quite small in comparison. It's long, but not large in diameter, so it will fit into most medium to large camera bags/backpacks without any problems.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Mar 13, 2015)

This is the one for me! Can't afford the DO or the f/2.8, but I really want 400mm.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 13, 2015)

If true, this is a lens that I would quickly add to my kit... The IQ of the series II long Canon primes is staggering!


----------



## DominoDude (Mar 13, 2015)

If this one becomes a reality, I can easily see myself trading in my old 400/5.6L to get it. Apart from the MFD (~3.5m), and the aperture, it's very hard to see any drawbacks with the current model. I just love it, and so does many other birders around here.


----------



## hoodlum (Mar 13, 2015)

I wonder if Canon would make a DO version to reduce the size and weight even further. This would provide more market separation between the 100-400. Nikon was able to produce their 300mm f4 "DO" for just under $2k.


----------



## fabioduarte (Mar 13, 2015)

I doubt there will be an upgrade until Nikon launches its own 400mm f/5.6.

I am hoping there is an upgrade though, as the IS would be very helpful in some situations. BTW, I own a 400mm f/5.6L.

Regards.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Mar 13, 2015)

Any chance of this being an EF-S 400/5.6 IS?

EF-S will reduce the size, weight and cost, making it easier for Canon to compete on price against the Sigma and Tamron 150-600 offerings. The Sigma and Tamron perform admirably on full frame but on APS-C the IQ isn't really mind-blowing. 

Look how the current 400/5.6 with 1.4xTC on APS-C fares against the Tamron at 600mm on full frame. 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=2&LensComp=278&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=0

The Tamron is better in the center of frame but the corners are unwhelming. The Sigma isn't way better than the Tamron either. So there's definitely a gap to aim at in terms of price and performance and with EF-S the lens will not be competing directly with the Canon's newer EF lens offerings.


----------



## dhofmann (Mar 13, 2015)

Chaitanya said:


> I would like to see 400 f/4 or 500f/5.6 lens in line up costing around 2500-3500$.



The 200mm f/2 is $6,000. A 400mm f/4 won't be any cheaper because the size of the objective lens is the same on both and the 400mm would be longer.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 13, 2015)

StudentOfLight said:


> Any chance of this being an EF-S 400/5.6 IS?
> 
> EF-S will reduce the size, weight and cost, making it easier for Canon to compete on price against the Sigma and Tamron 150-600 offerings. The Sigma and Tamron perform admirably on full frame but on APS-C the IQ isn't really mind-blowing.
> 
> ...



Making a 400mm EF-S lens would only be a small fraction smaller and lighter than an EF version, and despite having a crop body, I would not touch it. At least for me, far better to have a lens that can be used on both crop and FF bodies....


----------



## AccipiterQ (Mar 13, 2015)

I would grab this in a second. Since the jump from currently from 400 5.6 is to the 500 4.0, the price gulf is enormous between the two. I have the 5.6 already, and really the only weakness is no IS.


----------



## Finn M (Mar 13, 2015)

I don't see any point in making this lens. A new EF 400/5,6L IS will get about the same price as the new and very sharp EF 100-400/4,5-5,6L IS II. It will maybe be a bit lighter, but not by much.

Canon should instead make a EF 500/5,6 IS. This will be a great lens for bird shooters, much better than a 400mm which is a bit too short, especially for smaller birds. 
Even better would be a DO version: after Nikon launched their new and very compact AF-S 300/4 PF VR I think we will see many new DO lenses also from Canon to a much lower price in the coming years.


----------



## Cosmicbug (Mar 13, 2015)

I would buy one tomorrow!

I have a dream :
IS with a slight improvement in Af speed, resolution and contrast coupled to a 5D4!


----------



## 9VIII (Mar 13, 2015)

First off: QUIT TEASING US IT'S NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN!

Unless we get a CR3 with pictures of a press release showing a 400f5.6IS, or maybe ten different CR2 references, I will not believe it.




fabioduarte said:


> I doubt there will be an upgrade until Nikon launches its own 400mm f/5.6.



Ha! And that's even less likely that Canon making a second one.

The deal is that the 400f5.6, as-is, nearly performs as well as all the V1 Big Whites. That seriously devalues a lot of hardware. They made V2 Big Whites to rectify that, but from an amature's perspective the main thing missing is still just IS, the competition for IQ is still close enough.
Even without adding IS, look at the 100-400MkII VS the 400f5.6 when both have a 2XTC, the zoom still sucks. Make that prime lens perform any better and you're encroaching on the Big White market again...
Which would actually make this:



StudentOfLight said:


> Any chance of this being an EF-S 400/5.6 IS?



Make sense.
An EF-S 400f5.6 being completely incompatible with 90% of their high end bodies (and all TC's) means it would have almost no affect on Big White sales, but would give us crop shooting amatures a break. 
(Note, size and weight of lenses doesn't change with sensor size, they just get to be sloppy with corner performance is all, which I would still prefer that they not do so we can have a nice even frame and 0 vignetting on crop. Given the unusual amount of distortion at 400mm I almost think the 100-400MkII actually was designed with crop in mind as much or more than full frame).
We know Canon loves artificially limiting their products for a given market, this makes the most sense to me, the next most likely event would be them adding IS without making any changes to the lens design (taking a page out of the Nikon playbook).

In any case, I just got some pretty decent shots of a moose at 1/350sec handheld (as slow as you would want to go for anything moving, and yes gopher shooting practice helps), which makes me wonder if IS isn't just an excuse to be lazy more than anything. Then considering the new 400DO, I'm betting that we've got everything we're going to get.
I'll have the 100-400MkII by the end of the year if only because of the excellent Maximum Magnification, IS will be nice for the flowers (low movement landscape shots), and it does perform better at f5.6 than the old prime (which is best at f8) so it is an upgrade when used bare.
That lens was basically made with me in mind and I would be a fool to pass it up.


----------



## e_honda (Mar 13, 2015)

StudentOfLight said:


> Any chance of this being an EF-S 400/5.6 IS?



I doubt it. The only EF-S primes right now are the 24mm pancake and 60mm macro. It'd be quite a step to then just make its 3rd EF-S prime a 400mm tele. I see your logic behind it, but I just don't see it happening.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 13, 2015)

9VIII said:


> The deal is that the 400f5.6, as-is, nearly performs as well as all the V1 Big Whites. That seriously devalues a lot of hardware. They made V2 Big Whites to rectify that, but from an amature's perspective the main thing missing is still just IS, the competition for IQ is still close enough.
> Even without adding IS, look at the 100-400MkII VS the 400f5.6 when both have a 2XTC, the zoom still sucks.



The comment about the 400/5.6 vs the 100-440mm II is simply untrue. With the 2xTC the 100-400 II is actually sharper in the centre than the 400/5.6, and you don't put a 2xTC on these lenses to capture the extreme corners - you do it for small subjects in the centre.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=2&LensComp=972&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=6&APIComp=2

I wouldn't use the 2xTC on either of these lenses under normal circumstances. Using the 1.4xTC, which is much more usual, the 2 lenses are pretty much the same. If the 400/f/5.6 performs nearly as well as the big whites then so does the 100-400mm II!

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=1&LensComp=972&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=2


----------



## beforeEos Camaras (Mar 13, 2015)

I too will upgrade my 4005.6l to a 400 5.6l is but until then I will have fun with the 400 5.6l mk1


----------



## beforeEos Camaras (Mar 13, 2015)

PropeNonComposMentis said:


> *F 5.6 ?!*
> So it would be a seasonal Lens, for Jimmy Cliff, _bright bright Sunshiny day_ ...



its how much iso you want to use I have taken photos in the sunset time and they was some of my best


----------



## DJL329 (Mar 13, 2015)

StudentOfLight said:


> Any chance of this being an EF-S 400/5.6 IS?



Ummm ... noooo.

Want a smaller, lighter, _faster _ lens with IS that is _at least_ 400mm equivalent on a crop body? Here you go: Canon EF 300mm F/4L IS USM. Put a 1.4x TC on it, and it's a 672mm f/5.6 equivalent on a crop body.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Mar 14, 2015)

DJL329 said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > Any chance of this being an EF-S 400/5.6 IS?
> ...


This is a CR1 so my reply was really just a thought experiment from my side.

Also, the 300mm f/4 + 1.4xTC doesn't hold up so well on APS-C. Here is a comparison with the 18-135mm kit zoom at the long end: 
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=809&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=1&LensComp=111&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=1

My philosophy is that if the pixel quality is worse than a kit zoom can deliver wide-open then I tend to look at other options.


----------



## NancyP (Mar 14, 2015)

Interesting, but for sure it is a CR1.


----------



## AccipiterQ (Mar 14, 2015)

Finn M said:


> I don't see any point in making this lens. A new EF 400/5,6L IS will get about the same price as the new and very sharp EF 100-400/4,5-5,6L IS II. It will maybe be a bit lighter, but not by much.
> 
> Canon should instead make a EF 500/5,6 IS. This will be a great lens for bird shooters, much better than a 400mm which is a bit too short, especially for smaller birds.
> Even better would be a DO version: after Nikon launched their new and very compact AF-S 300/4 PF VR I think we will see many new DO lenses also from Canon to a much lower price in the coming years.



That's actually a great point now that you mention it. I could even sell my 400 5.6L to defray the cost.


----------



## DominoDude (Mar 14, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > Any chance of this being an EF-S 400/5.6 IS?
> ...



Same here. I wouldn't go anywhere near it. If I want FF vignetting in the corners I'd go FF, not get anything with a smaller image circle. The concept as it is today is a nearly perfect compromise.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Mar 14, 2015)

procentje20 said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > I gave up waiting on this lens, but I think I'd buy one in a heartbeat if they actually made it. The best thing about the 400 f/5.6 is that with its small size and weight you can almost always take it with you - I can't say the same with my 300 f/2.8 IS II.
> ...



It is quite small, roughly about the same size but lighter than the Tammy 150-600. I love to use it when I do not want to carry my 500mm Canon prime with me, it fits perfectly in the hand. In contrast to the Tammy, the 400/5.6 offers a very fast, reliable AF with Canon DSLRs, that allows shooting BIF. So it's a nice package for birders.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Mar 14, 2015)

I really love my 400/5.6 as a light alternative to my 500mm prime for birding (if there's enough light available). IS would be nice but not that important for me personally, but it could definitely help Canon to make this lens more popular. When you start using the current Mk I version, you first really struggle to hit the target because of the nervous viewfinder image and the small angle of view. IS would definitely help.

I'd only upgrade if other specs would attract me. The biggest downside of the 400/5.6 I is its closest distance of only 3.5 m. In contrast to the EF 300/4 with very decent 1.5 m (.24x magnification), the 400/5.6 does not provide a real tele macro for shy objects such as dragon flies. A decent improvement to, say, 2.0 m, would really make it much more attractive.

A lighter DO version, as others suggested here, would definitely be great. The new 400/4 DO II promises that Canon could make another top Fresnel lens.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 14, 2015)

StudentOfLight said:


> DJL329 said:
> 
> 
> > StudentOfLight said:
> ...


Although the 300 F4 is newer than the 400 F5 .6, it is nowhere near the quality of any of the series II long primes. 
Both lenses are seriously in need of updating and once that is done should have significantly better quality than the 100-400 F5.6. There have been a lot of advancements both with coatings and with materials in the last 15 years. When they were designed these lenses were considered to be of excellent quality. By today's standards and they are mediocre, but still deliver performance equivalent (or better) than the newest zoom lenses. An update should return them to their position as stellar performers, good enough to be used on crop bodies with a teleconverter..


----------



## bholliman (Mar 14, 2015)

justaCanonuser said:


> procentje20 said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...



I've rented both the 400/5.6 and Tammy 150-600 for use on my 6D. Of course, the 6D isn't valued for it's AF capability, but I had much better AF success with the 400, much faster and better accuracy. Regarding size, they are similar in length, but the Tammy is quite a bit heavier. Here are the physical specs:


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 14, 2015)

AccipiterQ said:


> Finn M said:
> 
> 
> > I don't see any point in making this lens. A new EF 400/5,6L IS will get about the same price as the new and very sharp EF 100-400/4,5-5,6L IS II. It will maybe be a bit lighter, but not by much.
> ...


However, a 500F5.6 would be getting close to the cost of the 200F2. I would expect this lens to be somewhere in the $5000 dollar range...


----------



## 9VIII (Mar 14, 2015)

500f5.6 is an interesting concept.
It's a little smaller than the latest superzooms, so while not ridiculous, it's still big. You can bet Canon would charge above $4K, but even $5K is a few grand off the new 400DO (and you wouldn't need a TC either), and given that the other long lenses are all above $10K now, half price for a stop less light sounds really good. Good for me, but maybe not for someone trying to also sell a 500f4. We can only hope.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Mar 14, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > Any chance of this being an EF-S 400/5.6 IS?
> ...


I'm sure that if an EF-S CR1 lens did materialize then it would not be targeting a discerning photographer such as yourself. There are however a vast majority of shooters out there using APS-C exclusively.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 14, 2015)

StudentOfLight said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > StudentOfLight said:
> ...


My previous statement was wrong about size. If they kept the same or similar design, the size and weight differences would be negligible, but if they redesigned it with more aggressive optics (bend the light sharper), they could significantly reduce the length of the lens, but at the expense of IQ....

Also, what about mirror lenses? That's an interesting way to shrink the size of a lens....


----------



## beforeEos Camaras (Mar 14, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...


mirror lens that's what I tried in the early 80`s a celstron 8in with a canon camera adapter. too bad it was just a tryout but wow on the reach


----------



## TeT (Mar 15, 2015)

StudentOfLight said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > StudentOfLight said:
> ...



Keep in mind that the consumer who would be interested in a 400 5.6 is limited, it would not behoove canon to make that lens as an EF S and cut out the FF users. there just are not enough users for this particular PRIME focal length to warrant multiple offerings and keep cost down enough to sell it.

ALSO, it should be better than the 100-400. I do not know how it should compare to the DO ?


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Mar 15, 2015)

DominoDude said:


> If this one becomes a reality, I can easily see myself trading in my old 400/5.6L to get it. Apart from the MFD (~3.5m), and the aperture, it's very hard to see any drawbacks with the current model. I just love it, and so does many other birders around here.


If true, Canon will take my money right away


----------



## Hillsilly (Mar 15, 2015)

As long as the new lens focuses faster, is a little sharper and weighs less than the new 100-400 I'm sure there'll be a lot of interest. You can count me in.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 15, 2015)

Hillsilly said:


> As long as the new lens focuses faster, is a little sharper and weighs less than the new 100-400 I'm sure there'll be a lot of interest. You can count me in.



If it is sharper, I will defintely buy one to complement the 100-400 II zoom.


----------



## stein (Mar 16, 2015)

We do have the 300/2.8LIS & 300/4L IS + 1.4x but with better autofocus this will be a killer for birds/wildlife
Updated coating and new glass/IS-technology will make this a lightweight deligt to carry around for us birders!!
On the wishlist already 
Stein, Norway


----------



## icassell (Mar 16, 2015)

Even though I now have the 500/4, I still love my 400/5.6 which was my first birding lens. I haven't used it since yesterday  . It is light and easy to stick in a travel bag, whereas the 500 requires some planning. Now that I have the 7D Mk 2, I also now have AF with the 1.4X. I bought this lens after serious debate with myself over it versus the 100-400 (at the time, there was no Mk 2 of that lens) and have never regretted the decision. It is considerably lighter than the 100-400 and easy to hand-hold. It was certainly sharper than the 100-400 mk 1 and a very fast focusing lens. The downside of a f/5.6 lens on my older body has been negated with the better ISO capability on my 7D 2, but IS would make it even better (although that might be a trade for increased weight).

I will certainly consider replacing my Mk 1 if there is a Mk 2. My wishes for a new lens are a shorter MFD and IS.

In the interim, I will be getting the 100-400 v. 2, so the new 400 will need to be superior to that in some way for me to buy it.


----------



## brapoza (Mar 16, 2015)

Would love to see a 500mm f5.6


----------



## 9VIII (Mar 17, 2015)

AlanF said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > The deal is that the 400f5.6, as-is, nearly performs as well as all the V1 Big Whites. That seriously devalues a lot of hardware. They made V2 Big Whites to rectify that, but from an amature's perspective the main thing missing is still just IS, the competition for IQ is still close enough.
> ...



Ok I got this worked out now.

I was comparing on crop where the zoom lens is specifically bad in the corners.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=2&LensComp=972&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=6&APIComp=2

While it's not quite the night and day difference you get on crop, it would still be hard to say that the zoom is better overall in any other circumstance either.
It's close, but picking between the two is easy if you're just looking for the best 400mm lens, the prime lens is generally superior and almost half the price.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 17, 2015)

9VIII said:


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


And remember, this is comparing a mark 1 prime to a mark 2 zoom. A mark 2 400f5.6 should have very similar IQ to the 400f2.8 II.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Apr 1, 2015)

brapoza said:


> Would love to see a 500mm f5.6



It's available! With EF mount! Just google the famous "Kowa 500mm F/5.6 FL". This lens comes with two (!!) red rings, so it really challenges Canon's L series with only one red ring 8)


----------



## MJ (Apr 12, 2015)

brapoza said:


> Would love to see a 500mm f5.6




me too!
500 f5.6 IS L / 600 f5.6 IS L optically on par with their larger cousins, in a price range below 4.5K, in a handholdable relatively compact size
OR
400 f5.6 IS in a price range below 2K, with more contrast, sharper edges, small and lightweight.


----------



## Steve Dmark2 (May 23, 2016)

Hello Together,

Did somebody here any news/rumors of this lens?
If Canon would update this lens, im sure they sell tons of it, despite the 100-400 5.6ii


----------



## wsmith96 (May 23, 2016)

This rumor has been quiet for a while now.


----------



## [email protected] (May 23, 2016)

Now that the 80D has f/8 capacity at all its focus points, I think Canon could differentiate a very high quality, reasonably-priced 500mm lens against the big whites by pushing it to f/8. I know they've never done this, and it seems unlikely, but the high ISOs needed for f/8 would be seen as the compromise, disallowing those spending $10k on a big white lens from going cheap and relying on this new one. 

Canon would get the best of both worlds; hooking thousands of otherwise left-out people into their long lens ecosystem and retaining marketshare, while protecting their highest margin products. 

Strategically it makes a lot of sense because where Canon is strongest is an under appreciated quality for most: autofocus capacity. By stretching it to f/8, the competition's versions - were they to follow - would stink at the outset.

And the form factor of that 500 f/8 would be pretty small. Throw in DO optics to reduce length, maybe even make it cover only the crop sensor circle, and you'd have something a bit smaller than the current 400 f/5.6, which is a very manageable lens. Canon would get that part of the market that is too embarrassed to pull out a foot-long piece of hardware at the kid's soccer game - which is a heck of a lot of people now in the age of camera phones. In fact, I suspect this might be the single greatest marketing problem Canon has right now for their lens division.


----------



## Don Haines (May 23, 2016)

wsmith96 said:


> This rumor has been quiet for a while now.


Yes, but I am standing by with my credit card for when it happens 

BTW, why I would purchase this lens instead of the 100-400 II:

IQ. Given similar materials and technology, a prime is always sharper than a zoom as the design can be optimized for a single focal length.

Dust pump. This is a constant length lens. Every time you zoom a 100-400 in and out you are pumping dust and moisture through the lens.... not very good in poor conditions....

Weight. This will be a lighter lens than the 100-400.

besides, when I need a long lens, it almost always is not long enough.... this lens should play well with teleconverters and give me more reach.....


----------



## j-nord (May 23, 2016)

This discussion in summation:

- I want it
- I won't believe until I see it
- i'd probably prefer a 500 5.6
- there is a huge gap in telephoto pricing, the $2k-$4k range is ripe for the picking
- I won't believe it until I see it
- I want it

I agree with all of the above! ;D

but... years of rumors and 'wants' and we will continue to wait...


----------



## wsmith96 (May 23, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> wsmith96 said:
> 
> 
> > This rumor has been quiet for a while now.
> ...



I hear ya. In my case, I didn't wait and picked up a refurb 100-400 mkII for a steal during the Christmas season. Was able to grab it for under $1500, so if the 400 prime becomes available as is better, I'm comfortable that I'll be able to get my money back so I can reinvest.


----------



## pierlux (May 23, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> wsmith96 said:
> 
> 
> > This rumor has been quiet for a while now.
> ...



+1! And, last but not least, price. Whatever it may cost, it will be much less than the 100-400. For all those who are going to use the 100-400 at the long end most of the time, and eventually own the super-nice 70-300 L, a 400 L* IS* would be a nice addition to the bag.


----------



## mrzero (May 23, 2016)

[email protected] said:


> Canon would get that part of the market that is too embarrassed to pull out a foot-long piece of hardware at the kid's soccer game - which is a heck of a lot of people now in the age of camera phones. In fact, I suspect this might be the single greatest marketing problem Canon has right now for their lens division.



Huh? Is that really a problem? I thought that was half the fun of buying the big lenses.


----------



## 9VIII (May 23, 2016)

I think the biggest change we've seen in the last year is that Nikon released a 500f5.6 zoom lens, and at an extremely attractive price. That's the first of its kind from a first party, and now that Nikon is willing to give people a 90mm front element for under $1,500 we have all sorts of rumors of Canon working on something similar (though we don't know the price).
I'd love to see a 500f5.6 IS Prime for under $2,000 more than anything else. It wouldn't be too hard to make it lighter and sharper than the Nikon option.


----------



## Steve Dmark2 (May 24, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> wsmith96 said:
> 
> 
> > This rumor has been quiet for a while now.
> ...



My words


----------



## chrysoberyl (May 24, 2016)

9VIII said:


> I think the biggest change we've seen in the last year is that Nikon released a 500f5.6 zoom lens, and at an extremely attractive price. That's the first of its kind from a first party, and now that Nikon is willing to give people a 90mm front element for under $1,500 we have all sorts of rumors of Canon working on something similar (though we don't know the price).
> I'd love to see a 500f5.6 IS Prime for under $2,000 more than anything else. It wouldn't be too hard to make it lighter and sharper than the Nikon option.



This is what I'm waiting for - exactly! Canon AF + 500mm and not a dust pump.


----------



## scottkinfw (May 24, 2016)

mackguyver said:


> I gave up waiting on this lens, but I think I'd buy one in a heartbeat if they actually made it. The best thing about the 400 f/5.6 is that with its small size and weight you can almost always take it with you - I can't say the same with my 300 f/2.8 IS II.



I agree 100%. For me, this lens is fantastic, but I too would buy the new version IS and an improved optics. It is so light and relatively small, it is easy to take, even with strict weight requirements on smaller airplanes.

Bring it on.

sek


----------



## scyrene (May 24, 2016)

9VIII said:


> I just got some pretty decent shots of a moose at 1/350sec handheld (as slow as you would want to go for anything moving, and yes gopher shooting practice helps), *which makes me wonder if IS isn't just an excuse to be lazy* more than anything.



Sure, just like autofocus, automatic metering, being able to review images on an LCD screen, even a viewfinder! Each new technological improvement makes things a little easier - or makes it possible to take good shots at a higher rate than before. I know there are a few dissenters who use superteles with IS switched off, but I find it is very useful for upping my keeper rate, and I don't see a problem with that.


----------



## scottkinfw (May 24, 2016)

Chaitanya said:


> I would like to see 400 f/4 or 500f/5.6 lens in line up costing around 2500-3500$. this would be a serious step before the 300 f/2.8 and longer/faster/expensive lenses in Canon super-tele lineup.



What about the 300 4.0 IS?

A 500mm version would be even better, keeping it small, giving it is, and keeping the price down. I would keep my 400 5.6 and get one of these on release. Great thought.

sek


----------



## scyrene (May 24, 2016)

brapoza said:


> Would love to see a 500mm f5.6



I have to say, to my mind this makes more sense. A little more differentiation, rather than four lenses competing at 400mm (100-400 II, 400 f/4 DO, 400 f/2.8, 400 f/5.6). A 500 f/5.6 IS *would* be more expensive, but surely not unfeasibly so - unlike a 600 f/5.6 as some have wished for.


----------



## scottkinfw (May 24, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> AccipiterQ said:
> 
> 
> > Finn M said:
> ...



If your price estimate is close, that would negate a large motivation to buy this lens.

sek


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 24, 2016)

scottkinfw said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > AccipiterQ said:
> ...



Worth noting that Don's price estimate predates Nikon's 200-500mm f/5.6 lens. I think that a 500/5.6*L* built to Canon's current supertele standards would likely be ~$4K, but certainly Canon could launch an 'affordable' (>$2K) non-L version.


----------



## Don Haines (May 24, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> scottkinfw said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...


agreed, but we have been surprised before with lenses and prices, so there is still hope


----------



## NancyP (May 24, 2016)

At that 4K price, there might not be any point to the lens. That is getting to the price for used f/4 v. 1 lenses and not too far from the price of the new 400 DO. Frankly, while I love my "toy lens" (the old EF 400 f/5.6L no-IS), I would advise a starter to go for the 100-400 v.II if they can afford it, a used 100-400 v. I or the third party lenses if they can't.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (May 24, 2016)

scyrene said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > I just got some pretty decent shots of a moose at 1/350sec handheld (as slow as you would want to go for anything moving, and yes gopher shooting practice helps), *which makes me wonder if IS isn't just an excuse to be lazy* more than anything.
> ...



1/350 sec on the 400mm F5.6 without IS is easily do able and quite a bit lower with practice. Part of the AF/weight/size advantage of this lens is the lack of IS.
I am one of those who has found that IS is a distinct disadvantage for wildlife and sports shooting regardless of the focal length (my most used lens is the longest EF lens that Canon currently make). The improved AF acquisition speed and improved tracking with IS OFF (or better still not fitted) is worth far more to me than any claimed help that IS offers.
As to slow shutter speeds? I have managed 1/50 sec with my 7D2, 1.4 Mk3 and 100-400 Mk2 at full extension - approaching 900mm? True I did have a little help in that I could lean my left arm against the side of the hide which helped a little. Anyway I shot 4 consecutive frames 2 with IS on and 2 with IS off - do you want me to post them so you can guess which?
For reference my arms are pathetically weak, even so I have no use for IS when hand holding my Canon 800mm.


----------



## scyrene (May 24, 2016)

johnf3f said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > 9VIII said:
> ...



Haha my arms are weak too, but you get used to using these lenses, right?

On a serious note, is there any data on AF with/without IS? I don't find it interferes at all, but I've not tested it. Has anyone? Incidentally, determining the 'keeper rate' advantage with IS would require more than 4 shots...


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (May 25, 2016)

scyrene said:


> Haha my arms are weak too, but you get used to using these lenses, right?
> 
> On a serious note, is there any data on AF with/without IS? I don't find it interferes at all, but I've not tested it. Has anyone? Incidentally, determining the 'keeper rate' advantage with IS would require more than 4 shots...



Firstly please note that I am a bit Anti IS, but that is only because I have lenses that have it.

As to data - I suspect not. There are probably too many variables to get any valid conclusions. I can however give you one example of my data. Visited the Red Kite center at Llandeusant (don't you love Welsh spellings!) and used my (then) Canon 300 F4 L IS - 300 frames and not a single keeper. I re-visited the following weekend, turned IS off = a couple of hundred good shots and 100 + potential keepers. This got me thinking to say the least! 
Later, when I had my Canon 600 F4 L IS, I found the same thing though not as pronounced. I also observed that AF acquisition was a touch faster, we are not talking night and day here just that split second that may get you a shot. Later again I sold the 600 and went to the Canon 800 F5.6 L IS with it's 4 stop IS system. The new IS allowed hand held shots at 1/125 sec - wonderful I thought. However the lens didn't track too well on my 1D4 and 1DX and could be a (very) little hesitant to lock on to a subject. Going on my previous experiences I tried it with the IS off. It now focused faster and tracked better than my 600 and rivaled my Canon 300 F2.8 L IS (with IS off) for AF = happy me! I now haven't used IS for 2 years and 5 months - I wonder if it still works? ;D
Naturally there is a downside, namely higher shutter speeds are needed when hand holding or shooting partially supported (ie no tripod or mono pod). 1/125 sec is now no longer practical with my 800mm but 1/250 sec gives a high percentage of good shots hand held.
Not using IS will not suit everybody, I haven't met them yet but they must be out there? All I would suggest is that you and others give it a go and see what happens. I (and some local photogs) have found a significant increase in our hit rate by doing this. After all if it doesn't work for you then you can always turn it back on?


----------



## j-nord (May 25, 2016)

johnf3f said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > 9VIII said:
> ...


LOL come hiking with me at 8000+ feet in CO. I don't care how low you can shoot in ideal handheld conditions. Try quickly drawing and shooting while out of breathe. It can easily take a minute or two to catch your breath, especially when you are carrying an additional 15lbs of camera gear on you. IS is huge even when shooting wider landscape shots handheld.


----------



## scyrene (May 25, 2016)

johnf3f said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > Haha my arms are weak too, but you get used to using these lenses, right?
> ...



Interesting. I'd be very concerned if I had a 100% failure rate - if it was across the board, surely that lens would be famous for it? Otherwise perhaps the IS module on that lens was faulty?

I have been out and accidentally left the IS off, and I found more shots blurred due to camera motion than normal, which is what I'd expect.

Perhaps you could try IS mode 3 on the 600 - it keeps the IS off until the shutter button is pressed. IS can make subjects move around the viewfinder erratically, which might explain some of what you've experienced. IS mode 3 is the compromise for that.

Ultimately it's a matter of personal taste, but IS clearly works for many people in many situations, though as you say, there's not a lot of solid data on the subject.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (May 25, 2016)

scyrene said:


> Interesting. I'd be very concerned if I had a 100% failure rate - if it was across the board, surely that lens would be famous for it? Otherwise perhaps the IS module on that lens was faulty?
> 
> I have been out and accidentally left the IS off, and I found more shots blurred due to camera motion than normal, which is what I'd expect.
> 
> ...



Firstly remember that the IS on the 300 F4 L IS is a very early system and newer lens designs have improved IS. What I found with my 300 F4 L IS is that, on moving subjects, one is fighting against the IS which is trying to keep things still. Unfortunately birds don't fly in very predictable directions so panning mode is of no help here. When I first shot the Red Kites with this lens nearly all were soft and or poorly focused so they were binned. The subsequent visit was much more successful.

Perhaps I didn't put it very well but I have found that, with newer lens designs, that this effect is far less pronounced - in other words Canon have improved their IS systems over the years, though I am still better off without it. You mention IS mode 3 - good point! I should have mentioned this! The lenses I quoted do not have this mode they are simply 1. 2 or Off. 

More recently (Mid March) I bought the Canon 100-400 Mk2 which has IS Mode 3. For some reason which I cannot fathom I am having trouble hand holding this lens - balance perhaps? I have yet to have this problem with any other lens that I own or have tried = wierd! So as a stop-gap until I can improve my technique I have used the IS on this lens when shooting at 1/400 sec or slower. Modes 1 and 2 are better than previous incarnations but still interfere with AF a bit however Mode 3 is proving to be surprisingly good and does not seem to have much of a detrimental effect - I have had to revise my opinions there.

If you have used your lens with IS off and it doesn't suit you then turn it on and keep it there! It is all down to what works for the individual. I am better off without IS as are the local wildlife shooters who have tried it so far, but we are all different. I am just concerned that many people simply will not try it and are missing out on a quick easy way to get better results in most (but not all) cases.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (May 25, 2016)

j-nord said:


> LOL come hiking with me at 8000+ feet in CO. I don't care how low you can shoot in ideal handheld conditions. Try quickly drawing and shooting while out of breathe. It can easily take a minute or two to catch your breath, especially when you are carrying an additional 15lbs of camera gear on you. IS is huge even when shooting wider landscape shots handheld.



As my backpack weighs up to 50 lbs (sometimes a chair and popup hide need to be added) and I am a heavy smoker so I do not need to go much above sea level to get completely out of breath!
I cannot hold lenses particularly steady, far from it, but I can keep the vibrations fairly slow/smooth - this is easier with heavy lenses as their sheer weight damps down higher frequency vibrations which destroy images.This may well be a holdover from my shooting days? Please note the exception of the 100-400 Mk2 - I struggle with this one!

If you find IS to be a benefit then that's great - Canon don't make many lenses without it! Personally I would prefer my lenses not to have it as, with the exception of the 100-400 Mk2, I have no use for it and would appreciate the reduced bulk, weight, complexity and expense of not having it. 
Just my experiences.


----------



## j-nord (May 26, 2016)

The 400 f5.6 non-IS is a gold standard for BIF. BIF shooters typically don't want IS. However, this lens is also a gold standard for all other amateur or on the go wildlife shooters, they typically do want IS. This is where the issue lies. About half (by my rough estimation, based on nothing) the 400 f5.6 fans want a refreshed lens with IS and the other half don't want IS. Canon could go either way but I'd bet they would go with IS if they do, actually, make a refreshed lens. I personally would rather have a superb 400 f5.6 IS (or a 500mm) that has faster AF, is sharper, is lighter, has the built in lens hood, than the 100-400ii. I'd pay around $2k for such a lens and possibly up to $3k if it's 500mm instead.


----------



## Plainsman (May 30, 2016)

I'd much prefer a new Canon 300/4 IS with very fast AF ahead of this one.

Or even a lightweight 300/5.6 IS STM lens from that factory in Malaysia which gives us the reputedly excellent/cheap 55-250 STM - sorry for being slightly off topic!


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (May 30, 2016)

Plainsman said:


> I'd much prefer a new Canon 300/4 IS with very fast AF ahead of this one.
> 
> Or even a lightweight 300/5.6 IS STM lens from that factory in Malaysia which gives us the reputedly excellent/cheap 55-250 STM - sorry for being slightly off topic!



Canon used to make a nice 300mm F5.6 back in FD days - it was TINY! A new AF version could be as cheap as chips if Canon wanted to make it, I suspect they won't though.


----------



## 9VIII (May 31, 2016)

Plainsman said:


> I'd much prefer a new Canon 300/4 IS with very fast AF ahead of this one.
> 
> Or even a lightweight 300/5.6 IS STM lens from that factory in Malaysia which gives us the reputedly excellent/cheap 55-250 STM - sorry for being slightly off topic!



I'll take one of each.
Actually it's a good point that a basic 300mm f5.6 Prime would cost next to nothing to make, they could probably get it on the market for $200. Add USM and IS and charge $500 and all of a sudden you have one of the best compact telephoto lenses on the market.
But then we just got a rumor for effectively that lens in a zoom. It would be just be neat to see what it would look like as a prime.
Speaking of compact, one must wonder what Canon could do with their newly perfected DO tech to cut down an already compact telephoto lens.

Really that's where this should be headed, Canon already has the best budget birding lens on the market and that's probably never going to change, it will never be obsolete, there's no point in developing the same thing twice.
So, how much would you pay for a 400f5.6 IS DO?
Same deal for the 300f4IS, it's still great, but it certainly could be chopped down a bit.
Here's the specs of that lens compared to the recent Nikon 300f4PF comparison. They basically took 1/3 off the length.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Specifications.aspx?LensComp=1040&Lens=111&Go.x=3&Go.y=17&Go=Go&Units=E


----------



## wsmith96 (May 31, 2016)

For me, I don't see the need for 3 lenses when one will do nicely. You can replace your 70-200, 300 f4 and 400 f5.6 with the 100-400 mk ii when shooting wildlife. It's that good. Think of the weight savings in your bag carrying one lens to cover them all. If you need longer, add a 1.4 teleconverter and enjoy your day.

If/when the 400 is shows up, of course I'll take a look at it, but I'm really impressed with the new 100-400.


----------



## j-nord (Jun 3, 2016)

300 f4 IS II that is much sharper at f4 and has the other usual updates could definitely have its place. f4 allows use of 2x with the new crop of f8 AF bodies. Further the 300 f4 IS was/is used for portrait fairly regularly. An 300 f5.6 or the 100-400ii doesnt offer the same DOF/bokeh. I think a 300 f5.6 prime is utterly pointless in the line up. If you want 300 f5.6 then pick up the 70-300L, they run under $1k used.


----------



## nc0b (Jun 3, 2016)

I have both the 400mm f/5.6 and the 100-400mm II, and for BIF the prime wins hands down. If the zoom had a second minimum focus setting at 10 meters, it might be a different story. For general wildlife, however, the zoom with or without the 1.4X TC III is excellent with the 5DsR.


----------



## Steve Dmark2 (Jun 4, 2016)

j-nord said:


> 300 f4 IS II that is much sharper at f4 and has the other usual updates could definitely have its place. f4 allows use of 2x with the new crop of f8 AF bodies. Further the 300 f4 IS was/is used for portrait fairly regularly. An 300 f5.6 or the 100-400ii doesnt offer the same DOF/bokeh. I think a 300 f5.6 prime is utterly pointless in the line up. If you want 300 f5.6 then pick up the 70-300L, they run under $1k used.


I would also be very happy with a 300mm 4l IS II. Because with the 1.4III i expect it also to be awesome.
Because sometimes i like having the 4.0 because of low light.


----------



## James Larsen (Jun 6, 2016)

That would be GREAT.


----------



## NancyP (Jun 9, 2016)

People underestimate that ancient 400 f/5.6L, but it is a hugely fun lens to use, particularly for birds in flight.


----------



## j-nord (Jun 9, 2016)

NancyP said:


> People underestimate that ancient 400 f/5.6L, but it is a hugely fun lens to use, particularly for birds in flight.


I think the opposite. People seem to overstate the handhold-ability of the lens for general use. Mid-day BIF is where it shines or if you shoot from a tripod. Otherwise, I think it's completely lacking as a general wildlife lens or walk around lens where you really need IS.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Jun 10, 2016)

j-nord said:


> NancyP said:
> 
> 
> > People underestimate that ancient 400 f/5.6L, but it is a hugely fun lens to use, particularly for birds in flight.
> ...



Why would you need IS? Normally the (bird/wildlife) subject will determine the shutter speed and that is mostly at higher shutter speeds than those where IS helps. With my Canon 300 F2.8 L IS and Canon 800 F5.6 L IS I find that all IS does is slow down AF acquisition and impair tracking. I am very far from a strong person but I don't find that I need IS at 1/250 sec with my 800mm hand held and, if I have something to lean against (tree etc) 1/50 sec with my 7D2, 100-400 Mk2 (at full extension) + a 1.4 extender isn't too much of a challenge without IS - that gives a FOV of near 900mm. So at 400mm? is IS worth it? Certainly not to me.


----------



## scottkinfw (Jun 10, 2016)

9VIII said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> > I'd much prefer a new Canon 300/4 IS with very fast AF ahead of this one.
> ...



A bit off topic, but..._*If *_ mirrorless ever does take over mirrored body cameras, it would be very forward thinking to come out with a full line of DO lenses.

On topic, I would love an updated 400 5.6L. Faster AF, would love IS, but doubt they would put that in it. How about a price around $1500.00? sek


----------



## scottkinfw (Jun 10, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> wsmith96 said:
> 
> 
> > This rumor has been quiet for a while now.
> ...



Exactly, especially the tele extenders.

sek


----------



## NancyP (Jun 10, 2016)

The old 400 f/5.6L takes practice to use handheld. A rank beginner will not have good technique at first. Its main problem is not being f/4 or f/2.8, but then again, using a 400 f/2.8 IS handheld takes some practice too, Not that I would know, but dang, I have held 10 pound barbells in "shooting position", and I at least would tire very quickly - within seconds develop a shake/wobble.


----------



## wsmith96 (Jun 12, 2016)

j-nord said:


> 300 f4 IS II that is much sharper at f4 and has the other usual updates could definitely have its place. f



+1 Now if Canon would update the 300 F/4 IS and make it as sharp as the F2.8 version, I would be very interested in that lens. I do some youth sports shooting on the side with most games in the day with sufficient light and I could use a lens like that. It would also work well for me shooting birds in my backyard.


----------



## j-nord (Jun 14, 2016)

johnf3f said:


> j-nord said:
> 
> 
> > NancyP said:
> ...


Different needs, you are describing ideal handheld shooting conditions. I do most of my shooting above 6000ft while hiking. IS is mandatory for me even at wide focal lengths. Further, pumping up your shutter speed isn't an option when shooting shaded wildlife in the early morning or evening (when and where you find most wildlife).


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Jun 14, 2016)

j-nord said:


> johnf3f said:
> 
> 
> > j-nord said:
> ...



Ideal hand held conditions? I live in South Wales! You can guess how often we get ideal conditions for anything!
Is hand holding a Canon 800mm in light so bad that I can only get 1/250 sec on a 1DX and keep the ISO reasonable "pumping up your shutter speed"?


----------



## applecider (Jun 14, 2016)

Ncob you say the 400 prime wins hands down over the new 100-400....
In what particular do you find that so? Handling focus, other?

I was using the 70-200 w 2x ext for zoomed birding, finally broke down and got the new100-400 on one of the sales and I'm happy as a clamer at low tide. With the 1.4 ext acquiring focus can be dicey as only the center points are available, but the bare lens performs very well imho. 

The only way I could see the prime being better is to have an f4 but that lens is already being made in DO in apparently small quantities.


----------



## scyrene (Jun 15, 2016)

johnf3f said:


> j-nord said:
> 
> 
> > johnf3f said:
> ...



I think we've disagreed on the usefulness of IS before John, and I respect your experience, but I still think its usefulness outweighs any disadvantage (and I've not found it impinges on AF acquisition etc, but admit I've done no empirical testing of that).

Hand holding the 800L is quite a feat, and I can only respect your being able to - I only know one other photographer who does that regularly. 1/250 is good - I shoot at 1/250 at 1000mm regularly, but the 500L+2x extender amounts to a smaller package. In any case, these are quibbles between people operating at an extreme, as I think we are.

I did find the lack of IS on the 400 f/5.6 a problem, but that was a long time ago. However, I suspect I'd miss it now, even so. I personally like IS on all my lenses - you can always turn it off. A new 400 would have IS anyhow - I can't see Canon releasing a telephoto lens without it nowadays.


----------



## nc0b (Jun 15, 2016)

Hi applecider. Thanks for the chance to expand on the two lenses since I own both. If you are talking perched birds, the zoom wins due to IS. If you are talking raptors in flight, which I shoot almost every weekend while they are in Colorado, the zoom would be better if I could set a focal length limit of 8.5 meters or even 10 meters. If the prime loses focus, I can still see or locate the subject in the viewfinder. When the zoom gets lost, trying to focus clear down to 3 meters, I cannot see anything. I have to manually reset the focus near infinity. Can this happen with the 400mm f/5.6? Yes, but infrequently. The same issue existed with the 70-200mm f/2.8 II and the 2X TC III. For perched birds, that zoom with TC was plenty sharp in the center, but once the raptor took off, I was usually dead in the water within seconds. I have drastically better success with my FF bodies than crop as far as being able to keep the raptor in the viewfinder, particularly when the subject is within a 100 to 300 feet. No I have never used a 7D II, so I cannot comment on it.

As for small birds at close range, 20 to 60 feet, I do use the 100-400mm II with the 1.4X TC III and the 5DsR with good success. I'll post a killdeer later that was in my driveway last weekend. All I am saying is when I am in my 10-acre yard, with raptors wildly flying all around at all angles, the prime is my best choice in that case.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Jun 15, 2016)

scyrene said:


> I think we've disagreed on the usefulness of IS before John, and I respect your experience, but I still think its usefulness outweighs any disadvantage (and I've not found it impinges on AF acquisition etc, but admit I've done no empirical testing of that).
> 
> Hand holding the 800L is quite a feat, and I can only respect your being able to - I only know one other photographer who does that regularly. 1/250 is good - I shoot at 1/250 at 1000mm regularly, but the 500L+2x extender amounts to a smaller package. In any case, these are quibbles between people operating at an extreme, as I think we are.
> 
> I did find the lack of IS on the 400 f/5.6 a problem, but that was a long time ago. However, I suspect I'd miss it now, even so. I personally like IS on all my lenses - you can always turn it off. A new 400 would have IS anyhow - I can't see Canon releasing a telephoto lens without it nowadays.



Yes we have, but we all have different experiences and priorities.IS works well for many (most?) photographers. My problem with IS is that it hinders AF on moving subjects and since I stopped using IS my "Keeper" rate has improved without any losses on static subjects.
I believe that you are quite correct when you state that Canon is not going to release a telephoto lens without IS - I would be very surprised (but glad) if they did. Canon has the very best IS system available, at present, and I cannot see them turning down the marketing opportunities that it offers.

Having said that I have found that Canon IS lenses perform better with IS off and can only speculate that they would be better still if it wasn't fitted in the first place - unfortunately there are no direct comparisons to prove/disprove this as they are not made. We have to work with what lenses are available and the majority have IS whether I like it or not. As such I would suggest/encourage users to try turning IS off and see what happens. In my (and quite a few other) cases this has resulted in better results. If users don't like it they can always turn it back on - there are no fixed rules here, it's just what works best.

Incidentally you say "Hand holding the 800L is quite a feat, and I can only respect your being able to" deserves no respect (but thanks for the thought!) it is quite easy - but only for a few seconds! My arms look like matchsticks so it isn't going to stay on target long! I can do it and have had some nice results but I struggle with IS as by the time I have finally achieved AF lock I am struggling and tracking is getting iffy or has failed - like my arms! Without IS it locks and tracks better/faster so I have a sporting chance.

Just my experiences, if you and others find my suggestions to be wrong then that's fine - use what works best for you. I don't have the answers - just suggestions that work for me and some others.

That was a bit of a long post - I need a break!


----------



## scyrene (Jun 18, 2016)

johnf3f said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > I think we've disagreed on the usefulness of IS before John, and I respect your experience, but I still think its usefulness outweighs any disadvantage (and I've not found it impinges on AF acquisition etc, but admit I've done no empirical testing of that).
> ...



Heh  Actually, I probably should remember to turn off IS on the rare occasions I try to shoot birds in flight - I agree with you that anything extra taxing the system that isn't helping should be removed - and IS isn't going to make any positive contribution to most shots in that situation. Maybe I've mellowed! I must try swifts again this summer before they fly off, anyhow.

Yeah, I've found the type of shooting makes a big difference to stamina - and my arms are weedy too  I can carry the 500L around for hours, doing bursts of shooting, but holding it up, aimed at a static target - or following birds round the sky - I can only manage for a few minutes, maybe ten or fifteen at most, before it gets too painful.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Jun 18, 2016)

scyrene said:


> Heh  Actually, I probably should remember to turn off IS on the rare occasions I try to shoot birds in flight - I agree with you that - aanything extra taxing the system that isn't helping should be removed nd IS isn't going to make any positive contribution to most shots in that situation. Maybe I've mellowed! I must try swifts again this summer before they fly off, anyhow.
> 
> Yeah, I've found the type of shooting makes a big difference to stamina - and my arms are weedy too  I can carry the 500L around for hours, doing bursts of shooting, but holding it up, aimed at a static target - or following birds round the sky - I can only manage for a few minutes, maybe ten or fifteen at most, before it gets too painful.



Just for reference I struggle to carry my 300 F2.8 around for hours and can only hand hold my 800 for a few seconds!
I think that you have hit the nail on the head when you say "anything extra taxing the system that isn't helping should be removed and IS isn't going to make any positive contribution to most shots in that situation". 
What I found was that not using IS improved performance in the "other" situations where one would normally expect IS to be an advantage?!? Obviously if conditions are at the extreme end of things and you simply must get that shot of the Greater spotted pink bungadoo then IS can be handy.

I would only suggest that you try shooting with IS off as the default setting and then turn it on when needed. I suspect that you will quickly find that results are better and that you rarely, if ever, turn IS on. Naturally if you find otherwise then turn IS back on - at worst you will have improved your confidence in the IS system, though I suspect you will only turn IS back on to check it still works! :-X


----------



## chrysoberyl (Jun 27, 2016)

Canon Rumors said:


> <p>It’s been a long time since anyone gave a mention to a replacement for the Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L, one of Canon’s best optical performers. We were told a few years ago that Canon was going to be replacing all of the 400mm lenses in their lineup. The EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II was first and then the EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II, which caught us a bit by surprise. Soon after we got the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II, which is as highly regarded as we thought it would be. That leaves one of the best kept secrets in Canon’s lens lineup, the EF 400mm f/5.6L.</p>
> <p>We’re now told that an IS version of this prime is in the works and if things go to plan, we’ll see it some time in 2016. Canon does recognize a need for such a lens, especially for birders who like the lower weight and price when compared to the faster primes and the zoom.</p>
> <p>More to come…</p>



Any updates on this? I really do not like how the 70-200 II performs with a 2X III, and I can't justify the outlay for a big white.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 27, 2016)

j-nord said:


> johnf3f said:
> 
> 
> > j-nord said:
> ...



Thank you. My sentiments exactly and why I sold my 400 f/5.6. It is a sharp lens. No doubt about that. It is a great lens. It is just too slow for those softer light situations that make a photo (in my opinion) pop. That is just my opinion and experience.

IS would be fantastic for this lens, a huge improvement. But I'm still going to save my pennies for a 400 f/2.8 or a 600 f/4. 

It was the 400 f/5.6L that made me decide I don't want a lens narrower than f/2.8... except for maybe a Great White at f/4. (Yeah, I know the Tamron I have is actually an f/3.2? That's okay. If the new EF 16-35mm f/2.8L IS turns out to be a winner... I'll get one, someday, maybe. I hope so anyway.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 27, 2016)

Isn't IS for static targets anyway? Almost every bird I shoot is sitting still, so for me... IS works great.

I've not tried IS while panning.

I'm behind the knowledge curve here because I have not been able to get out and shoot any appreciable amount of time at all for the last 1.5 years.


----------



## haakmann (Nov 25, 2016)

So still no news even 20 months after this article. Late 2016 they said...We maybe never see another Canon 400mm f5.6L IS lens...?


----------



## Steve Dmark2 (Nov 25, 2016)

haakmann said:


> So still no news even 20 months after this article. Late 2016 they said...We maybe never see another Canon 400mm f5.6L IS lens...?



Maybe there is a less expensive version than the 400mm 2.8 with buil in telekonverter coming.
I think the will not bring an update of an normal 300mm F4l IS ii or 400mm 5.6L IS.
If they bring an update, they bring it with build in teleconverters.

.... please :


----------



## AlanF (Nov 25, 2016)

Steve Dmark2 said:


> haakmann said:
> 
> 
> > So still no news even 20 months after this article. Late 2016 they said...We maybe never see another Canon 400mm f5.6L IS lens...?
> ...



A 300mm f/4 with a built in 1.4xTC would give 300mm f/4 and 420mm f/5.6. How would this compete with the 100-400mm II? It's unlikely to be any sharper if at all at 400mm, would be far, far less versatile, and the flip in TC is quite bulky so probably not much lighter and may even be longer than the retracted 100-400.


----------



## haggie (Nov 27, 2016)

I think that a new Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L IS USM will be quite welcome. I am presently in the market for a 70-300 and am waiting for the first tests of the new EF 70-300 IS II USM to arrive. If both IQ and AF-speed and accuracy are good, I will get that. Otherwise I will possibly (have to) buy another brand.
But if it will be the EF 70-300 IS II USM, I know I will also need something a bit more powerfull. I occasionally shoot birds and airplanes, and then 400 mm on an APS-C is very good. 

I have tried an EF 500mm f/4L IS once for a few minutes on an airshow. And although AF was lightning fast, I presonally found it was a bit big and heavy to manoeuvre in the crowd of an airshow. The guy who I could try it from said he would also have prefered a 400 mm, looking back at it.

About 8 months ago I thought that I had the ideal solution. I saw the *Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM* and the reviews about the IQ were fine. I already decided that I wanted that lens, and even wanted to buy it before buying my new 70-300. The price is high for such an old lens, but it seemed worth it. 
But then I saw my mistake: that lens has no IS!  
I was disappointed and horrified at the same time.

So I think a new 400mm with IS would be welcome. 

Keep it f/5.6 to limit weight and dimensions.

Off course, AF must be lightning fast for the intended use of such a lens.
I want to add that I think I would like it to have ring-USM as opposed to nano-USM so that for birding I would have REAL FTM instead of the STM- or nano-USM version of FTM.


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 27, 2016)

AlanF said:


> Steve Dmark2 said:
> 
> 
> > haakmann said:
> ...


One could continue the logic and say that a 200F2.8 and a 1.4 teleconverter is the same as a 300F4..... but slapping on a teleconverter always hurts the image quality. That's one of the reasons why there is a market for each....


----------



## Steve Dmark2 (Nov 30, 2016)

AlanF said:


> A 300mm f/4 with a built in 1.4xTC would give 300mm f/4 and 420mm f/5.6. How would this compete with the 100-400mm II? It's unlikely to be any sharper if at all at 400mm, would be far, far less versatile, and the flip in TC is quite bulky so probably not much lighter and may even be longer than the retracted 100-400.



I can have F4 at 300mm if i want. This can't be beat be zoom. (at this price)
And with bird photography 500/s apart to 250/s can make all the difference.


----------



## fabioduarte (Aug 4, 2021)

Finn M said:


> I don't see any point in making this lens. A new EF 400/5,6L IS will get about the same price as the new and very sharp EF 100-400/4,5-5,6L IS II. It will maybe be a bit lighter, but not by much.
> 
> Canon should instead make a EF 500/5,6 IS. This will be a great lens for bird shooters, much better than a 400mm which is a bit too short, especially for smaller birds.
> Even better would be a DO version: after Nikon launched their new and very compact AF-S 300/4 PF VR I think we will see many new DO lenses also from Canon to a much lower price in the coming years.


Five years and Canon has not yet released this lens. Now Nikon has exactly the lens suggested above (stabilized 500mm f/5.6). Time for a strike back?

I really hope so!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 4, 2021)

fabioduarte said:


> Five years and Canon has not yet released this lens. Now Nikon has exactly the lens suggested above (stabilized 500mm f/5.6). Time for a strike back?
> 
> I really hope so!











RF600mm F11 IS STM


First Compact and Lightweight 600mm Super Telephoto RF Lens.Excellent Portability made Easier with an Extending/Retracting Locking Lens Barrel Design.Gapless double-layer Diffractive Optics (DO) reduce Chromatic Aberration for High Image Quality.High Image Quality at a fixed f/11...




www.usa.canon.com


----------



## SteveC (Aug 4, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> RF600mm F11 IS STM
> 
> 
> First Compact and Lightweight 600mm Super Telephoto RF Lens.Excellent Portability made Easier with an Extending/Retracting Locking Lens Barrel Design.Gapless double-layer Diffractive Optics (DO) reduce Chromatic Aberration for High Image Quality.High Image Quality at a fixed f/11...
> ...



Given how much people complain about the f/7.1 at 500mm in the 100-500mm RF lens, what do you suppose is the likelihood that fabioduarte will consider an f/11 lens a response to his gripe? Granted, he personally might not be one of the f/7.1 bashers, but if I had to bet, the likelihood is he'd not be satisfied with this.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 4, 2021)

SteveC said:


> Given how much people complain about the f/7.1 at 500mm in the 100-500mm RF lens, what do you suppose is the likelihood that fabioduarte will consider an f/11 lens a response to his gripe? Granted, he personally might not be one of the f/7.1 bashers, but if I had to bet, the likelihood is he'd not be satisfied with this.


Really, the RF 100-500 is Canon's answer. And it's a very good answer.


----------



## fabioduarte (Aug 4, 2021)

Today I shoot, only birds, with a 7D Mark II and a 400mm f/5.6L prime. In fact I believe the 600mm f/11 would be fun to have but I do not believe it compares to Nikon 500mm f/5.6 pf lens, and it should be neither considered an upgrade for me. 

I really believe there is a good niche to be explored by Canon in the 400~500mm f/5.6 primes for wildlife but I agree that, for now, the only Canon's answer for that is RF 100-500, although it requires me to go for the mirrorless system, which then takes us to the R7 discussion...

Thanks for the comments.


----------



## fabioduarte (Aug 4, 2021)

SteveC said:


> Given how much people complain about the f/7.1 at 500mm in the 100-500mm RF lens, what do you suppose is the likelihood that fabioduarte will consider an f/11 lens a response to his gripe? Granted, he personally might not be one of the f/7.1 bashers, but if I had to bet, the likelihood is he'd not be satisfied with this.


As a bird photographer, I don't remember ever having the need to make a step back because I was too close to the subject. So, at least for me it does not make a lot of sense to use zoom lenses.

So, considering only primes, the problem for me now in the Canon line-up is that to get something a little better than what I have and add IS I would need to go to the $7k 400mm f/4 DO. Thus, I really believe there is a gap there that Canon can explore.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 4, 2021)

fabioduarte said:


> As a bird photographer, I don't remember ever having the need to make a step back because I was too close to the subject. So, at least for me it does not make a lot of sense to use zoom lenses.
> 
> So, considering only primes, the problem for me now in the Canon line-up is that to get something a little better than what I have and add IS I would need to go to the $7k 400mm f/4 DO. Thus, I really believe there is a gap there that Canon can explore.


There’s a gap, but what is the market for it? The fact that the 7-series has only seen two bodies, on a longer schedule than even the 1-series, suggests the birding market isn’t that large, relatively speaking. Alternatively, Canon may want those people to buy a FF body for better features/IQ, then in turn buy a longer lens than they used on APS-C.

I shoot birds, went from using a 7D to a 1D X then replaced my 100-400 with a 600/4 II. Not that I’m typical.


----------



## fabioduarte (Aug 4, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> There’s a gap, but what is the market for it? The fact that the 7-series has only seen two bodies, on a longer schedule than even the 1-series, suggests the birding market isn’t that large, relatively speaking. Alternatively, Canon may want those people to buy a FF body for better features/IQ, then in turn buy a longer lens than they used on APS-C.
> 
> I shoot birds, went from using a 7D to a 1D X then replaced my 100-400 with a 600/4 II. Not that I’m typical.


Yes, the big question is how big the birding and wildlife market is. Currently the exchange rate in Brazil is such that a 600mm f/4 is restricted to few. Perhaps what I'll do to upgrade if the (IBIS) R7 does not come is to get an R5. Even being equivalent to 17MP when cropped, at least I'll get all the new features and the stabilization and that should give me a bigger keeper rate, specially in the woods where it is quite difficult for me.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 4, 2021)

Adding to Neuro's comments, I just don't see a prime lens that hasn't been updated since its release nearly 30 years ago as likely to get the RF treatment. Buyers prefer zoom lenses. Zoom lenses today are as sharp as primes. There is a rumored 100-400 RF lens coming eventually. If you want this lens, buy a used one and use the IBIS on the R5.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 4, 2021)

fabioduarte said:


> Yes, the big question is how big the birding and wildlife market is. Currently the exchange rate in Brazil is such that a 600mm f/4 is restricted to few. Perhaps what I'll do to upgrade if the (IBIS) R7 does not come is to get an R5. Even being equivalent to 17MP when cropped, at least I'll get all the new features and the stabilization and that should give me a bigger keeper rate, specially in the woods where it is quite difficult for me.


Smart move. The R5 with its full frame and 1.6 crop is a fantastic combination.


----------



## SteveC (Aug 4, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Adding to Neuro's comments, I just don't see a prime lens that hasn't been updated since its release nearly 30 years ago as likely to get the RF treatment. Buyers prefer zoom lenses. Zoom lenses today are as sharp as primes. There is a rumored 100-400 RF lens coming eventually. If you want this lens, buy a used one and use the IBIS on the R5.


The rumored 100-400 is probably not an L lens. 

On the other hand (if willing to use the adapter), perhaps one of the EF 100-400 L IIs (not the official designation, but hopefully people will know what I mean) could make do; I'd certainly prefer that over a non L RF 100-400 (though not necessarily over the extant L 100-500).


----------



## Frodo (Aug 5, 2021)

My EF 400/5.6L is my oldest lens and I've had since film days. Probably my best investment. My main uses are sports (windsurfing) and birds, and like someone already mentioned, if I had a 100-400mm, I would use it at 400mm 95% of the time. Sure the latest zooms may well be sharper, but this lens is 30 years old.
I would definitely be in the market for a RF 500/5.6 that is sharp wide open. Not interested in zooms or faster (heavier, more expensive) primes.


----------



## Ruined (Aug 5, 2021)

Frodo said:


> My EF 400/5.6L is my oldest lens and I've had since film days. Probably my best investment. My main uses are sports (windsurfing) and birds, and like someone already mentioned, if I had a 100-400mm, I would use it at 400mm 95% of the time. Sure the latest zooms may well be sharper, but this lens is 30 years old.
> I would definitely be in the market for a RF 500/5.6 that is sharp wide open. Not interested in zooms or faster (heavier, more expensive) primes.


I actually just bought an EF 400mm f/5.6 . Still is a great lens for very low price. Already have 70-300 so just needed an optimized birding lens. With canons recent trends an RF 500mm f/5.6 would probably be $2500.

For bird usage IS not all that useful anyway since I usually keep shutter at 1/2000 or more.


----------



## SteveC (Aug 5, 2021)

Frodo said:


> My EF 400/5.6L is my oldest lens and I've had since film days. Probably my best investment. My main uses are sports (windsurfing) and birds, and like someone already mentioned, if I had a 100-400mm, I would use it at 400mm 95% of the time. Sure the latest zooms may well be sharper, but this lens is 30 years old.
> I would definitely be in the market for a RF 500/5.6 that is sharp wide open. Not interested in zooms or faster (heavier, more expensive) primes.


 A 500 f/5.6 would be _substantially_ heavier than your 400mm f/5.6. The diameter would have to be 25 percent wider, 56% more area. The big element would probably be 95 percent heavier (because it'd be 25 percent wider, taller, and thicker). Other optical elements would probably scale up. The metal tube and so forth would go up either 25% or 56 percent (or something in between) because that will scale with circumference and possibly focal length.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 5, 2021)

SteveC said:


> A 500 f/5.6 would be _substantially_ heavier than your 400mm f/5.6. The diameter would have to be 25 percent wider, 56% more area. The big element would probably be 95 percent heavier (because it'd be 25 percent wider, taller, and thicker). Other optical elements would probably scale up. The metal tube and so forth would go up either 25% or 56 percent (or something in between) because that will scale with circumference and possibly focal length.


The Nikon 500mm f/5.6 weighs 1460g (51.5 oz), which is only 210g (7.4oz) more than the 400mm f/5.6. My Nikon with the 500mm f/5.6 weighs the same as my R5 with the R5100-500mm, slightly less than the R5 with the 100-400mm II + adapter. Technology has moved on since that 400mm f/5.6 L.


----------



## SteveC (Aug 5, 2021)

AlanF said:


> The Nikon 500mm f/5.6 weighs 1460g (51.5 oz), which is only 210g (7.4oz) more than the 400mm f/5.6. My Nikon with the 500mm f/5.6 weighs the same as my R5 with the R5100-500mm, slightly less than the R5 with the 100-400mm II + adapter. Technology has moved on since that 400mm f/5.6 L.


Ah, and there's the forgotten variable--technical progress. I was wrong but happy to hear the reason. I imagine a (hypothetical) DO would be even better from the standpoint of weight.

Also, all other things the same I'd expect a zoom that maxes out at 400mm f/5.6 to be a bit heavier than a prime at those numbers; the zoom lens has more "stuff" in it to give it the zoom functionality.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 5, 2021)

SteveC said:


> Ah, and there's the forgotten variable--technical progress. I was wrong but happy to hear the reason. I imagine a (hypothetical) DO would be even better from the standpoint of weight.
> 
> Also, all other things the same I'd expect a zoom that maxes out at 400mm f/5.6 to be a bit heavier than a prime at those numbers; the zoom lens has more "stuff" in it to give it the zoom functionality.


The Nikon is a DO (PF). To put it in perspective, they also do a 300mm f/4 PF, which weighs only 805g with hood. Put a 1.4xTC on it and it is a 420mm f/5.6 weighing 995g. It's a very nice piece of kit if you want something really light.


----------



## fabioduarte (Aug 6, 2021)

AlanF said:


> The Nikon 500mm f/5.6 weighs 1460g (51.5 oz), which is only 210g (7.4oz) more than the 400mm f/5.6. My Nikon with the 500mm f/5.6 weighs the same as my R5 with the R5100-500mm, slightly less than the R5 with the 100-400mm II + adapter. Technology has moved on since that 400mm f/5.6 L.


My whole upgrade thing started because of this 500mm f/5.6 pf lens from Nikon. I was ready to sell all my gear and get a D500 + 500mm 5.6 pf, but I decided to check if moving from my 7D II to the R5 wouldn't be a better choice. 

Imagine what Canon could do with that price point on a 500mm f/5.6 prime!


----------

