Can we force Canon to make a 400 f5.6L with IS and close focus

[pete_biro]

Ok, short expiry on this one. So, can we get Canon to release a new

400 f5.6L with IS and close focus? I, like many others, would love

such a beast, no? Can professionals (known ones that is) suggest

this? This would be sweet to have for wildlife/birds when one doesnt

want to lug 500+ lenses about.

[jon_austin]

If you figure out the secret to inducing Canon to produce the lens of your dreams, let me know. I'll use it to get them to make a 28-80 f/4L.

 

I'm sure lots of other folks will line up with their wishlists, too. Then Canon can get busy with manufacturing every variation and permutation of photographic product ever imagined, and promptly go out of business...

[bobatkins]

I imagine that decisions like this depend on what Canon see as their market and how well the current 400/5.6L sells.

 

Given that Canon have somewhat limited resources, I image they develop whatever lens they think will make most money for them in the long run. My guess is that the 400/5.6L (and even an IS version) is a low volume selling lens. Not long enough or fast enough for professional shooters, too long and too expensive for general use. I see very few of them in use. I know it has a small cult following and that it's actually a good lens, but the SMALL following is the important point. Essentially the same thing as a 400/5.6L IS can be achieved by sticking a 1.4x TC on a 300/4L IS. Focus is a little slower, but that's a small issue for MOST users.

 

Canon are doing well not to drop the 400/5.6L. As far as I know all the 3rd party lens makers (certainly Sigma, Tamron and Tokina) dropped their 400/5.6 lenses is favor of telephoto zooms.

[25asa]

I'm still waiting for them to make a 24 (or 28) to 70L f4 L lens.

[jimvanson]

Sorry but I want a 50 f1.4 IS Ultrasonic, a 85 f1.8 IS Ultrasonic and a 135 f2 IS Ultrasonic.

[bobatkins]

I want a 10mm EF-S fisheye for under $200...

[robin_sibson1]

... and I want a 35~135/4L IS to team up with my 17~40. We can but hope. Incidentally, whilst putting an Extender 1.4x on the 300/4 IS produces an excellent 420/5.6, putting an Extender 2x on it produces a much less impressive 600/8, and a 400/5.6 IS with the Extender 1.4x would potentially be a better bet. It is not too bad a combination with the 100~400, and should be better with a prime lens.

[bojan_hohnjec1]

Maybe if we capture some of the people that are involved in making that decision & make them our hostages it would make it easier ? Well just a tought :)

[dogbert]

Atcually I think Sigma (yeah I know) have been introducing a more interesting range of lenses lately in the wide angle to short tele range. Their strategy must be to keep showering the market with new designs to create consumer interest. Canon seems a lumbering, conservative beast determined to ensure that there is little middle ground between their consumer grade stuff and the L versions (which they really gouge you for).

 

All else equal, I would prefer Canon too but there more we profess Canon loyalty and sing their praises on photonet, the easier it becomes for them to extract their pound of flesh. Just look at what Leica owners have done to themselves.

[tim_adams]

Heck with the 400 5.6L, I want a 200-400 f/4L IS like Nikon's 200-400 f/4 VR lense.

[jim_larson1]

Yes. 200-400/4L-IS. Does B&H have one in stock? I have both a phone and credit card handy. Just *please* don't make it a stupid push-pull design :) (this is the only reason I don't have a 100-400/5.6L-IS)

[jon_austin]

I'm willing to compromise with Robin Sibson, and pool our wish list resources for a 35-105mm f/4L USM IS. I don't know if he's willing to go along with that, though...

[kiestphoto]

I too would love a 400/f5.6L with IS (And close focus would be nice), as the 300/f4L IS is

too close to the 70-200/2.8L IS, especially with TC, to be very useful, and there is no way I

could afford/carry around a 400/4 or 400/2.8. I think not many people have them

because they would rather have the 300/4L IS, due to IS. I only wish to 20D supported

autofocus at f/8 to use the 400/5.6 with 1.4x TC.

[PuppyDigs]

The heck with an EF 400 5.6L IS USM. I want a half dozen concubines to carry my gear and pamper me after the shoot.

[jamesp]

I'm still waiting for the 14-600mm f/1.4 (with 1:1 macro) pancake lens.

[phyrpowr]

Well, yeah, but we'll have to stay awake in shifts holding the guns on the execs who give the orders to the poor SOB they detail to make it.

 

Now, if the question is can we CONVINCE them to make it, yes, just substitute "shoveling the money" to "holding the guns" in the above sentence

[kiestphoto]

"Given that Canon have somewhat limited resources, I image they develop whatever lens

they think will make most money for them in the long run."

I would think that Canon does not have that limited of a resources, I think it is more a of a

Cost vs Return question, where Canon spends X money, and expects to get it back over X

years / lenses solde and then have the lens be "profitable". There is also the question of

prestige, as Canon may never make money off of certain rare super lenses or cameras, but

those get pros to switch, who buy other gear and represent canon to the world. Canon

wants to make sure they have maximized profit from the lens before investing in a new

design.

[robin_sibson1]

Jon, I'd settle for a 35~105/4L IS if (a) it was absolutely top class optically, (b) was fixed-length physically, with both zoom and focus internal, and © had good close-focus capability. I'm not holding my breath waiting.

[larry h.]

Robin is closest to my wishes. I think a 50-125/2.8L (even if in an EF-S mount) would make a lot of sense and should be very doable and not too expensive. That would give an effective 80-200 on a 1.6x factor digital. If they could do it in an EF mount, all the better.

 

Another wish would be a 24/2.0 L lens, also preferably in an EF mount. Both of these could probably be made to sell for the $600-750 range.

[frank_dzambic]

If rich Saudi Arabian sheiks can force Canon to build 1200mm lenses, you most certainly can force them to build a 400/5.6 with IS and close focus for you. Simply go to the head office, with a giant box full of $100 bills, and begin crumpling them up and throwing them at the guy in charge. Keep doing this until he's had enough of a pummelling from the crumpled up $100 bills, and says he'll do it.

[bobatkins]

<em>I would think that Canon does not have that limited of a resources, I think it is more a of a Cost vs Return question</em>

<p>

I wouldn't assume unlimited resources. Even large comanies have limited R&D budgets. They probably get to develop maybe 3 or 4 new lenses each year. Actually that makes a lot of sense. You release lenses 1 by 1 (or 2 by 2) and let the market buy them, then you release another 1 (or 2) and do it again. If they came out with 50 new lenses next week, people would get so confused and would only be able to buy so many that their agregate sales would drop. People tend to buy "new" lenses more than great lenses released 2 years ago that they can only now just afford. That "new" factor probably boosts sales quite a lot. You also need to keep your brand in the news and it's better to have small news items every few months than one huge news item every few years!

[jon_austin]

Robin: Done. I agree totally with all of your requirements.

 

I'm sure that when we contact Canon and place our advance order for two (!) units, they'll practically kill themselves getting it designed, manufactured and into our hands!

[pete_biro]

Thanks all for the comments ... time to kill this thread i think.