ef 400mm f 5,6 usm

[erik_van_bogaert]

Why don't they make this lens with IS function ? it would be very succesfull i

think.

[jim_doty]

I think so too.

 

The IS version of this lens will be announced about 2 months after you buy the non-IS version. If you would order it soon, it will help the rest of us that are hoping to see an IS version!

 

Jim

[ott_luuk]

I ordered the current version a few days ago. Hopefully you get your IS version soon ;-). Seriously, though, the strong point of this lens is IMHO the simple construction. 7 elements in 6 groups keeps it lightweight, flare resistant and sharp at less cost. The current lens sells for more than $1000 new. What do you think an IS version would cost? More importantly - how would Canon set the price in order to sell it and still keep the 100-400L profits healthy?

 

I think the current lens is fine as is and if anything in the super telephoto area, Canon should be working on a response to Nikon`s 200-400/4 VR.

[mark_chappell]

This subject seems to arise once or twice a year -- a perennial favorite. Look into the

archives.

[User_1172872]

I'd really like to have a 400 5.6 with IS and close-focus to about 6 feet. But I suspect the problem is the size of the market. A decade ago, Tokina and Sigma offered 400mm, 5.6 lenses, both are discontinued. Nikon has never offered a 400mm, 5.6 autofocus lens. Pentax offered one, it was very expensive, and it didn't stay on the market very long either.

[bobatkins]

The question probably is would you pay $$1600-$1700 for it?

 

An IS version might sell because it had IS, or it might not sell at all because it was too expensive for a 400/5.6, which is a pretty slow lens.

 

You might say it shouldn't cost that much, but I bet it would. Maybe more. Canon would have to recover development costs on a small number of lens sales.

 

It would be competing with the 100-400/5.6L IS, which gives you IS at 400mm for around $1450. Same speed, same focal length, plus 100-399mm of zoom range. Not quite as sharp of course, but for many users that may not be the most important factor.

[keith_lubow]

Hello,

 

I would think about what you will be shooting before you decide if you want/need IS, and would try to understand what IS really does (assuming you don't already know all about it).

 

IS is for hand held shots of still or fairly still object in low light, and that's about it. All it does is reduce the need to carry a tripod/monopod for many things. It also gives you freedom to be spontaneous. It can bail you out if you have gone out shooting during the day expecting to be able to hand hold for everything, but stumble across something very cool, yet lowly lit (tunnels, interior portaits, etc...often I go out scouting for architectural shots with my digital, planning on coming back with the 4X5, and am invited in for on-the-spot portraits.) It does NOT give you "stops", in terms of making the lens a faster lens. That is, a 5.6 two stop IS lens is NOT equivalent to a 2.8 lens. Thinking that is a huge mistake. ALL it does is let you use slower shutter speeds than you normally could without a tripod. This gives you more exposure, but to refer to the advantages it offers as "stops" is misleading to folks less technically inclined. A shutter speed is a shutter speed, and a given shutter speed maintains all its characteristics (as far as motion blur and exposure), IS or no IS, at any aperture, with any camera (assuming speeds are close to correct!), etc.

 

Now think about this before you say you need it. This means it'll let you use your 400mm lens hand held at '100 instead of '400. Think about what situations that is really good for. Definitely not your traditonal fast moving sports! Maybe good for chess tournaments! If you're not shooting sports...say wildlife...it will be more useful, but even then '100 is going to be too slow to stop action in some (maybe many) cases.

 

The other, equally great advantage is that you can use lower ISOs at the same exposure value.

 

...but even then, why rely on it unless you have to? It's a great and welcome improvement over not having it at all, but not as good and sharp as simply bringing a tripod or monopod. Basically, it is a bailout from laziness and lack of preparedness. I don't mean that in a bad way, though. I'm more talking about myself than anyone else.

 

Keith

[keith_lubow]

...that last sentence should have read: "...an aid to laziness or a bailout from lack of preparedness."

 

Keith

[mark_chappell]

<I>IS is for hand held shots of still or fairly still object in low light, and that's about it.

</i><P>

 

Really? I guess I've been in error using it for pictures of <A HREF="http://faculty.ucr.edu/

~chappell/INW/flyingindex.html">flying birds and insects</a> all these years.

[lester_wareham]

"IS is for hand held shots of still or fairly still object in low light"

 

Not so. IS will help with monopod use. Depending on the version, lens length, tripod and wind conditions it may help with a tripod.

 

Of course it can be used with moving subjects, most long IS lenses have a tracking mode that allows you to pan. Perhaps what the respondent means is IS does not help you if the subject needs a high shutter speed to freeze movement.

 

Yes a 400/4.5 IS would I think sell well. The alternatives are the 100-400 zoom or the 300 f4L IS + 1.4X, I went with the latter.

[keith_lubow]

Mark:

 

I didn't mean to imply that you were in error in any way, or to make any rules to follow. There are many uses for IS. Almost all of them are covered by my statement, however, and those that aren't are excluded by the word "about", which is why I used the word. I even mentioned in the post that it would be more suited for the wildlife that you like to shoot.

 

The point is that IS is not magic that allows you to break the laws of photography, and that many people who think they need it do not. I am a lover of cool camera stuff, but I opted for the non IS version of my 70-200. I have rented several lenses over the last year that happened to have IS, and didn't really end up using it except to test it out. I chose the non-IS version to save some money and weight, and reduce the cost of break downs and repair costs in the future.

 

Keith

[mark_chappell]

Keith: my point is that there are plenty of situations were IS is valuable besides making

hand-held images of static subjects in low light. It seemed to me that you pretty much

excluded those additional possibilities with the 'that's about it' statement.

 

I'd agree that IS becomes more and more valuable as focal length increases, and that it

does nothing to stop subject motion, and it certainly doesn't increase the light-gathering

capacity of a lens. But you are forgetting lots of possible uses. For example if one is

tracking a moving target and don't want camera shake to muck up image quality. This

scenario is very common in wildlife work, and in sports -- your lens may be on a tripod,

but you can't lock the head if you want to track something in motion. Also, there are

camera shake problems even at speeds shorter than the 1/focal length rule. And so forth.