Just think when you get YOUR COPY (I know you are saying you won't but we all know different) the BIF and DIF pictures you'll be posting for the rest of us.
I even bet that right now you have one of the prototypes that you are doing the BIF/DIF tests for Canon but can't admit it with the non disclosure contract you signed.
Robert, if that lens was a 400 f/4L prime, a slightly chubbied up version of 400 f/5.6, and not more than 2.7 kg in weight, then I'd be tempted to dump 400 DO in its favour.
I would like to see a breakdown of how many Rebel owners buy big whites compared to how many 1dx guys buy big whites. I would bet that lots of peeps with an xti would get a 1d4 before they would get something like a 500/f4 or consider the soon to be released 200-400/f4. Quite frankly I normally get more keepers with my 1d4/100-400/5.6 than my 7d/500/f4; not to say the 1d4/500/f4 combo does not beat the pants off the 100-400 on the 1d4.
I will be interested in seeing the IQ from the new zoom, and quite frankly will probably get one if it lives up to its pre-release billing. I love the flexibility of the 100-400, but would love a lens with better IS, more focal length, and more speed to boot.
But I really doubt this lens is aimed at the low end body owners, more like the 1d3 or 1d4 guys.
Tom,
I might be tempted to agree with you, but I am a XTi owner with massive white lenses.
For almost 2 years I used nothing but the 28-300L + XSi (gripped) then came the 100-400 and then later on I got even more great whites.
I eventually got a 5D for wide angle FF shots and a 1D III for high FPS sports shooting.
I alwasy bought glass before body upgrades, since focal length was my limiter more than the IQ of the Canon body I started with.
ragebot wrote:
I would like to see a breakdown of how many Rebel owners buy big whites compared to how many 1dx guys buy big whites. I would bet that lots of peeps with an xti would get a 1d4 before they would get something like a 500/f4 or consider the soon to be released 200-400/f4. Quite frankly I normally get more keepers with my 1d4/100-400/5.6 than my 7d/500/f4; not to say the 1d4/500/f4 combo does not beat the pants off the 100-400 on the 1d4.
I will be interested in seeing the IQ from the new zoom, and quite frankly will probably get one if it lives up to its pre-release billing. I love the flexibility of the 100-400, but would love a lens with better IS, more focal length, and more speed to boot.
But I really doubt this lens is aimed at the low end body owners, more like the 1d3 or 1d4 guys....Show more →
Jeff Nolten wrote:
This is one very insightful comparison. Another is: I have 3 camera bodies (inclu 2 5Ds), 4 L zooms and 4 non-L primes. Buying this lens would nearly double my equipment investment. All for 1 stop better light performance than my 100-400.
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure its a wonderful lens and will way out perform the 100-400 in IQ. For the tripod based nature or sports photographer it will provide an incredibly flexible zoom range. But it will have to earn a lot of money to justify itself.
It's not the one stop that makes it considerably better, it's the ability to shoot at 560/5.6. f/5.6 is a magic number for AF.
I have a 300/2.8IS that I use with a 2x TC for wildlife, and a 100-400 I use as my general-purpose tele. For me this lens could replace both, and be superior to both. It's a bit shorter than the 300/2.8IS, but IQ will likely be about the same and AF should be faster. It also zooms, and can pull all the way back to 200mm. Compared to the 100-400 it will be heavier, but it should be sharper, have faster AF, and have the ability to gain a lot of reach with the flick of a switch.
The only downside is price, and barring Canon offering this lens as a $4K "tidy profit" lens versus $8K "as much as dentists will bear", it is the reason I will slog along with my 300/2.8IS and 100-400IS in the face of this technical marvel. Oh, the horror.
You know, as an aside... with the gains Panasonic has made with contrast detection AF on the GH2, should they release a very long tele (ie: 500mm) with AF, I might end up ditching my Canon tele gear entirely. The equipment will be inferior for sure, but if it's functional I'd be happier with the same reach in a smaller package and a few thousand dollars in my pocket.
You know, as an aside... with the gains Panasonic has made with contrast detection AF on the GH2, should they release a very long tele (ie: 500mm) with AF, I might end up ditching my Canon tele gear entirely. The equipment will be inferior for sure, but if it's functional I'd be happier with the same reach in a smaller package and a few thousand dollars in my pocket.
That is the real trick. I love my 100-400, light weight, reasonable cost, better than I should expect IQ. Problem is while I get nice pix with it I still think it is worth paying the tariff and lugging around a heavier and more expensive 500/f4. A good bud of mine bought a 4/3 system and while it was cheaper, lighter, and smaller than his dslr the IQ did not meet his standards.
I agree, the price may hold, and if it's a sweet lens they will be sold out. Especially if 560 mm is sharp. Weight is the issue for me, and if it is a tad smaller or lighter than the 500, that's a huge plus! Keep an eye on me, cuz if it's under 7 lbs. I may sell my 500 and two 300's, because I've had recent health problems and the 500 Is getting very heavy for me. I love carrying one hand held lens and no gear.
Sigh... She's beautiful but I can only look, not touch. The price will make it completely un-obtainable for this hobbyist. I'll just put her picture up next to the 500 f4
Netgarden wrote:
I agree, the price may hold, and if it's a sweet lens they will be sold out. Especially if 560 mm is sharp. Weight is the issue for me, and if it is a tad smaller or lighter than the 500, that's a huge plus! Keep an eye on me, cuz if it's under 7 lbs. I may sell my 500 and two 300's, because I've had recent health problems and the 500 Is getting very heavy for me. I love carrying one hand held lens and no gear.
Have you considered the 400 DO? It's still going to be lighter and smaller by a substantial margin than this lens.
garyvot wrote:
Have you considered the 400 DO? It's still going to be lighter and smaller by a substantial margin than this lens.
And of what use is a 400 DO for anyone who wants to pack only one lens around, and can get a 200-560mm lens that will cover that focal-length range without even having to remove the lens from the body?
Imagemaster wrote:
And of what use is a 400 DO for anyone who wants to pack only one lens around, and can get a 200-560mm lens that will cover that focal-length range without even having to remove the lens from the body?
Because the previous poster is looking for something lighter. The 200-400mm will most likely be heavier than the 400mm DO.
CKrueger wrote:
It's not the one stop that makes it considerably better, it's the ability to shoot at 560/5.6. f/5.6 is a magic number for AF.
I have a 300/2.8IS that I use with a 2x TC for wildlife, and a 100-400 I use as my general-purpose tele. For me this lens could replace both, and be superior to both. It's a bit shorter than the 300/2.8IS, but IQ will likely be about the same and AF should be faster. It also zooms, and can pull all the way back to 200mm. Compared to the 100-400 it will be heavier, but it should be sharper, have faster AF, and have the ability to gain a lot of reach with the flick of a switch.
The only downside is price, and barring Canon offering this lens as a $4K "tidy profit" lens versus $8K "as much as dentists will bear", it is the reason I will slog along with my 300/2.8IS and 100-400IS in the face of this technical marvel. Oh, the horror.
You know, as an aside... with the gains Panasonic has made with contrast detection AF on the GH2, should they release a very long tele (ie: 500mm) with AF, I might end up ditching my Canon tele gear entirely. The equipment will be inferior for sure, but if it's functional I'd be happier with the same reach in a smaller package and a few thousand dollars in my pocket. ...Show more →
Oh yea! I get all that I'd love for about 10K of mad money to drop in my hand - Well, if I'm going to get this one then well ---- I should get the 600 too, so make that 20K. But since you mention contrast detect AF, if the critter is going to hold still long enough for me to tripod mount everything, then my 1.4x II on the 100-400 on the 5DII does pretty well in live view if we're all very patient. I'm sure my anticipated 7D will do just as well for a 1.6 crop.
One other thing I don't get about the big whites is how do you get them anywhere other than by truck or air freight. The carry on limit for Air Tahiti is 6 lbs, and while they don't often enforce it, technically you couldn't take a big white to Tikehau. The small hoppers for Costa Rica, and Kenya can be equally picky so how do you risk an 8K+ lens?
garyvot wrote:
You're assuming this is a birding or wildlife lens. This lens isn't made for wildlife shooters necessarily and cannot compete with a 400mm or longer lens. But there are many other photographic disciplines. This zoom range (coupled with great optics and compact size) is fantastic for travel, scenic and landscapes, for example.
And 300mm on a 7D is ~ 500mm on full frame. That was considered quite "long" just a few years ago; there are many wildlife disciplines (other than birding) where a 500mm EFOV is quite useful.
However, many are implying it'll mean the end of the 100-400L, which is definitely a favourite wildlife lens. My argument is not against the 70-300L per se, but against it being a replacement for an obviously far more useful lens for wildlife and birding. I'd take a 640mm FOV over a 480mm FOV for birding any day and I'm sure plenty of others would too.
If we believe the arguments about shorter FL lenses and higher pixel density cameras, why do they even bother making an 800mm. Just put your 500mm on a 7D.
The old rule of thumb was, buy a longer slower lens than a shorter faster lens, but the 70-300L is a shorter slower lens.
