# 2013 - The Year for 400mm Lenses? [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 16, 2012)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=12284"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=12284">Tweet</a></div>
<strong>400mm Everywhere!


</strong>I have received various bits of info over the last few months about Canon’s plans in the 400mm range. There is lots of desire for a new 400 f/5.6L and 100-400, and both may finally be getting an update. It feels like the 100-400 has been in the update cycle forever, but judging by how many of these things Canon sells, I can see why they’ve been in no rush to have it replaced.</p>
<p>Below are lenses that are apparently in prototype form and are on tap to be announced in 2013.</p>
<ul>
<li>EF 400 f/5.6L IS (Highly desired)</li>
<li>EF 400 f/4L IS (Not DO)</li>
<li>EF 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS (Not push-pull & patents exists)</li>
<li>EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x (Long known about)</li>
</ul>
<p>There seems to be a theme developing with Canon offering more options in the same focal length range. Best guess pricing will also have a pretty wide range, from a $2000 400 f/5.6L IS up to the $11,000 EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## dolina (Dec 16, 2012)

The *EF 400 f/5.6L IS* is at the top of my want list tied with a *EF 135mm f/1.8L IS*.

After that no more lens purchases unless Canon offers a lens longer than 800mm with IS


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 16, 2012)

Canon Rumors said:


> EF 400 f/5.6L IS (Highly desired)
> EF 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS (Not push-pull & patents exists)



This will be a tough choice, if both lenses actually appear. I'd expect the prime to have better IQ, but how much better? It's no faster, they'd have the same rated IS system, and the 100-400m range is very convenient. 

I really hope the 100-400mm is an extending design - I like the push-pull, but I could live with a rotating extending design. One of the big advantages (for me) of the current 100-400mm is the relatively short retracted size (compared to the 400/5.6). 

Given a choice between an internally zooming 100-400 (which would be slightly longer than a 400/5.6 prime) vs. a 400/5.6 IS, I'd definitely take the prime. An extending zoom would make the choice a lot harder - it would come down to the differential in IQ, especially with the 1.4xIII.


----------



## candyman (Dec 16, 2012)

I am interested in 100-400
If as easy to handle (weight, no push pull and IS) as my 70-300 plus IQ is better, then it is a no-brainer to trade my 70-300 for the 100-400


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 16, 2012)

I'm a big fan of the 400 DO, I'd be really interested how small and light they could get a non DO 400 f/4.


----------



## DARSON (Dec 16, 2012)

I went quickly over internet and I couldn't find any 400mm f4 lens except DO model from canon. 
Is it not strange that this focal length is abandoned (400mm F4 prime models) for lower budget photographers
Definitely 400mm f5.6 IS or 400mm f4 non DO would be most welcome


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 16, 2012)

If they build the 100-400L correctly, there might well be no need for a 400/5.6L. By "correctly" I mean light weight, great optics, fast focusing. I suppose there could be a cost reason but I somewhat doubt they'd charge enough less for the 400/5.6 compared with the 100-400 to make the cost difference worth a new lens development.


----------



## matukas (Dec 16, 2012)

EF 400 F4 or F5.6 are on my dice.
Preferably F4 + throwing in EF 1.4x extender.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 16, 2012)

dariusz said:


> I went quickly over internet and I couldn't find any 400mm f4 lens except DO model from canon.
> Is it not strange that this focal length is abandoned (400mm F4 prime models) for lower budget photographers
> Definitely 400mm f5.6 IS or 400mm f4 non DO would be most welcome



A 400/4 IS non-DO would certainly not be a 'lower budget' lens, even in a relative sense. It would certainly cost more than the 200mm f/2L IS; similar sized-elements, longer focal length, new design - probably a 400/4 would be at least $7500.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 16, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > EF 400 f/5.6L IS (Highly desired)
> ...


I'm expecting a rotating 100-400mm L with similar technology to the 70-300L which should make it lighter and shorter. That could also mean that it wouldn't take Canon TC's.
I'd prefer the zoom, but I'd want the one with the most magnification and close focusing distance. Thats what I do not like about the current 400mm f/5.6.

Canon is not under pressure to come up with improved lenses until Nikon steps up with a greatly improved 80-400mm zoom. The current one is no competition at all, and badly overpriced.


----------



## LDS (Dec 16, 2012)

> EF 400 f/5.6L IS (Highly desired)
> EF 400 f/4L IS (Not DO)
> EF 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS (Not push-pull & patents exists)
> EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x (Long known about)



I would prefer a 400/4 or /4.5, even without IS to keep it a little cheaper. It would allow to be used with an extender and easily keep AF working. The FD line had a 400/4.5 (I own one), I wonder why there's nothing between the $1300 400/5.6 and the $6500 400/4 DO.


----------



## revup67 (Dec 16, 2012)

That current 400mm 5.6 L is truly razor sharp however in doing some tests yesterday to see how I low I can adjust shutter speed before a blur was noticeable I found 1/500 (referring to hand held) was the absolute lowest but to be safe, 1/800 was a sure fire razor sharp on a stationary object. Of course the ISO goes up a notch to compensate if in Manual Mode. That IS would sure be a welcome as I have missed a few shots due to lack of lighting. Luckily the 5D Mark III's high ISO holds up very well along with good PP to offset the current 400mm.


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 16, 2012)

Would be nice to see what Canon has to offer on the new 100-400.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 16, 2012)

I also like the push-pull of the 100-400 L, it retracts neatly to fit a camera bag. I never understand why the 400 L is described as razor sharp. Canon's MTFs show it not to be in the top league as do slrgear's blur test - it is no sharper in the centre than the 100-400 L. Photozone agrees and its MTF tests have the old 400mm tele macro from Sigma significantly sharper. I can testify to those results having traded a 400mm L for an equally centre sharp 100-400 mm L, and having the Sigma 400mm, which blows both away. I'd buy an upgraded 100-400 if it is really sharp at 400mm as the range is so good for nature photos. For primes, I like the 300mm f/2.8 II with 1.4x and 2x TCs, which give a very good telephoto range for not too much weight.


----------



## Gino (Dec 16, 2012)

I would most definitely purchase the EF 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS (Not push-pull) if it has fast AF, and hopefully it is no larger or heavier than the current model.


----------



## mrcrsr (Dec 16, 2012)

I would appreciate a 100-400 2.8


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 16, 2012)

mrcrsr said:


> I would appreciate a 100-400 2.8



You must be a back surgeon.


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 16, 2012)

Lee Jay said:


> mrcrsr said:
> 
> 
> > I would appreciate a 100-400 2.8
> ...



Or couple million $ in the bank ;D


----------



## ddashti (Dec 16, 2012)

Since this is CR1, I'd say the greatest probability that one of those lenses get produced goes to the 100-400.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 16, 2012)

They sell a lot more of the 100-400's than the 400 f5.6. My contact at Henry's said 20 to 1, if not higher.

I have a Sigma 120-400 and access to a 100-400 at work. The Sigma beats the Canon.... this has to be putting pressure on Canon to upgrade it.

I played a few times with the 400 5.6 and greatly prefer it, except no IS for my shaky hands... I tend to shoot a lot from a canoe so IS is a big thing for me. If a 400 5.6 with IS came out I would be sorely tempted.... or maybe a 500 f6.3 IS??????? I can't afford the $10,000 chunks of glass so something a bit more moderate would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## DWM (Dec 16, 2012)

I would like to see the 100-400 improved with the 4 stop IS, better image quality and a twist zoom instead of the push/pull that sucks dirt and moisture in everytime you slide it. If they would improve it enough then there wouldn't be a need for the 400 f5.6 prime. Better yet I would love for them to make a high IQ zoom to go up to 500mm f5.6 to compete with the 500mm f6.3 zoom that both Sigma and Tamron have.


----------



## samkatz (Dec 16, 2012)

Don Haines said:


> They sell a lot more of the 100-400's than the 400 f5.6. My contact at Henry's said 20 to 1, if not higher.
> 
> I have a Sigma 120-400 and access to a 100-400 at work. The Sigma beats the Canon.... this has to be putting pressure on Canon to upgrade it.
> 
> I played a few times with the 400 5.6 and greatly prefer it, except no IS for my shaky hands... I tend to shoot a lot from a canoe so IS is a big thing for me. If a 400 5.6 with IS came out I would be sorely tempted.... or maybe a 500 f6.3 IS??????? I can't afford the $10,000 chunks of glass so something a bit more moderate would be greatly appreciated.



Don, can you elaborate on the Sigma vs Canon comparison??? If I tire of waiting for the "new" 100-400 I might buy the Sigma. I was never quite happy w/the 100-400 and sold it, still rent one now and then. The reviews I read of the two Sigmas (120-400, 120-500) werent' great. Tx.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 16, 2012)

DWM said:


> ...a twist zoom instead of the push/pull that sucks dirt and moisture in everytime you slide it.



Is that Internet wisdom speaking, or do you have that problem with _your_ copy of the lens? If the latter, your copy is likely defective and should be sent for service. If the former, did that 'expert' mention the fact that the 100-400L has dust/moisture seals under the switches and zoom/focus ring, and lacks only the mount gasket to be a 'weather sealed' lens like its push-pull cousin, the 28-300L? 

I trust you're aware that lenses aren't hermetically sealed - any extending zoom design, whether push-pull or twist, 'sucks air' with every extension and expels it with every retraction. If you have a 'sealed' extending zoom like a 24-105L, etc., extend the barrel, then hold the lens up and look into the lens mount while retracting the barrel - the eye-blow will make you blink! The 100-400 moves more air, because of the larger internal volume, but making it a twist zoom won't change that. Making it an internal zoom, like the 70-200L lenses, would change that...at the cost of making it an >11" long lens, all the time. I say, "No, thanks," to that.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 16, 2012)

samkatz said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > I have a Sigma 120-400 and access to a 100-400 at work. The Sigma beats the Canon.... this has to be putting pressure on Canon to upgrade it.
> ...



My test was not very scientific, only one copy of each lens, plus a Sigma 150-500 and a Canon 400 5.6....

The setup was a tripod mount, outdoors on a clear sunny day, and the target was cars on the other side of the parking lot. I can't remember what the shutter speed was, but it was ISO800, fastest F stop, and the body was a 60D. All lenses were manually focused with live view, zoomed in all the way. Shutter was 10 second delay so any vibrations would hopefully be dampened out. Image evaluation was by using the rear display to zoom in on a selected area of the picture, a car licence plate at the center of the picture.

Canon 100-400 at 400 5.6, could barely read liscence plate
Sigma 120-400 at 400 5.6, could read plate
Sigma 150-500 at 500 6.3, could not read plate
Canon 400 at 5.6, plate was very readable

I had expected the Canon 400 to be the best, and no suprise there. I expected the Canon 100-400 to be better than the Sigma 120-400 so I was suprised to find otherwise. I had also expected that the longer range of the Sigma 150-500 would resolve better than the shorter 120-400 so I was very suprised to find otherwise


----------



## helpful (Dec 16, 2012)

400mm f/4 is exactly what I need if it's super, super sharp. I will refuse to pay $7,000 for it, however. $3,000 is the most I would pay if it also has IS and is absolutely perfect in every way. Otherwise, it's worth paying four times more to get the 400mm f/2.8.

Next would be a 135mm f/1.8 that is faster focusing than the current 135mm f/2. The most I would pay is $2,000 if it is extremely good, like at least 200 lp/mm sharper than the current camera.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 16, 2012)

helpful said:


> 400mm f/4 is exactly what I need if it's super, super sharp. I will refuse to pay $7,000 for it, however. $3,000 is the most I would pay if it also has IS and is absolutely perfect in every way.



You might, just might, be able to find a beat-up old EF 400mm f/4.5L for $3K. If you honestly think a new 400/4L IS will be under $5K, you should see a psychiatrist for a diagnosis, or possibly a rehab clinic to flush out some illicit narcotics...


----------



## AlanF (Dec 16, 2012)

Don Haines said:


> samkatz said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...


----------



## DWM (Dec 17, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> DWM said:
> 
> 
> > ...a twist zoom instead of the push/pull that sucks dirt and moisture in everytime you slide it.
> ...


No it is not internet wisdom. I do have the 100-400. So far I have not had a problem big enough to send it in for service. There is some dust visible but does not effect image quality yet. I know others that have sold theirs for this reason before it got too bad so it is not just _*my*_ copy. Ironically I have have had more dust problems with the camera it is used on. Obviously something that moves that much air is going to move dust and moisture. I am far more cautious with this lens than with my other setups because of this risk. Unless they install a filter system the seal will not stop small dust and moisture particals. If the seal is tight enough to stop this without a filter then the lens wouldn't slide very well because the air couldn't pass through. 

Now on the second part,(sorry I didn't make it clear enough) I was refering to the internal zoom like the 70-200 f2.8 where the air exchange is all inside because nothing externally extends. I'm smart enough to know that there is no difference simply because of the method used to extend it.

As the length goes, I feel it would not need to be >11". It should be doable by adding only a little more length than say the 70-200 2.8 IS II with a 2x tele installed. Yes I know there would be more to it than just add 2x optics. That is why I said a "little more" length. That should put it just under 11" which isn't a problem for me on a lens with that much range. A fixed length lens is a lot easier to keep balanced on a gimbal tripod at all focal lengths. Interesting thing is the 70-200 2.8 IS II I had with a 2x tele was just as sharp as the 100-400 in the center which is about all I'm concerned with at that focal length. Only time will tell what Canon will decide is best if any change comes.


----------



## coreyhkh (Dec 17, 2012)

I would be interested in a 100-400 and 400 5.6 to go along with my 500 f4.

will have to see more info and reviews before I buy though.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 17, 2012)

AlanF said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > samkatz said:
> ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 17, 2012)

DWM said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > DWM said:
> ...


Fair enough... Perhaps I've been lucky, no dust in my 100-400mm to date (had it nearly 3 years). Used mostly on a 7D, no dust on the sensor, either (5DII was a different story). I find my copy to be a little sharper (even in the center) compared to my 70-200 II + 2x, but the difference isn't much. 

Generally speaking, a new design can be lighter, but only slightly shorter. As for the 70-200 II + 2x, the combo measures just over 10" anyway, so 'a little more length' than that is getting pretty close to 11" anyway. For me, the 8" length of the current (retracted) lens is as long as is convenient for me - fits in a Lowepro Toploader 75 AW with a 1D X and 1.4xIII mounted, fits upright in my Storm im2720 hard case, and any longer would nix both.


----------



## max (Dec 17, 2012)

The only lens I would buy would be a 100-400mm right now... Or a 400mm f/4 below 3 grand.


----------



## DWM (Dec 17, 2012)

max said:


> Or a 400mm f/4 below 3 grand.


If they build one under 3 grand you better stay clear of it for quality purposes. Keep in mind that the reason the current 400 f4 is a DO is because it is cheaper to build that way. A non DO will positively be higher than the current DO f4 which is right around $5900


----------



## tnargs (Dec 18, 2012)

Canon Rumors said:


> <li>EF 400 f/5.6L IS (Highly desired)</li>
> 
> <li>EF 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS (Not push-pull & patents exists)</li>



How about some product differentiation, make one of these an_ EF-S_ and reward the 90% of Canon DSLR owners with the first ever high quality telephoto Canon lens that is smaller, lighter, and optimized for their sensors.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 18, 2012)

tnargs said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > <li>EF 400 f/5.6L IS (Highly desired)</li>
> ...



Telephoto lens designs have the entrance pupil essentially at or very near the front element. As a result, there's really nothing to be gained by a smaller image circle for a telephoto lens - a 400/5.6 with an EF-S image circle will need most of the same sized elements as an EF lens. Thus, there's no point in an EF-S version, as it would not be significantly smaller or lighter, nor cheaper.


----------



## discojuggernaut (Dec 19, 2012)

All the people wanting a cheap 400mm f/4, isn't it somewhat like asking for a cheap 200mm f/2 or a cheap 300mm f/2.8? I don't have my calculator out, but i assume the math is somewhat close. Seeing as both those lenses are in the $6K and up level, how would one assume that a 400mm f/4 wouldn't be at least as much?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 19, 2012)

discojuggernaut said:


> All the people wanting a cheap 400mm f/4, isn't it somewhat like asking for a cheap 200mm f/2 or a cheap 300mm f/2.8? I don't have my calculator out, but i assume the math is somewhat close. Seeing as both those lenses are in the $6K and up level, how would one assume that a 400mm f/4 wouldn't be at least as much?



...one could be delusional.


----------



## JonAustin (Jan 4, 2013)

Once the 200-400mm F/4L IS + 1.4x proves itself in the market, I'd love to see Canon come out with a version sans the built-in teleconverter. While I see the utility of this feature, and I appreciate the engineering accomplishment it represents, I already have a 1.4x II, and I'd rather mount it the old-fashioned way when needed, and save the $$$ and ### instead.


----------



## LDS (Jan 17, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> You might, just might, be able to find a beat-up old EF 400mm f/4.5L for $3K. If you honestly think a new 400/4L IS will be under $5K, you should see a psychiatrist for a diagnosis, or possibly a rehab clinic to flush out some illicit narcotics...



Did ever Canon made an EF 400/4.5L? I can't find it anywhere, Canon Camera Museum has no references.

In the '80s the FD 400/4.5 costed slightly less than a third of the FD 400/2.8. Thereby I guess it could be possibile today to deliver an EF 400/4.5 in the $3000-4000 range, which would make it cheaper than the DO. If it could have enough sales it's another matter.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 17, 2013)

LDS said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > You might, just might, be able to find a beat-up old EF 400mm f/4.5L for $3K. If you honestly think a new 400/4L IS will be under $5K, you should see a psychiatrist for a diagnosis, or possibly a rehab clinic to flush out some illicit narcotics...
> ...



You're right - I was thinking of the EF 500mm f/4.5L. Thanks for the correction! I doubt Canon would release an f/4.5 supertele lens at this point, given the reasonable assumption that most would want the option to use a TC, and that would require an f/4 lens for AF to work on most bodies.


----------



## Malte_P (Jan 17, 2013)

i would buy a new 100-400mm or 400mm f5.6 in a second when it is not double the actuall price.

but im not buying the old models. 
i don´t need a 400mm desperately and i know the second i buy one the new models will be released.

but if canon releases a new 400mm i can afford i would be very interested.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jan 17, 2013)

I hope this is canons year for overdue primes as well.

35L II

50mm 1.4 II or 50L II would be nice.

135mm F/1.8L IS USM would be extremely nice.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 17, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> 135mm F/1.8L IS USM would be extremely nice.



I had no idea you were interested in such a lens. You should tell people! :


----------



## Sashi (Jan 17, 2013)

So many for the push/pull and here I was thinking everyone was for an enclosed twisty action. Dust aside(my lens too), has no one else had a premature push/thud that scared the wildlife away on safari?


----------



## KyleSTL (Jan 17, 2013)

Neuro's in rare form today, sarcastic and mistaken. Somebody mark that on the CR calendar. 

If Canon were to release a new 400 f/5.6L with all the latest features (v. 4 IS, weathersealing, modern build quality and materials, better MFD, etc) what do you think the cost would be? I think it would have to remain below the price of a 70-200 IS II, but I could definitely see it coming close to $1800 or so given Canon's recent price structure.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 17, 2013)

KyleSTL said:


> Neuro's in rare form today, sarcastic and mistaken. Somebody mark that on the CR calendar.



Well, to be fair, my mistake was a month ago, it was caught today. And as for sarcastic...that's _every_ day.


----------



## kubelik (Jan 17, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> KyleSTL said:
> 
> 
> > Neuro's in rare form today, sarcastic and mistaken. Somebody mark that on the CR calendar.
> ...



that would make for a great character tagline. "always sarcastic, rarely mistaken." and then they could feature the character in beer commercials.


----------



## K-amps (Jan 17, 2013)

Lee Jay said:


> mrcrsr said:
> 
> 
> > I would appreciate a 100-400 2.8
> ...



;D

Or a back Surgeon Married to a Chiropractor.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jan 17, 2013)

K-amps said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > mrcrsr said:
> ...



Or a back Surgeon Married to a Chiropractor who then buys said 100-400mm F2.8


----------



## expatinasia (Jan 17, 2013)

KyleSTL said:


> If Canon were to release a new 400 f/5.6L with all the latest features (v. 4 IS, weathersealing, modern build quality and materials, better MFD, etc) what do you think the cost would be? I think it would have to remain below the price of a 70-200 IS II, but I could definitely see it coming close to $1800 or so given Canon's recent price structure.



Considering the 400L f/5.6 USM is around US$ 1300 and the 500L f/4 IS II USM is US$ 10,400ish and the 400L f/2.8 USM IS II is around US$ 11,000 then I would imagine that any new lens in the 400 f/5,6L range would be somewhere in the middle.

Don't forget that rather silly 100-400 with the built in extender is rumoured to cost a staggering US$ 10,XXX. Which imho is just mad.

But like someone said, if Canon were to do such a lens it is more likely to be f/4 than f/5.6 as most would want to stick a TC on it.


----------

