EF 400 f/4 L IS USM [Archive] - The-Digital-Picture.com Community

alexniedra

06-14-2009, 11:37 PM

Alright Canon - The time is now. The 400 f/4 DO is awesome, except the DO technology, IMO, isn't quite there in terms of contrast and saturation. Many find the weight of the 400 f/2.8 IS over the top for hiking, or where any quick moving is required. So, we're left with a few compromises to make: Weight, or image quality?

Why not neither. Why not make a 400 f/4 L IS? Here's my vision:

As the newest addition to Canon's renowned series of professional super telephoto lenses, the EF 400 f/4 L IS is a relatively portable, ultra high performance telephoto lens with a wide f/4 aperture. Implemented with Canon's latest Image Stabalizer, the EF 400 f/4 L IS corrects camera shake by an effective 4 stops, and can be programmed to correct only vertical shake with IS mode 2. UD (Ultra-low Dispersion), Super-UD, and Flourite elements are utilized to correct secondary chromatic abberations. Super-spectra coatings are used to maximize contrast and colour balance. With its rugged magesium-alloy construction, this lens is built to professional standards, and complements weather sealing when used with EOS 1D and 1V, along with EF "II" teleconverters.

Alright Canon, I just gave you the product description. Now, make it!

Tony Printezis

06-15-2009, 05:13 AM

+1!

I've also been thinking that it'd be awesome if Canon could make a "traditional" (i.e., no DO) 400m f/4 IS. If it was priced reasonably (<=$2,000), I'd buy it instantly!

Tony

Jon Ruyle

06-15-2009, 12:52 PM

I'd want one. Anywhere near $2000 and I'd get it automatically. But if canon's other telephotos are any indication, it would cost a lot more than that.

EdN

06-15-2009, 12:52 PM

+2!

I would second that Tony! I would also consider the 500 f/5.6 IS L that people mention. Just keep it light and <=$2,000.

Jon Ruyle

06-15-2009, 01:20 PM

I would second that Tony! I would also consider the 500 f/5.6 IS L that people mention. Just keep it light and <=$2,000.

I want that, too :)

ShutterbugJohan

06-15-2009, 01:35 PM

FWIW, I'd prefer to see a 200-400/4L IS USM ($3,000?) and a 70-300/4L IS USM (under $1500?). But, I wouldn't complain if Canon did introduce a non-DO 400/4L IS USM.

alexniedra

06-15-2009, 03:09 PM

If it was priced reasonably (<=$2,000), I'd buy it instantly!

I would, too! But, based on Canon's track record with their super telephotos, I expect an MSRP in the range of anywhere from $2000 to $4000.

Even at $3500, and my high school budget, I would want one, and be willing to save money to get one.

In terms of specs, I'd expect image and optical quality as good as or better than the best (current [:D]) L lenses. If Canon were to go through with this, I predict all of the super telephoto features - Weather sealing, protective front element, focus recall, etc.

I find that 400 f/4 is a good aperture/weight/size combination. I wouldn't imagine it to be too heavy, maybe a little heavier than the 300 2.8 L IS. F/4 is fast enough for many lighting conditions, and provides very nice bokeh with the 400mm focal length.

This could very well end up being a very succesfull outdoor sports, bird, and wildlife lens.

Bob

06-15-2009, 07:11 PM

Mark Elberson

06-15-2009, 07:43 PM

<span style="font-size: 6pt; font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; color: black;"]

<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: black;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]ShutterbugJohan

<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: black;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]Good choice! <span>200 - 400 f4 IS.

<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: black;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]A 400 fixed is too limiting for general outdoor photography.

<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: black;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]As far as price, IS cost about $500 more than non-IS, so the lens should go for $1700 to $2000 max to be a fair value. Considering that you can buy the current 100-400 IS zoom new for $1379.<span> The proposed 200 – 400 should be a lot better than the current 100 - 400 lens.

Nikon makes a 200-400mm f/4 ("http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/300488-USA/Nikon_2146_200_400mm_f_4_G_AFS_ED_IF.html) and it goes for $6,299.95 at B&H. The problem is the f/4. To get a zoom with that range at f/4 is going to take a lot of glass which means it's going to be VERY expensive...and heavy! The Nikon weighs in at 7.2 lbs!!

alexniedra

06-15-2009, 08:04 PM

Good choice! <span>200 - 400 f4 IS

From a versitality standpoint, this lens would be awesome. But...

Let's take a look at the Nikon counterpart, the 200-400 f/4 G-AFS ED-IF VR. Wow, quite the tongue twister[:D].

Weight: 7.2 lbs

Price: 6,279.00 (ouch!)

So, this lens fiits in neither the light or inexpensive category. Even if optical quality is at least decent, I can't see myself buying this sort of lens. At $6,300, over double the predicted price by many here, I'm better off financially and optically with primes covering the zoom range of this lens.

Think about it:

I can get:

Canon 300 f/2.8 L IS (~$4100)
1.4 extender (~300)
Canon 70-200 2.8 L IS (~$1500)

And $300 to spare!

Okay, obviously I am comparing apples to oranges here... But I just wanted to put the price of Nikon's 200-400 f/4 zoom in perspective[:)].

So, after seeing the specs and price of Nikon's offering of a 200-400 f/4 zoom, the price, IMO, of a similiar Canon lens will be very substantial, and much higher than the predicted $2000-$3000 of many in the forum.

Alan

06-15-2009, 08:43 PM

I want a 12-1200 f/4 L IS, and I want it for $500.

Isn't science fiction great??

alexniedra

06-15-2009, 08:56 PM

How about f/2.8?

Let's call it the EF 12-1200 f/2.8 L IS USM.

MSRP: $500

Weight: 3 lbs

[:D]

Alan

06-15-2009, 09:32 PM

How about f/2.8?

Let's call it the EF 12-1200 f/2.8 L IS USM.

MSRP: $500

Weight: 3 lbs

/emoticons/emotion-2.gif
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

Now you're talking!!

piiooo

06-15-2009, 10:16 PM

Whoeverdiscoveredthe pinhole in a box had no idea... [:O]

ShutterbugJohan

06-16-2009, 02:08 AM

OK, I admit that my 200-400/4L IS USM proposed MSRP of $3000 was very low.

Let's take a look at the Nikon counterpart, the 200-400 f/4 G-AFS ED-IF VR. Wow, quite the tongue twister/emoticons/emotion-2.gif.

Weight: 7.2 lbs

Price: 6,279.00 (ouch!)

I can get:

Canon 300 f/2.8 L IS (~$4100)
1.4 extender (~300)
Canon 70-200 2.8 L IS (~$1500)

And $300 to spare!

This would give you more range, but it would weigh nearly the same (or more), and, as you pointed out, it is nearly as expensive.

Even if optical quality is at least decent, I can't see myself buying this sort of lens. At $6,300, over double the predicted price by many here, I'm better off financially and optically with primes covering the zoom range of this lens.

So, after seeing the specs and price of Nikon's offering of a 200-400 f/4 zoom, the price, IMO, of a similiar Canon lens will be very substantial, and much higher than the predicted $2000-$3000 of many in the forum.

I do not believe that a 400/4L IS USM could be sold in the $2000-$3000 price range. Although it would have an effective aperture of f4, f4 on a 400mm lens is 100mm (400/4=100). In comparison, the 300/2.8L IS USM ($4100 at B&H) has an effective aperture of f2.8, which works out to an aperture of 107.14mm (300/2.8=107.14). Thus, I would expect a non-DO 400/4L IS USM to retail for close to what the 300/2.8L IS USM does; somewhere between $3500-$4500, bringing it (somewhat) closer to the price of a 200-400/4L.

Also, if the 400/4 were to weigh as much as the 300/2.8, the Nikon 200-400/4 is only 2-3lbs. heavier.

Bob

06-16-2009, 12:55 PM

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"]<span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;"]You would think this was a serious forum, but the next advances in serious lens technology will be <span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;"]manufactured by injection molding of a<span lang="EN"] “plastic” lens elements – a possible “hybrid lens”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"]
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"]<span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;"]<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"]A number of manufactures have been experimenting with non-glass elements, providing a lighter and much less costly lens.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] Therefore, every element could be aspheric if required. Is the optic quality High? It is getting very close.
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"]<span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;"]So is Canon going to make one?

Alan

06-16-2009, 03:19 PM

I doubt this will happen.

First, plastic degrades. No one will buy a lens that eventually breaks down, due to exposure to UV.

Second, it's got a problem with expansion and contraction that is worse than the glass.

Third, it will scratch more easily, making handling it in day-to-day environments problematic.

Fourth, depending on the polymer, it will slowly yellow on exposure to UV, changing the color of the image right out of the camera.

Fifth, many polymers are "hazed" by exposure to certain solvents, chemicals, etc. This increases its chance of being damaged.

Jon Ruyle

06-16-2009, 05:26 PM

How does plastic do with chromatic abberation? I would guess terrible, but I don't know.

Bob

06-16-2009, 05:40 PM

Alan

06-16-2009, 06:19 PM

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"]<span style="line-height: 115%; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';"]
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"]<span style="line-height: 115%; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: black;"]Alan,

<span style="line-height: 115%; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: black;"]
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"]<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: black;"]Don’t want to burst your bubble, but optical "plastics" are already used by the military.<span> The remarks you stated can be true for old types of non optical “plastics”. The chemistry of "plastics" has had many developments over the past 5 years. By the way, a “Hybrid Lens” uses both plastics and glass.<span> What is glass – many different things?<span style="line-height: 115%; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';"]

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"]<span style="line-height: 115%; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: black;"]<span style="line-height: 115%; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';"]

<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

I'm not doubting that they use optical plastics in the military. For precision optics, I question the use in lenses, in the field, where the average joe is using them.

Glass is a generic term, but the average person understands this term to be glass, as in window glass. It's amorphous, but it is essentially (though, not exclusively) one thing: silicon dioxide. Plastics, on the other hand, are synthesized from small molecules, and have other components in them, such as plasticizers, flexibilizers, stabilizers. All of these contribute to give the plastic its characteristic (flexibility, processing temp., etc.)

Glass in lenses is just not as complicated. It's purity of the glass, and it's formation to give optically clear devices that matters highly.

Another thing to consider is refractive index of the two materials.

They might well make a hybrid, but what part is the glass, and what part is the plastic?

I'm not holding my breath on the changeover. Until then, I'm sticking with glass.

Tony Printezis

06-29-2009, 07:39 PM

(a bit of an old thread, but I hope it's OK that I try to resurrect it)

I do not believe that a 400/4L IS USM could be sold in the $2000-$3000 price range.

I admit that my initial < $2,000 estimation was a bit optimistic. However, I recently found out that Minolta has a 400m f/4.5 prime (non-IS, they have IS in the body) for around $1,700. So, is it unreasonable for a potential Canon 400m f4 IS to be under $3,000?

Tony

Colin

06-29-2009, 09:58 PM

Unfortunately, probably.

Considering that a 500mm f/4 IS is $5,800 at B&H, I think 400mm equivalent under $3,000 isn't likely.

alexniedra

06-29-2009, 10:10 PM

I think 400mm equivalent under $3,000 isn't likely.

Unfortunately, me too. But even at a good $4000, I would want one, and be willing to save up my (scarce) high school money to get one. [H]

Colin

06-30-2009, 01:03 AM

Yeah, though at $4,000, I'd wonder why I just didn't get the F2.8....

Give me a F5.6 with weather sealing and IS under $2K, and I'll bite...

Tony Printezis

07-12-2009, 04:56 PM

Canon Rumors reported a couple of days ago that Canon are working on a 400m f/4.5 IS:

http://www.canonrumors.com/2009/07/ef-400-f4-5l-is-cr1/ ("http://www.canonrumors.com/2009/07/ef-400-f4-5l-is-cr1/)

The rumor is low probability though (CR1) so, of course!, take it with a (big!) grain of salt.

Tony