# A New EF 400 f/5.6L Before Photokina? [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 4, 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/2012/09/a-new-ef-400-f5-6l-before-photokina-cr1/"></g:plusone></div><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/09/a-new-ef-400-f5-6l-before-photokina-cr1/"></a></div>
<strong>A new 400mm suggested


</strong>There is a suggestion that we will see the announcement of a new EF 400 f/5.6L before Photokina in September. I would imagine such a lens would  include IS, but I guess  a lot of people assumed the same for a new EF 24-70 f/2.8L II.</p>
<p><strong>Source: [<a href="http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/Canon_new_lenses.html" target="_blank">NL</a>]</strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## fotoray (Sep 4, 2012)

Replacement lens that currently costs about same as 100-400. At f/5.6 why would anyone want this lens? Help me understand benefit over 100-400?


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Sep 4, 2012)

Unless its sharper.


----------



## pmackey (Sep 4, 2012)

The 400mm f/5.6 prime is sharper than the 100-400mm. 

I really hope they add IS to this lens...


----------



## EvillEmperor (Sep 4, 2012)

Hm, with a new 100-400 possibly on the way, unless they add IS, I see no real point. 5.6 is too slow for a prime.


----------



## pmackey (Sep 4, 2012)

EvillEmperor said:


> I see no real point. 5.6 is too slow for a prime.



They're popular with the birds-in-flight crowd where there is plenty of light so f5.6 is fine. In that situation you usually don't need IS either though.The minimum focus distance is 3.5m... which could also do with an improvement but again, it's not really needed for BIF.

There are faster 400mm primes but they are very expensive compared to the 5.6


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 4, 2012)

5.6 is too slow for a prime....... like the 800-5.6?

Prime is about the quality of the optics, the quality of the build, the quality of the sealing..... in short a prime lens is a higher quality lens than a regular lens. Yes, they tend to be faster lenses, but it is not speed that makes it a prime lens, it is quality. Not all prime lenses have to weigh 10 pounds and cost $10,000, there is a market for lenses of various degrees of quality and performance.... look at the 70-200 lenses....

and a 400 f2.8 is hard to hand-hold, take hiking up a mountain, or carry on a canoe trip.....


----------



## dave (Sep 4, 2012)

I sold my original 400mm f/5.6 not long ago because I just didn't get time to use it anymore. However for the price and in decent light it was a great lens for a modest price. It was a bit like the 35L - not the greatest image quality in the world but it made me happy in a way that pictures from the 100-400mm didn't... and after using a 70-200 f/2.8 is ii, it was easy-peasy to handhold.

I helps that the images from the prime weren't being shot through a cloud of internal lens dust.

For me, it is a great option for serious hobbyists who simply can't afford to spend f/2.8 dollars and an upgrade (especially with IS) would be welcomed by many.


----------



## Mark1 (Sep 4, 2012)

If this were true I would expect Canon to release the new 100-400 at the same time. That would cover all the bases for this range. Expensive zoom with IS and less expensive prime with no IS but sharper at 400mm. 

Wishful thinking!


----------



## funkboy (Sep 4, 2012)

Personally i'd like to see a refreshed 300 f/4L IS or 200 f/2.8 IS first. I think they have broader market appeal & should also be less expensive.

Then they can replace the 100-400 so that it's as sharp as the prime at the long end & everyone will be happy (especially the credit card companies...)


----------



## Panurus (Sep 4, 2012)

fotoray said:


> Replacement lens that currently costs about same as 100-400. At f/5.6 why would anyone want this lens? Help me understand benefit over 100-400?


The bokeh of prime is better.


----------



## epsiloneri (Sep 4, 2012)

fotoray said:


> Replacement lens that currently costs about same as 100-400. At f/5.6 why would anyone want this lens? Help me understand benefit over 100-400?



_Short answer_: Image quality. Versatility. Weight. _Pick two_. 

_Longer answer_: Different trade-offs; in general, there are many desirable properties of lenses (including those above + AF, price, etc) that cannot all be optimised at the same time, so you have to make trade-offs depending on your priorities. The 100-400 and 400/5.6 represent different choices (as does the 400/2.8 ). There is no single lens that is best at everything, even if not considering price.


----------



## Danielle (Sep 4, 2012)

I was thinking of getting that lens eventually.

Well, so long as the update doesn't take the price out of 'quite affordable' territory. Otherwise forget it for me.

Adding to other's comments: f5.6 for lens like this means that its not $6000!!!!! Yes we want faster, but can one pay it? I can't. I'd love a 400mm f2.8 is ii but nuh uh for the $$$. Unless of course I'm not paying out my own pocket.


----------



## Marc_o_ (Sep 4, 2012)

Stupid question maybe, but : why not a 400mm f/4 ??

The 300/4 IS already exists, so ...


----------



## Birdshooter (Sep 4, 2012)

Marc_o_ said:


> Stupid question maybe, but : why not a 400mm f/4 ??
> 
> The 300/4 IS already exists, so ...



So does the 400 f/4, it's the DO


----------



## Hillsilly (Sep 4, 2012)

I wonder if they can make it a little lighter, shorter, give it the sharpness and AF speed of the f2.8 and make it fully weather sealed without affecting the price too much? IS is a nice idea, but I'll happily skip it if it means a big price increase. Like many people, I only venture into 400mm territory when photographing sports and wildlife and IS isn't going to help freeze action much better.


----------



## tron (Sep 4, 2012)

If it has the latest 4-stop Canon IS and the price is not exorbitant I will think seriously about it...


----------



## Canon-F1 (Sep 4, 2012)

before photokina... they better hurry then.


----------



## bvukich (Sep 4, 2012)

Canon-F1 said:


> before photokina... they better hurry then.



Never said which year


----------



## vlim (Sep 4, 2012)

> 5.6 is too slow for a prime....... like the 800-5.6?



the 800 f/5.6 too slow ? wow i guess you've never tested it

this new 400 would be great if it's a weather sealed lens with the IS II (and a price under 2k of course)

but if the new unofficilay announced 100-400 f4-5.6 L IS is as good as the 70-300 f4-5.6 L IS in term of sharpness and quality of the image the choice will be a tough one !


----------



## vlim (Sep 4, 2012)

> Replacement lens that currently costs about same as 100-400. At f/5.6 why would anyone want this lens? Help me understand benefit over 100-400?



If you arlready have the great and light 70-200 f/4 L IS a new 400 is a better choice in my opinion


----------



## Etienne (Sep 4, 2012)

fotoray said:


> Replacement lens that currently costs about same as 100-400. At f/5.6 why would anyone want this lens? Help me understand benefit over 100-400?



If it's sharper, faster focus, lighter, smaller, I would look at it. Maybe cheaper too.


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 4, 2012)

Don Haines said:


> 5.6 is too slow for a prime....... like the 800-5.6?



Slow because you don't get the necessary shutter speeds? You will in good daylight. And using a 70-300mm on crop (=112-480mm 35mm) I can say that the depth of field with f5.6 is still pretty thin, so if I could with my crappy crop sensor I'd rather use f8 and higher iso often. So if the new 400mm has the new IS, fast af, is sharp, affordable and not that heavy it's a winner unless you plan on using a tc.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 4, 2012)

vlim said:


> the new unofficilay announced 100-400 f4-5.6 L IS



Since when was it unoficially announced? Much less officially? There have been two patents issued on it, and it's been rumored is 'coming soon' for many years.


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 4, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> vlim said:
> 
> 
> > the new unofficilay announced 100-400 f4-5.6 L IS
> ...



so true. unfortunately!

I could not care less for a 400/5.6, especially without IS. But I really would like a gret new 100-400/4.0-5.6 with improved IQ on the ling end and latest 4-stop IS.


----------



## dave (Sep 4, 2012)

Hillsilly said:


> I wonder if they can make it a little lighter, shorter, give it the sharpness and AF speed of the f2.8 and make it fully weather sealed without affecting the price too much? IS is a nice idea, but I'll happily skip it if it means a big price increase. Like many people, I only venture into 400mm territory when photographing sports and wildlife and IS isn't going to help freeze action much better.



It's interesting that you would happily skip IS. 

Obviously one wouldn't want to pay heaps but I think in this case about the general rule that without IS you need to shoot a 400mm lens at at least 1/400th to get consistently sharp images. There are many instances where you don't necessarily need a speed of 1/400th to stop movement of wildlife. If IS can help steady the lens so that about 1/60th to 1/100th are useable (and even slower), then to me that opens up many more possibilities for the lens.

I suppose it's horses for courses but when I had the original there were plenty of times when IS would have been handy.


----------



## vlim (Sep 4, 2012)

> Since when was it unoficially announced ?



It was kind of a joke since a new version of this lens is almost announced every year  But 2012 will be the year !


----------



## KyleSTL (Sep 4, 2012)

Etienne said:


> If it's sharper, faster focus, lighter, smaller, I would look at it. *Maybe cheaper too*.


I hope that was sarcastic. Have you seen Canon's recent releases?


----------



## BeenThere (Sep 4, 2012)

I use the old 400/5.6 mostly to shoot birds in flight. Being unpredictable, the pan motion can be side to side, up and down, or anything in-between. So, IS is not that useful for these shots. Setting IS to horizonal pan mode would sometimes be applicable, but not predictable in the field from shot to shot. I have found the old 400 on 5D II to focus fairly quickly. You usually have to follow the flight path for a few seconds in AI servo before getting framing right in any event.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 4, 2012)

vlim said:


> But 2012 will be the year !



Sure. Announced in 2012. Announced availability 2013. Actual availability 2014. Go Canon!


----------



## Etienne (Sep 4, 2012)

KyleSTL said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > If it's sharper, faster focus, lighter, smaller, I would look at it. *Maybe cheaper too*.
> ...



LOL ... cheaper than the rumored 100-400 mk II.


----------



## Etienne (Sep 4, 2012)

dave said:


> Hillsilly said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder if they can make it a little lighter, shorter, give it the sharpness and AF speed of the f2.8 and make it fully weather sealed without affecting the price too much? IS is a nice idea, but I'll happily skip it if it means a big price increase. Like many people, I only venture into 400mm territory when photographing sports and wildlife and IS isn't going to help freeze action much better.
> ...



IS is a must for me. 

IS even makes it easier to see what your shooting hand-held at 400mm. I hate a jiggling, bouncy view.
How can you expect to capture the right "moment" when the viewfinder is like driving a jeep down a mountain pass?


----------



## vlim (Sep 4, 2012)

> Sure. Announced in 2012. Announced availability 2013. Actual availability 2014. Go Canon!


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 4, 2012)

The 400 F5.6 sells for $1350 in Canada. To get a longer Canon lens you have to be ready to shell out $9690. That's a HUGE jump in price.... and I'd be willing to bet that there is a market for something in between, like a 600 F5.6.

A fixed lens is mechanicly simpler than a zoom lens. Since the optics are fixed they can be made much sharper than a zoom lens. They are lighter, more robust, and better sealed than a comparable zoom lens. To go to the 100-400 F5.6 zoom lens means paying out an additional $350 for a lens that will not perform as well... Yes you get the zoom feature, but honestly, aren't most of the shots you take with this lens at the 400mm end?


----------



## dhofmann (Sep 5, 2012)

Don Haines said:


> The 400 F5.6 sells for $1350 in Canada. To get a longer Canon lens you have to be ready to shell out $9690. That's a HUGE jump in price.... and I'd be willing to bet that there is a market for something in between, like a 600 F5.6.



A 600mm f/5.6L would cost at least US$7,500. But a 500mm f/5.6L might come in under US$4,000.


----------



## Caps18 (Sep 5, 2012)

Marc_o_ said:


> Stupid question maybe, but : why not a 400mm f/4 ??
> 
> The 300/4 IS already exists, so ...



I have the 300mm f/4 and a 1.4x to make a 420mm f/5.6 IS. And I can use it as a 300mm f/4 if I need to.

A 400mm f/4 IS (or even no IS) would be a good lens for Canon to make.


----------



## cenkog (Sep 5, 2012)

+1



Don Haines said:


> The 400 F5.6 sells for $1350 in Canada. To get a longer Canon lens you have to be ready to shell out $9690. That's a HUGE jump in price.... and I'd be willing to bet that there is a market for something in between, like a 600 F5.6.
> 
> A fixed lens is mechanicly simpler than a zoom lens. Since the optics are fixed they can be made much sharper than a zoom lens. They are lighter, more robust, and better sealed than a comparable zoom lens. To go to the 100-400 F5.6 zoom lens means paying out an additional $350 for a lens that will not perform as well... Yes you get the zoom feature, but honestly, aren't most of the shots you take with this lens at the 400mm end?


----------



## funkboy (Sep 5, 2012)

Caps18 said:


> A 400mm f/4 IS (or even no IS) would be a good lens for Canon to make.



They do make a 400 f/4 IS. It has a green ring on it.

Not sure how I feel about DO. It looks like they've been shying away from it with recent releases in favor of other technologies, possibly as a result of customer feedback. However the 400 is supposed to be a whole lot better than the 70-300 DO. For the price it had better be...


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 5, 2012)

funkboy said:


> Not sure how I feel about DO.



There seem to be two DO generations - the old green ring one Canon dumped due to mediocre sharpness and horrible bokeh, and the new one they just patented for lighter tele primes which is supposed a completely other DO tech.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 5, 2012)

dhofmann said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > The 400 F5.6 sells for $1350 in Canada. To get a longer Canon lens you have to be ready to shell out $9690. That's a HUGE jump in price.... and I'd be willing to bet that there is a market for something in between, like a 600 F5.6.
> ...



+1. It's not that f/5.6 lenses are automatically (relatively) inexpensive. Just check the price of the 800/5.6. It comes down to the element size required to fill the iris diaphragm with light. A 600/5.6 tele would have a 107mm front element, which is the same as the 300/2.8. The longer focal length would translate to a higher price than the 300/2.8, I'd bet ~$8K for a 600/5.6. Since there's $13K 600/4, and you can get 600/5.6 with a 300/2.8 and 2x TC, I doubt Canon will see much of a market for a 600/5.6.


----------



## iaind (Sep 5, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> vlim said:
> 
> 
> > But 2012 will be the year !
> ...


An optimistic approach. Guaranteed to be in the shops before the end of the millenium.


----------



## tron (Sep 6, 2012)

iaind said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > vlim said:
> ...


 ;D ;D ;D


----------



## dolina (Sep 7, 2012)

If it does happen it will shorten my wishlist to 35L, 135L and 180L Macro.

I dont like zooms as their image quality cannot approach that of primes. This holds true if the design year are within months of each other.

Zooms are heavier than primes at the furthest focal length and max aperture.

400/5.6 with IS would be a killer light long lens.

It should sell for the same price of a 70-200/2.8 IS II.

I'd be using it at 400mm all the time so a 100-400 would be useless for me.


----------



## vlim (Sep 7, 2012)

if it's true and not another rumor i guess the price will be around 2000$ with an IS II and weather sealed ! i hope it won't be more :-\


----------



## FarQinell (Sep 7, 2012)

A new 400/5.6L with IS II would be a fantastic ultra light long lens - nothing like it in the Nikon range.

Perhaps the beginning of the end for the 400/4 DO which Canon do not seem to want to upgrade - image quality wise.

The current 400/5.6 is slightly sharper than the excellent 100-400L and appreciably sharper than the 400/4 DO.

If it comes out and turns out to be even sharper than the current model Canon will sell lots of them.


----------



## Eimajm (Sep 7, 2012)

dolina said:


> If it does happen it will shorten my wishlist to 35L, 135L and 180L Macro.
> 
> I dont like zooms as their image quality cannot approach that of primes. This holds true if the design year are within months of each other.
> 
> ...



My sigma 10-20 at 20 is incredibly sharp as is also my 24-105 and 70-200, there is no descernable difference to my 100mm 2.8, 50 1.4 and or 400 5.6. Modern high quality zooms are excellent and produce ultra sharp images and are no way 'inferior' in image quality to primes. Unless lenses are pushing the extreme boundaries of optical performance and measured in a lab then I'm sure there will a difference but in day to day shooting, nah.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 7, 2012)

dolina said:


> I'd be using it at 400mm all the time so a 100-400 would be useless for me.



One advantage of the 100-400 is the ~3" shorter (collapsed) length, which makes transport and storage easier.


----------



## vlim (Sep 7, 2012)

if both are true rumors (a new 100-400 and a new 400), can we expect an inner zoom on the 100-400 or the same one used on the little bro' 70-300 f/4-5.6 L IS ?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 7, 2012)

vlim said:


> if both are true rumors (a new 100-400 and a new 400), can we expect an inner zoom on the 100-400 or the same one used on the little bro' 70-300 f/4-5.6 L IS ?



Given the reason above (shorter retracted length), I sincerely hope it's not an internal zoom, as that would likely make it even slightly longer than the 400/5.6 prime. The current 100-400 is the same size as the 70-200/2.8 and 28-300, meaning it fits nicely in a Toploader Pro 75 AW and other toploading bags. While some (like the ThinkTank ones) are expandable, I really prefer the shorter length. 

Personally, I like the push-pull zooms, but I'd be ok with a rotating zoom like the 70-300L.


----------



## dolina (Sep 7, 2012)

Eimajm said:


> My sigma 10-20 at 20 is incredibly sharp as is also my 24-105 and 70-200, there is no descernable difference to my 100mm 2.8, 50 1.4 and or 400 5.6. Modern high quality zooms are excellent and produce ultra sharp images and are no way 'inferior' in image quality to primes. Unless lenses are pushing the extreme boundaries of optical performance and measured in a lab then I'm sure there will a difference but in day to day shooting, nah.


Had a Sigma, never gonna go with the brand again. This is my personal preference. 


neuroanatomist said:


> One advantage of the 100-400 is the ~3" shorter (collapsed) length, which makes transport and storage easier.



A comparison between the 400/5.6 and 100-400 had the prime having a longer focal length than the zoom. This appears to be a standard practice.

I think this rumor's more wishful thinking than an actual product.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Sep 8, 2012)

Re the Sigma good or bad debate:

I (still) have a 120-400mm from them, it's not very sharp at 400mm.

I also have a 120-300mm OS from them, and it's sharp enough, and still fares well with a 2X TC on. My only real complaint with it is the background OOF highlight circle can get very busy and this has ruined a few shots that should have been excellent - a crane fishing in a pond.

The IS also seems clumsy to activate, because often the first picture in a series is shake-blurred. Remembering to let the OS (IS) spin up before you start taking photos helps of course.


Don Haines said:


> 5.6 is too slow for a prime....... like the 800-5.6?


f/5.6 is fine for 800mm because you already have a narrow enough angle of view for birds. 400mm users would like to pop on a teleconverter while retaining AF.

Trying to track birds at 600mm and up is quite punishing but I find that 400mm is (even on a crop like the 7D) at or even below the bare minimum to get detail on anything but a raptor or a flock of birds. For single birds, especially small ones, I need that 600mm and a much closer minimum focus distance than 3.5M which is quite terrible actually.


dhofmann said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > The 400 F5.6 sells for $1350 in Canada. To get a longer Canon lens you have to be ready to shell out $9690. That's a HUGE jump in price.... and I'd be willing to bet that there is a market for something in between, like a 600 F5.6.
> ...


It won't get made because they want to sell and make only 500mm f/4L lenses.


----------



## FarQinell (Sep 9, 2012)

dhofmann said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > The 400 F5.6 sells for $1350 in Canada. To get a longer Canon lens you have to be ready to shell out $9690. That's a HUGE jump in price.... and I'd be willing to bet that there is a market for something in between, like a 600 F5.6.
> ...


It won't get made because they want to sell and make only 500mm f/4L lenses.
[/quote]


Very true neither Canon or Nikon are ever likely to offer a 500/5.6 or 600/5.6 with IS II even though I am sure that there is a market out there for lightweight ultra long lenses.

The best we can hope for from Canon is a new 400/5.6 with IS II and for that we would be extremely grateful - if it ever comes about!

What about Sony then? Their longest "pro" lens currently is a 300/2.8. Perhaps they may be tempted to break the stranglehold Canon/Nikon have on long lenses and come up with something tasty like a prime 500 or 600/5.6!


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 10, 2012)

vlim said:


> > 5.6 is too slow for a prime....... like the 800-5.6?
> 
> 
> 
> the 800 f/5.6 too slow ? wow i guess you've never tested it



Note the question mark.... I was questioning the statement about 5.6 being too slow for a prime and using the 800-5.6 as an example of a 5.6 prime that obviously isn't


----------



## adhocphotographer (Sep 10, 2012)

i would like to see both a new 100-400 and 400 is.... debating which one will be better at this stage is mute.... to me it would only make sense that they released the 400 is first, with a big improvement in IQ, then released the 100-400 6 months later with a better than current but not as good as the prime IQ... or if the prime was in fact a couple of hundred bucks cheaper!


----------



## Hodag (Sep 10, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> funkboy said:
> 
> 
> > Not sure how I feel about DO.
> ...



And I shied away and bought the 400mm f/5.6 because I was warned of internal reflections in the DO lenses. Headlights on ALMS cars for example. Could be another case of "what are you shooting"?

I have the 100 - 400 and the 400 5.6 and sold my 400mm f/2.8 (much longer tale) The 2.8 was heavy, blew in the wind and took amazing sharp and clear photos. The 100-400 for my taste is a 100-350, thus I still need a 400mm. Also the 400mm with an extender is pretty reliable, even if manual focus.

But if I'm grabbing one lens, over my shoulder and walking, for long shots, the 400mm f/5.6 is my favorite. Of course, primes are better, why not?

So maybe the DO got a bad rap and maybe they didn't quite cut it? What I really want is the 200-400mm with the 1.4x switch!


----------



## dolina (Sep 12, 2012)

dhofmann said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > The 400 F5.6 sells for $1350 in Canada. To get a longer Canon lens you have to be ready to shell out $9690. That's a HUGE jump in price.... and I'd be willing to bet that there is a market for something in between, like a 600 F5.6.
> ...



Pentax announced a 560mm f/5.6 for $7,000. So the $7500 price is very realistic.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/09/10/Pentax-announces-smc-DA-18-270mm-F3-5-6-3-ED-SDM-and-HD-DA-560mm-F5-6-ED-AW-for-K-mount



Edwin Herdman said:


> It won't get made because they want to sell and make only 500mm f/4L lenses.



Other than that there is not enough demand for a 2nd 500mm. Same goes with the 600mm and 800mm.



FarQinell said:


> What about Sony then? Their longest "pro" lens currently is a 300/2.8. Perhaps they may be tempted to break the stranglehold Canon/Nikon have on long lenses and come up with something tasty like a prime 500 or 600/5.6!



Sony is selling a 500mm but it costs as much as a Canon 800mm!

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/845555-REG/Sony_SAL500F40G_500mm_f_4_0_G_Lens.html


----------

