OK, so I've been on this forum a little over a year, and I swear that this is at least the third time I have seen this thread. Here's a capsule summary of how each one went...
I just DO NOT GET why some people want to argue against this lens. I mean really, what is it to you that someone else wants that capability in their lens? Are you afraid that the thousands of non-IS 400mm lenses manufactured will suddenly be rendered inoperable? Are you afraid that your lens will suddenly drop in value? (Even though it is so good you would never sell it.) Are you afraid that the new one will take better pictures? Seriously, what is your -'in problem here?
You don't want it or it will be too expensive for you? Fine, don't buy one. I don't need a 14mm lens, but I don't piss on their parade, even if the lens is expensive. I'm happy with f/4 for my wide angle work, I don't slam people for wanting the 16-35 just because the f/2.8 might do something for them that I don't need. I'm perfectly satisfied with my 24-70, but you don't see me jumping into the threads arguing against an IS updated version. I probably won't buy one should it come out, but I can see no reason to despise the concept ahead of the execution.
Enough, already. Naysayers, take your negativity elsewhere. Canon, bring on the lens.
(PetKal and Colin, I stole your images for the parody above because a) they expressed perfectly and b) they were from this thread. Let me know if you want it pulled.)
Colin Key wrote:
I think that my image is better (and better exposed if I may say so):Colin
Seriously Colin - and with all due respect - you're wrong about that.
I wouldn't be too impressed with the IQ of the shot you've posted up if it had come from my modest kit, and I've posted innumerable "better" Stonechats.
Here's another - handheld, same camera (the humble 30D), same lens (100-400mm), same TC (Kenko 1.4x):
No problem whatsoever with sharpness, detail, exposure or anything else.
I get that you love your 400mm prime, but the arguments you make against IS in it - and your arguments against the 100-400mm - simply make no sense.
I can only assume that your 100-400mm wasn't a particularly good one, but mine is, and it lacks for nothing in the Real World compared with the prime: but it has IS, which saves me on a routine basis.
Dark Slider wrote:
Enough, already. Naysayers, take your negativity elsewhere. Canon, bring on the lens.
Believe me when I say this, no matter how much convincing you do even with solid factual information, you are preaching to a deaf crowd. Actually a better word, used frequently throughout the thread, is ignorant.
Geert Koning wrote:
I think the Photozone test is flawed. Take a look at the The-Digital-Picture camparision of the 3600/4is+1.4 vs 400/5.6, the 400/5.6 is much better wide open:
All I can say is I have compared numerous copies of the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6, 400 f/5.6L, and the 300 f/4L IS + 1.4x TC. The difference is only noticeable at a 100% crop and then it is only slightly different.
I don't see what can be gained by arguing which is sharper than the other when they are all plenty sharp enough.
