Sanlameer wrote:
BH photovideo indicates that this lens is in stock again. It was not available for months. I guess, no IS or an update in the in the near future.
A lens going out of stock for a period of time does not indicate that that lens may receive any upgrades. Aside for the canon cash-cow line (ie. 24-70, 24-105IS, etc.), production lines for low demand lenses like the 400 f/5.6 (relatively speaking) runs for a short period of time and then stops while that same manufacturing line is retooled for other low demand lenses.
wing tong wrote:
A lens going out of stock for a period of time does not indicate that that lens may receive any upgrades. Aside for the canon cash-cow line (ie. 24-70, 24-105IS, etc.), production lines for low demand lenses like the 400 f/5.6 (relatively speaking) runs for a short period of time and then stops while that same manufacturing line is retooled for other low demand lenses.
Thanks, I realise it, but one could always hope. The 300 F4 had an update and the 400 F5.6 deserve one too. "? Wishfull thinking"
Sanlameer wrote:
I guess, no IS or an update in the in the near future.
Why do folk come on here wanting/demanding/anticipating an "up-grade" to IS on this beautiful lens. One of its selling points is that it has no IS - it is simple, fast, cheap and best value for money in Canon's "L" line-up at the moment. Adding IS would kill it stone dead.
Too many "wanna-be's" think that IS is a panacea to better photographs - it is NOT.
Colin Key and Trenchmonkey: I don't quite understand the logic here in your statements, please help me out. The 70-200 f4 lens comes in two versions - with IS and without IS. The IS version is super sharp and did not decrease the photo quality at all as most tests confirm. So why can't this be transferred to the 400 f5.6 lens? Why should an additional IS on this lens decrease picture quality or increase the weight a lot (for the 70-200 f4 versions the weight increase by adding the IS is minimal). I can see that an IS system would be a price increase for such lens, but isn't a good IS worth it?
Again, I am not somebody who does not understand how to use an IS correctly, but it is certainly advantageous in situations where you don't have a tripod available and you need to handhold your camera setup.
I personally wouldn't mind an IS version but would be feign to cough up 2x the money.
I've purchased 1/2 a dozen in the $800-$950 range and you can bet the "improved" one
would be double that. I shoot Nikon too and have faster glass for my lower light needs.
I still shoot this Canon glass because it's THAT GOOD as is. Be careful drawing parallels
to the 70-200 f4L IS update. Everyone knows what a freak that lens is.
Thanks, trenchmonkey, for clarifying this! I fully agree with your statement now. I have hoped for a 400 f5.6 IS version just being $500 more expensive than the non-IS version - but this might be too optimistic! I agree that not a lot of people would like to spend twice the amount of money for the affordable price tag of the non-IS version - honestly I would go for the non-IS version then, too!
Great bird shot BTW above!!!
trenchmonkey wrote:
Be careful drawing parallels to the 70-200 f4L IS update. Everyone knows what a freak that lens is.
Its not only the 70-200/4IS that has outstanding IQ with the addition of IS, but its the EF-S 17-55, 18-55 and the 24-105 as well. Could they be better lenses w/o IS?--who knows but they sure as hell perform pretty well as they are. Point is modern day IS systems do not affect IQ negatively at all--and this is proven. As for weight, that is negligible as well. The only thing you will see a difference in is price, but for some that increase is meaningless for what they get. I say either update the 400/5.6 with an IS system or leave it and add a 400/4IS non-DO and price accordingly (somewhere dead smack in the middle of the 400/5.6 and 400DO).
Thank you! Retro.
I'm reminded of the 300 f4 to 300 f4 IS "upgrade" The non-IS was sharper and focused much faster w/TC.
What I'd love to see is a 400 f4.5 IS for around $2K, not holding my breath on that happening.
M Vers wrote:
Its not only the 70-200/4IS that has outstanding IQ with the addition of IS, but its the EF-S 17-55, 18-55 and the 24-105 as well. Could they be better lenses w/o IS?--who knows but they sure as hell perform pretty well as they are. Point is modern day IS systems do not affect IQ negatively at all--and this is proven. As for weight, that is negligible as well. The only thing you will see a difference in is price, but for some that increase is meaningless for what they get. I say either update the 400/5.6 with an IS system or leave it and add a 400/4IS non-DO and price accordingly (somewhere dead smack in the middle of the 400/5.6 and 400DO). ...Show more →
I didn't know EF-S lenses were part of the discussion...."L's" methinks. The 70-200 f2.8 is
sharper than it's IS counterpart...ask anyone who's shot with both. Back OT it's about the prime
and I maintain there's nothing wrong with it as is.
trenchmonkey wrote:
I didn't know EF-S lenses were part of the discussion...."L's" methinks. The 70-200 f2.8 is
sharper than it's IS counterpart...ask anyone who's shot with both. Back OT it's about the prime
and I maintain there's nothing wrong with it as is.
I brought up the others as examples (24-105L as one) of modern IS systems, their affects on IQ, weight, and cost, so I think that's a viable point. I'd also like to say that I do not think there is anything wrong with it (400/5.6) atm as well--but IS sure would be a helping factor IF IQ is maintained. I think its safe to say based on the most recent lenses that IS is the wave of the future--specifically when looking at teles+super teles...(200/2IS, 800/5.6IS are good examples). As for the whole 70-200/2.8 thing, does the IS version have the latest version of IS implemented? Aside from that, my copy is plenty (extremely) sharp enough wide-open at all FL's.
Not diverting any attention from the original topic, but that posted image really does not portray/justify the quality/detail this lens can produce. That bird has squinted eyes and is over-saturated/over-sharpened, edges look jagged to me !!!
And,OP, this lens is great without IS, remember, without IS, it's cheap too. And there's no lens that even comes closer for the price/quality ratio.
LCollector wrote:
And,OP, this lens is great without IS, remember, without IS, it's cheap too. And there's no lens that even comes closer for the price/quality ratio.
Depends on what you consider professional... 400/5.6 300/4IS
The two are so close IQ wise that you couldn't possibly pick out one from the other in a series of images. Price is very similar as well.
Colin Key wrote:
Why do folk come on here wanting/demanding/anticipating an "up-grade" to IS on this beautiful lens. One of its selling points is that it has no IS - it is simple, fast, cheap and best value for money in Canon's "L" line-up at the moment. Adding IS would kill it stone dead.
Too many "wanna-be's" think that IS is a panacea to better photographs - it is NOT.
Colin
I totally agree with you and think about it having IS would add weight, cost much more and you only need it in low light. I used the 400 for flying birds many times and IS would not help
