EF 400 f/4 L IS USM

[alexniedra]

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]

+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]

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]

+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]

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]

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]

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 []) 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]

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


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


<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: black;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]Good choice! <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"]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. <o></o>


<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 style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] The proposed 200 &ndash; 400 should be a lot better than the current 100 - 400 lens.<o></o>

[Mark Elberson]

<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 &ndash; 400 should be a lot better than the current 100 - 400 lens.

Nikon makes a 200-400mm f/4 and it goes for $6,299.95 at B&amp;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]

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[].


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.