tanglefoot47 wrote:
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
It's a great lens leave it alone
Yea, you're right...IS does absolutely nothing to help the photographer--its all a marketing ploy. Damn, all these years I could have sworn it did something. Maybe I should just turn it off for good and shoot strictly BIF and action field sports at shutter speeds higher than 1/200th like everyone else. Oh well, I guess there's always tripods and bumping up the ISO....never thought I'd be a wanna-be
Adding IS to the 400 would double it's cost. The cost would go from ~$1000, to ~1500, demand would drop, and Canon would charge ~$2000 to pay for retooling, and still make a profit.
Adding 4-6 additional lens elements ALWAYS decreases optical performance. You can make up for that by more spendy lens glass, polishing, and coatings... Which makes for a higher price, which decreases sales, which increases price.
skid00skid00 wrote:
Adding IS to the 400 would double it's cost. The cost would go from ~$1000, to ~1500, demand would drop, and Canon would charge ~$2000 to pay for retooling, and still make a profit.
Adding 4-6 additional lens elements ALWAYS decreases optical performance. You can make up for that by more spendy lens glass, polishing, and coatings... Which makes for a higher price, which decreases sales, which increases price.
Did adding IS to the 300/4 double its cost and significantly affect its IQ and weight? What about the 500+600mm's? What about the 70-200/4IS and the 18-55IS...are they not worth the extra cost for better IQ and versatility? As I stated prior, modern IS systems are now cheaper to produce and while many still have the notion that it adversely affects IQ and weight that notion is simply wrong. New technology always adds significant cost to a product--as time passes and that technology ages and becomes more common the overall cost drops and more lenses are integrated with the technology (the same thing happened when AF, USM, and SP coatings/elements were developed). This can be seen in Canon's most recent lens releases--70-300 DOIS, 400/4 DOIS, 70-200/4IS, 24-105IS, 18-55IS, 17-55IS, 17-85IS, 70-300IS, 55-250IS, 200/2IS, 800/5.6IS. The majority of recent glass is fit with an IS system. See a pattern? Not all of it is cheap, but the price does not reflect only the addition of IS--IQ has also increased as well. For example: the 70-200/4IS is double the cost of the non-IS because of the lenses IQ superiority compared to the non-IS ver. ONTOP of the addition of IS--not only because of IS. If you honestly believe Canon will not update or replace the 16 year old 400/5.6 with an IS variant (be it f/5.6 or f/4--which there is, just not in production) in the near future I'm sorry to say you are being a bit naive.
Me thinks this discussion is ridiculous canon doesn't add IS on the 400mm because YOU ALREADY HAVE a 400mm f5.6 IS just zoom ur 1-400 IS all the way The prime is designed to be a faster focusing tool, less elements, thus meaning it takes Tc very well !! Oh btw there's also the 300mm F4 IS + Tc as an alternative +400m IS lens
I'm not seeing the need here However....a 400mm F4 IS would be a killer lens! I'd be all over it in a heart-beat
The real reason for Canon not releasing a 400f5.6L IS is because with the latest generation 4 stop IS it would immediately undermine the market for the 400f4DO IS and 400f2.8L IS.
However, if the supertelephoto line gets updated to use the latest generation IS, then and only then we might get a 400f5.6L IS. Meanwhile, may I recommend a great substitute: 300f4L IS + 1.4x TC, producing a 420f5.6L IS lens. According to photozone, it is so near in image quality that it is not a real issue. AF, though, is a lot slower.
But with the assumed price of the 400f5.6L IS, you can probably easily get the 300f4L IS, 1.4x TC and 400f5.6L, giving you the options of 300f4 IS, 400f5.6 (no IS but very fast AF), 420f5.6 IS and 560f8.
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.
Sigh...
Colin, do you really think that because you live in permanent sunshine, everyone else does?
Here on the cloudy, windy NE coast of England, I routinely get sharp images from my 100-400mm at low shutter speeds because of the IS.
There is simply no denying this, and your "Flat Earther" style attempt to gainsay the undeniable value of IS here is just ridiculous.
astrolucida wrote:
The real reason for Canon not releasing a 400f5.6L IS is because with the latest generation 4 stop IS it would immediately undermine the market for the 400f4DO IS and 400f2.8L IS.
Adding IS to the 400 f/5.6L would have no bearing on the 400 f/2.8L IS market. That's a huge market for professional sports PJ's and f/5.6 won't cut it. It might undermine the DO market a little, but it's tiny anyway.
I wonder how many will fork out 2x the price for an updated 400 if it happens. The one thing Id like to see updated on the 400 more than adding IS is the woeful mfd. This is the worst mfd of any 400mm Canon makes. I'd hope they could bring it down under 3m to 2.5m. It would then make a decent close-up lens with tubes.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Adding IS to the 400 f/5.6L would have no bearing on the 400 f/2.8L IS market. That's a huge market for professional sports PJ's and f/5.6 won't cut it. It might undermine the DO market a little, but it's tiny anyway.
Damn you Whayne, your taking the wind out of my sails! You're absolutely right. A 400/5.6IS will have zero affect on the 400/2.8IS and a very small affect on the 400/4DO--though it would obviously cut into some sales. Either way you either need f/2.8 or you don't and you either need a small, compact lightweight lens or you don't--that's what people are paying for.
We can all post shots like yours, they prove not very much (and apart from the Sanderling I thought that your examples were a tad soft).
Here is one with the 100-400 + 1.4TCII at 560mm with IS turned off and 'hand held' (on a 1DMk3). The lighting conditions look no better than in your Stonechat shot, but I think that my image is better (and better exposed if I may say so):
I DO KNOW that this image would have been better with the 400 f/5.6 and sincerely believe that only people who own, or have used, both the zoom and the prime should be taken seriously in their opinions on these two lenses.
Look at the nature section on this forum, look at NSN, look at POTN and you will see that the consensus is that the 400 f/5.6 is THE birding lens, and especially for BIF shots. All these people (mostly using !D series bodies) cannot be wrong.
It is the elegant simplicity of this lens and its lightning fast AF which make it a "winner". Adding IS would, in my opinion, ruin it.
Colin Key wrote:
I never use IS on my 100-400 or on my 500 f/4, nor do most of the best bird photographers (of which I do not proclaim to be one).
See what Romy Ocon can do in the shady rainforests of the Phillipines on a wet day with no IS.
Colin
I love it...I, I, I, I...YOU may not use it but that doesn't deem it useless for everyone else, those non-pro bird/wildlife shooters included. Even when I'm shooting BIF I have IS enables to help not only steady the shot but for panning as well. As for Romy, I'm assuming he uses a tripod more than not and probably has excellent lens technique on top of that. Either way, for those of us who do not want to carry the extra weight and deal with the hassle of a tripod every time we go out and who do not have the best technique IS makes for a damn good substitute--at least for the most part. If a photo opportunity presents itself out of the blue I'd sure like to be able to just put the VF to my eye and shoot knowing that I can get away with a slower SS rather than taking the time to set up my tripod...as I'm sure you know, time is valuable--especially when dealing with subjects that don't want to give you any. And for the record calling people who utilize IS "wanna-be's" is by far one of the most idiotic and ignorant things I have read on the forum...perhaps thinking before typing is a good thing for you to learn. Respect is another.
Sanlameer wrote:
Was that comment really neccesary?
Yes, I think it was necessary. What I said was "Too many "wanna-be's" think that IS is a panacea to better photographs - it is NOT ", meaning that too many people wanting to take better photographs think that IS is the ultimate solution for shaky hands or moving subject, and that is just not the case.
And, please do not misquote or selectively quote me, it pi$$es me off.
M Vers wrote:
I love it...I, I, I, I...YOU may not use it but that doesn't deem it useless for everyone else, those non-pro bird/wildlife shooters included. Even when I'm shooting BIF I have IS enables to help not only steady the shot but for panning as well. As for Romy, I'm assuming he uses a tripod more than not and probably has excellent lens technique on top of that. Either way, for those of us who do not want to carry the extra weight and deal with the hassle of a tripod every time we go out and who do not have the best technique IS makes for a damn good substitute--at least for the most part. If a photo opportunity presents itself out of the blue I'd sure like to be able to just put the VF to my eye and shoot knowing that I can get away with a slower SS rather than taking the time to set up my tripod...as I'm sure you know, time is valuable--especially when dealing with subjects that don't want to give you any. And for the record calling people who utilize IS "wanna-be's" is by far one of the most idiotic and ignorant things I have read on the forum...perhaps thinking before typing is a good thing for you to learn. Respect is another. ...Show more →
Colin Key wrote:
Yes, I think it was necessary. What I said was "Too many "wanna-be's" think that IS is a panacea to better photographs - it is NOT ", meaning that too many people wanting to take better photographs think that IS is the ultimate solution for shaky hands or moving subject, and that is just not the case.
And, please do not misquote or selectively quote me, it pi$$es me off.
Colin
, you're honestly going to sit there and attempt to say that IS can't get you better photographs!? Obviously it is you who has got the case of ignorance. Clearly its not going to get you better images every time--but neither will AF, are you going to call that out as well... No one misquoted you--you just weren't clear in what you said...in fact no one here called IS the "ultimate solution for shaky hands or moving subject" and no serious photog. believes it is. Point is IS DOES work, and has been PROVEN to work, regardless of your stance.
mode 1 IS
when the bird is stopped on a branch
when the bird is paused on the ground IS is perfect to get the shot handheld
IS allows you to steady the lens
mode 2 IS
when you are panning along with a car or motorcycle
when panning birds using a Wimberly tripod head
We can all post shots like yours, they prove not very much (and apart from the Sanderling I thought that your examples were a tad soft).
Here is one with the 100-400 + 1.4TCII at 560mm with IS turned off and 'hand held' (on a 1DMk3). The lighting conditions look no better than in your Stonechat shot, but I think that my image is better (and better exposed if I may say so):
Colin
And BTW, is that even serious!? Keith's image clearly shows better IQ, exposure and renders a hell of a lot more detail than your shot of the Stonechat...and its a tighter crop!
canon doesn't add IS on the 400mm because YOU ALREADY HAVE a 400mm f5.6 IS 
The prime is designed to be a faster focusing tool, less elements, thus meaning it takes Tc very well !! Oh btw there's also the 300mm F4 IS + Tc as an alternative +400m IS lens 
However....a 400mm F4 IS would be a killer lens! I'd be all over it in a heart-beat 
