abqnmusa wrote:
If Canon released a 400mm F5.6 with 4 stop IS for $1600 or $1800 it would be tempting
if more expensive, just keep using the current 400mm F5.6
what I would like to see is a 500mm F5.6 IS
that would be ideal. 500mm & hand holdable
Sigma is out only hope for this.
I cannot see Canon doing it and harming sales of the 500mm F4
My great hope is for Sigma to release a sport series 150-500 f/4-5.6 OS with much much better performance than their current range of xx-500 zooms. I don't see them releasing a 500 f/5.6 however. The zoom if it has much faster AF and IQ at least the equal of the Canon 100-400L, with sealing, 4-5 stop OS would sell in droves IMO and I'd be willing to pay $3K for such a best if it were truly excellent.
I understand that many people want IS on every lens they touch. I only have one lens with IS and while it can be helpful in some situations, it doesn't seem to me to provide anywhere near the "cure-all" status that some afford it. I have an old 400 f/5.6. Excellent lens. I also have a 300 f/4.0 non-IS. It might be sharper than my 70-200 IS f/2.8L II.
I was shocked by this when I started taking it along for baseball/softball games. I wouldn't say it's AF was as agile, but when I nailed it the results really were remarkable. I guess what I'm saying is that these two lenses are the only ones in the Canon line-up that offer long telephoto performance at a price that those of who work smaller/poorer markets can afford. If Canon were to rework this lens adding IS, I suspect the price would nearly double. I truly doubt it would be twice as good. Some times light, simple, good is good enough and should be just left alone.
I shoot the lens in three ways: (1) following something (generally birds) in motion. IS does nothing in this case. (2) On a tripod for landscape photos. Again no gain with IS. (3) Braced up against whatever is available to minimize camera shake shooting something stationary. Here IS would be helpful. So one out of three cases and probably only 25% of the time, for me, would IS add value. The need for IS in the third case can be compensated for with improved technique and creative bracing.
I certainly hope Canon just keeps making this lens as is (and the 300 f/4.0). The development costs have long be met, so it's a cost of production plus profit for Canon. I suspect they like that equation.
I agree with your thoughts. If Canon re-designed the 400mm F5.6 with IS doubling the prices that would eliminate the last affordable 300mm+ L prime option.
I had the 300mm F4 IS and did not care for how long it took for the IS to sync up. I did not find the old IS (2 stop) to be that useful. I sold the lens and picked up a 300mm F4 non-IS with a 2 yr Mack warranty. I do find the non-IS is sharper wide open at F4 & at F4.5. That is where I use the lens birding in low light.
At least at 300mm & 400mm I do not think we need IS. I would rather have lenses with fewer elements, sharper IQ, and more affordable price than IS.
Canon seems determined to price us out of the hobby with new IS & version II releases. Yes, nice lenses, but far too expensive for all but rich photographers.
What would you all recommend for a long lens for under $2500?
i used the 400 5.6 last summer in Yellowstone and didnt like the lack of IS (I can use ISO12,800 but even then in late afternoon I was into the 1/125th and handshake was bad.
I expect that I might need to use the 2X and 1.4X occasionally for extra reach on the 5DIII, so i think the 100-400 will probably be out, Id rather have the 300 F4 IS with a 2X, 600 F8 IS, but the 400 would be 800mm F11 without IS. not so great. Could even pop the 1.4X on the 600 combo to reach a little more.
Actually created an XLS file for mm VS f/#, with 'estimated resolution' - FL Vs F/# - long lenses with extenders
Primes are much simpler to design & manufacture. Assuming a 100-400/5.6 IS II & 400/5.6 IS are both released in 2014 chances are the prime will produce better images.
As it stands the 100-400 is by design shorter than a 400/5.6 by a few mm. When it comes to wildlife this is the difference between getting the subject filling the frame or not.
Based on the image quality of the Series II Super Teles, 70-200/2.8 IS II and 24-70/2.8 II any L lens will exhibit stellar image quality that will liberate your hard earned money by a mere image sample
The 400mm F5.6 is a lens you learn to use well. It took me practice to learn to use it well for panning and still shots. In lower light I use a mono-pod or tripod with a Jobu Gimbal head. The tripod with Gimbal head allows lower light usage.
The 400mm F5.6 is excellent due to its shapness and light weight. I find it to be a great lens hand held.
When light is lower the 300mm F4 can be more useful.
Here in sunny New Mexico the 400mm F5.6 is very good most of the time. Sometimes in the winter time it can get cloudy enough the F5.6 aperture will not work. But in those cloudy over-cast lighting days, I find the images have no contrast due to the light. So even a faster lens often does not produce many useful images
.
400mm F4 DO or 300mm F2.8 + 1.4X would likely be optimal though very expensive options
dolina wrote:
Primes are much simpler to design & manufacture. Assuming a 100-400/5.6 IS II & 400/5.6 IS are both released in 2014 chances are the prime will produce better images.
Many people say the 70-200 IS II produces prime like IQ. If the new 100-400 is built to the same standard why wouldn't we expect the same? Do you think Canon will release a 200/2.8 IS?
ggreene wrote:
Many people say the 70-200 IS II produces prime like IQ. If the new 100-400 is built to the same standard why wouldn't we expect the same? Do you think Canon will release a 200/2.8 IS?
They compare differing year primes and zooms to each other so the discrepancies.
Again with emphasis I said "same year".
And as all things with technology there is always room for improvement. What is magical today will loose its zest the following decade.
