When did Canon release the 400 5.6? Will there be an IS anytime soon?

[g_guhan_gunaratnam2]

I was just wondering if anyone thinks Canon might release an IS

version of this lens within a year. Thanks

[eos 10 fan]

The 400mm f/5.6L USM was introduced in May 1993.

 

No one knows when Canon will bring out new gear.

 

You might want to try a search for the 300/4L IS + 1.4x TC vs. 400/5.6L discussions.

 

--

[Greg M]

It's probably more likely they'll discontinue it than upgrade it. There aren't too many 400mm f5.6 lenses around anymore. There are more popular, versatile ways to get there, one as described above.

[g_guhan_gunaratnam2]

Thanks guys.

 

I have considered the 300 f4 + 1.4. It is ahead of getting the 400 5.6 in my books. But for me its the IS thats making the 300 win. A new 400 5.6IS might sway me away from the 300 f4. I'd buy a 400 f4IS at 2x the price if it was available.

[andrew robertson]

It is. It's more like five times the price. 400 f/4 DO IS.

[h_goering]

Hi GGG

 

It is unlikely Canon will release an IS version - it appears that the 400/5.6 was intentionally crippled - much like the 70-200 F4 had no IS for the same reasons

 

However, I would like to add that if you need the reach, the 400/5.6 is by far the most affordable long prime in Canon's lineup. In fact you should feel lucky that Canon offers such a "budget" prime lens. Nikon users who desire 400mm currently (current models) have only the 400/2.8 to consider (for primes) that costs an arm and a leg

 

If you need the reach, the 300/4+1.4 just doesn't cut it. In my case, I owned both the 300/4 IS as well as the 400/5.6 simply because the longer primes are too expensive for me. I use the 300/4 for general purpose shots. For occasions when I take wildlife, the 300/4 (even with 1.4X) is simply not long enough - and that's where the 400/5.6 comes in

 

The 400/5.6 is very sharp and very fast focusing - that makes taking wildlife and outdoor sports such a joy to use. The only issue is the lack of IS - you can use a monopod or tripod if necessary. Learn to live with its limitations and then the 400/5.6 will be a wonderful lens

 

If you absolutely must have IS, then you may consider the 100-400L IS or even the Sigma 80-400 OS but the quality and focusing speed are not up to the 400/5.6

[PuppyDigs]

"t is unlikely Canon will release an IS version - it appears that the 400/5.6 was

intentionally crippled - much like the 70-200 F4 had no IS for the same reasons"

 

Oh come on, Canon didn't market IS lenses until 1995 when the EF 75-300 IS USM

debuted. The EF 400 5.6L USM predates IS by 2 or 3 years.

[kaustubh]

As others have said, I doubt if they will ever come up with it. simple reason, that i can

think of, is that they would not want it to cannibalise the markets of 300 f/4L IS (as you

urself said u wont buy it) and 100-400 L IS. last thing they want is their own lenses

competing with each other.

 

IMO, such holes (needs, rather) shud be filled by the third-party guys like sigma, tamron

etc.

 

With so many people shifting to digital and (hence) using higher ISO settings, the need of

IS might be actually going down. And people, after spending over 1k on digital slrs, might

be, in fact, looking for such great bargain lenses. It would be interesting to find out if

they have sold more of these recently than in the past.

 

Kaustubh

[rob_murray]

"If you need the reach, the 300/4+1.4 just doesn't cut it. In my case, I owned both the 300/4 IS as well as the 400/5.6 simply because the longer primes are too expensive for me. I use the 300/4 for general purpose shots. For occasions when I take wildlife, the 300/4 (even with 1.4X) is simply not long enough - and that's where the 400/5.6 comes in"

 

OK I am lost here 300mm x1.4= 420mm F5.6... vs 400mm F5.6....

Maybe you meant to say you use the 400mm5.6 with the 1.4x giving

you 560mm at f8?

[mark_chappell]

<I>OK I am lost here 300mm x1.4= 420mm F5.6... vs 400mm F5.6.... Maybe you meant

to say you use the 400mm5.6 with the 1.4x giving you 560mm at f8?</i><P>

 

I share your befuddlement at this statement.

[dk.]

I have the 300/4L IS and 1.4x TC

At the time I was not sure what to get too, the 300mm or 400/5.6L. But for me the 300mm gets much more use because of its IS and being able to focus close etc. if the 400mm had IS I would have gotten it.

 

I am not always happy when I use the 1.4 TC with it but I am very picky. Here is a picture I took with the 300/4L IS and 1.4x TC

See what you think.

 

DK.<div></div>

[h_goering]

"OK I am lost here 300mm x1.4= 420mm F5.6... vs 400mm F5.6.... Maybe you meant to say you use the 400mm5.6 with the 1.4x giving you 560mm at f8?"

 

Just to clarify my statement that has resulted in some confusion, what I meant was 300mm is not long enough for most wildlife shots. 400 mm gives you an extra 100mm. While this 100 mm may not seem to be much, on a 1.6X crop, it translates into a difference of 160mm.

 

If you use extenders, the difference is further accentuated - and you can potentially have a 320mm difference between the 300/4 vs the 400/5.6 - not an insignificant difference. While the 500/4 would have been ideal, it is too expensive

[mark_chappell]

<I> If you use extenders, the difference is further accentuated - and you can potentially

have a 320mm difference between the 300/4 vs the 400/5.6 - not an insignificant

difference. </I><P>

 

Alas, my befuddlement has increased. 300 mm + 1.4X is <B><I>awfully</b></i>

similar to 400 mm.<P>

 

<I>IMO, such holes (needs, rather) shud be filled by the third-party guys like sigma,

tamron etc.</I><P>

 

Apparently they decided that there wasn't any money in 400/5.6 lenses and all have

discontinued their manufacture as of a couple of years ago or so. The Canon is one of

the few (perhaps the only?) 400/5.6 still being made.<P>

 

Regarding GGG's question: my guess is that Canon won't upgrade the 400/5.6 to an IS

version anytime soon, although a lot of us would be very happy if they did.

[digitmstr]

>><i>300mm is not long enough for most wildlife shots. 400 mm gives you an extra 100mm</i><<

<p>

But, that's the point of using the 300+1.4 TC. The comparison <b>is</b> very relevant because the resulting focal lenght is 420mm f/5.6 <i>with</i> IS. So, that beats the 400 f/5.6 prime...and that IS exactly the reason why Canon will NOT upgrade the 400 f/5.6.

<p>

If you put an 1.4 TC on the 400 you will get a resulting f/8 thus, you can't compare them any longer since the aperture is different.

[andrew robertson]

So, GGG, did you order the 400 f/4 DO IS yet? Put your money where your mouth is or

just 'make due' with the 300 f/4L IS + 1.4x TC like the rest of us.

[g_guhan_gunaratnam2]

Put my money where my mouth is? Did anyone else read that? You're a joke buddy. The DO was never mentioned nor considered...except by you.

 

To everyone else...thanks for the discussion! It seems that the consensus is no - they won't release an IS version, for logical reasons. It does also seem that there are some of us who would buy one if it was available...also not a surprise. And then there are some who think buying lenses is a battle of some kind. Also not a surprise to anyone whose been on this forum for a while. Keep on fighting!

[andrew robertson]

No, YOU are the joke, whining on a Canon forum about a topic that's been covered every

two weeks on this forum for at least a year.

 

Quoth GGG: "I'd buy a 400 f4IS at 2x the price if it was available."

 

It is, but at more like 4-5x the price.

[yakim_peled1]

When attaching 1.4X TC to the 300/4 IS, AF speed slows down and hunting time increases. For birding that might be an issue. As I only do that occasionally, the 300/4 IS + 1.4X is a better package for me.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[rokkor fan]

The 400mm f/5.6 vs. the 300mm f/4 IS + 1.4 converter debate has been going on for ages on just about every forum. However, to make it easy for you, here is the general consensus.

 

<p>If 400mm is as long as you need to go, and you want some flexibilty with your lens, get the 300mm + 1.4x combination. This has the advantage of offering an exceptionally close focusing distance (1.5m vs. 3.5m) and so can be used for general photography more readily. The 300mm also offers IS of course, great if you are shooting still subjects handheld.

 

<p>If you are looking to extend past 400mm, OR if you need fast focusing, OR if you need maximum image quality at 400mm then get the 400mm. Based upon Canon's MTF charts the 400mm f/5.6 is considerably better than the 300mm f/4 + 1.4x (specifically with respect to meridional lines) which means sharper corners and better background blur. The 400mm is also regarded as one of the fastest focusing teles in the Canon stable, and is faster than the 300mm before the addition of a teleconverter, let alone after it.

 

<p>The 400mm is regarded as an outstanding lens for birds in flight, and as a lightweight long lens for tripod use is well suited. The 300mm is a more useable and versatile lens if you only shoot birds occasionally, and want to double the lens as a handheld portrait lens etc. I got the 300mm, because I found the IS feature important and because the close focus ability meant I could use the lens for portraiture, really throwing the background out at close distances. However, if I was a serious bird photographer I would probably have chosen the 400mm. For birding, fast focus counts, as does every extra mm.

[mark_chappell]

<I>When attaching 1.4X TC to the 300/4 IS, AF speed slows down and hunting time

increases.</i><P>

 

I think Yakim hit the nail on the head as to why many people who like to photograph birds

in

flight prefer the 400/5.6 over the 300+1.4X, even though the 400 lacks IS. Apparently (I

don't have one so this is

not based on experience), the 400's not-so-good close-focus limit of about 4 meters

reduces

the range over which the focus mechanism has to work, so it's extremely quick to lock on.

That's a valid point, but if, in fact there is a trade-off between close focus and rapid focus

(sounds logical to me), I'm not sure which I would prefer -- both traits are very useful at

times. I've

also heard (but not tested) that switching off IS speeds up AF a bit on stabilized

telephotos.

[andrew robertson]

It's also possible to speed up the focusing speed of the 300 f/4L IS a LOT by engaging the

focus limiter.

[mark_chappell]

<I>It's also possible to speed up the focusing speed of the 300 f/4L IS a LOT by engaging

the focus limiter.</i><P>

 

This may not be quite the same thing as what makes the 400/5.6 so quick to lock on

within its focus limits. With the limiter in place, the 300/4 (or whatever tele is in use) has

less focus range to hunt within, so it will get from minimal to maximal focus distance

quicker than it would over the full focus range, and the time loss due to a focus

undershoot or overshoot is reduced. But I don't think (?) it's getting from, say, 20 m to 30

m any faster with focus limit engaged than without -- the motor isn't moving the elements

any faster since the motor speed and 'gearing' hasn't changed. And I don't think the

ability to track a fast-

moving object is improved -- that is, how quickly the lens+camera can adjust focus to

maintain a sharp image of a moving target. At least that's the impression I have with my

500/4. Might be interesting to test this.

[h_goering]

"If you use extenders, the difference is further accentuated - and you can potentially have a 320mm difference between the 300/4 vs the 400/5.6 - not an insignificant difference.

Alas, my befuddlement has increased. 300 mm + 1.4X is awfully similar to 400 mm"

 

a) Without extennders, on a 1.6X crop, the difference between the 300/4 and 400/5.6 is 100*1.6 = 160mm

 

b) With a 1.4X entender, the 300/4 can reach 300*1.6*1.4 = 672mm while the 400/5.6 can reach 400*1.6*1.4 = 896mm -672, the difference 224mm

 

c) with a 2X entender, the 300/4 can reach 300*1.6*2 = 960 mm while the 400/5.6 can reach 400*1.6*2 = 12806mm - the difference 1280-960=320mm

 

Hence, the max difference can possibly be 320mm. You would not normally wish to use a 2x extender on a 400/5.6 as it would be difficult to focus. However, when reach is needed and you cannot afford a 500/4 or 500/4.5, then the 320mm does help

[whayne_padden]

We can never answer this question for you as it is a agonzing decision that must be based on your priorities. However, given that there is no imminent release of a 400 f/5.6L IS - and I think Canon want's you to use the 300 f/4L IS + 1.4x TC option instead, then one option that I have considered is the 300 f/2.8L IS + TC's. Ok not cheap, but a lot cheaper than the 400 f/4 IS DO, but this lens gives stunning image quality even with a 1.4x TC and very good image quality with a 2x TC. It does AF faster than the 300 f/4L IS and with TC's is sharper. There is still the issue of how much AF speed is affected by the TC's and according to Canon you will see about a 70% slower Af speed with a 2x TC attached, but it may be still fast enough for most situations.

 

Ideally I would get the 400 f/4 DO IS if Canon dropped it to a realistic price - even the same as the 300 f/2.8L IS. It has been shown by some that the 400 f/4 DO IS + 1.4x TC = 560 f/5.6 DO IS is about as sharp as the 300 f/2.8L IS + 2.0xTC = 600 f/5.6L IS, but is much lighter. Rather than a 400 f/5.6L IS - although this would be tempting, I would like to see a Canon 500 f/5.6L IS as this is a worthwhile jump from the 300 I already own. I'm guessing it could come in at ~2kg in weight and maybe $2500-3000. If you own a 1D2 say then with a 1.4x TC you could end up (effectively) with a pretty good 910 f/8L IS which still AF's.

[andrew robertson]

I haven't ever had a problem with the 300 f/4L IS being too slow to focus on things. Even

things like race cars, hummingbirds, and jet fighters. Really, unless you are shooting the

SR-71 flying straight at you, I doubt you could find a subject that moves faster than it can

focus.