Canon 300/400/500mm - time for refresh?

[bbbig]

As I understand these lenses came out back in 1999 - that's 9 yrs already! What do you think of the chance of MkII models on these? Not a day goes by w/o drooling over a 300mm f/2.8! :D

[4g63photo]

I wonder if they did some out with a ver 2, what would the change? Maybe the weight, although its not too back.

[bbbig]

I wonder if they did some out with a ver 2, what would the change? Maybe the weight, although its not too back.

I'm thinking 4-stop IS, lighter weight, shorter length - or may be same size & weight & price at f/1.8?!?!

[Dr D]

...lighter weight, shorter length ...
Sounds like you want a DO version of the lens, which means the price will unfortunately go up :confused:

[Neilyb]

If Canon brught out a 400mm L IS 5.6 it would be a seller!

[doublme]

If Canon brought out a 400mm L IS 5.6 it would be a seller!
Oh yes, I would be the first line to get it (although it would take some time before it got to Estonia)!

[JC4]

More DO choices would be welcome, especially if they managed to reduce the added cost a bit. I'd consider a 500 DO. Or better yet, a 200-500 f/4 DO

Other than that, yea they could probably use an updated IS. But, there isn't a lot of room for improvement in the optics, and the weight reduction already happened. Maybe closer MFD?

[doublme]

More DO choices would be welcome, especially if they managed to reduce the added cost a bit. I'd consider a 500 DO. Or better yet, a 200-500 f/4 DO

Other than that, yea they could probably use an updated IS. But, there isn't a lot of room for improvement in the optics, and the weight reduction already happened. Maybe closer MFD?

Yes, I also ain't against DO if only they managed to make it cheap. I mean - look at the price of 70-300 DO and 400 DO - not very cheap for the quality, I must say.

[CyberDyneSystems]

I'd rather see new lenses as options than to see these repalced. Canon has plenty of holes as compared to some otehr manufacturers, even third parties like SIGMA,.

So rolle out the options.

The only existing supertele lenses I want to see updated are even older than the Primes you mention in the OP,

ie: Add is to the 400mm f/5.6L
and update the 100-400mm with better modern AF and IS.

New lenses, a smaller 500mm with slower aperture and IS (I'd love to see an f/6.3 Prime about the size of the Bigma with IS in the $1K-$1.5K range)

A large one @ f/5.6 would be nice, but the price and size jumps a lot.
We know a 600mm f/5.6 we be the same size and cost as a 300mm f/2.8 Prime, so a 500mm f/5.6 would be close to that cost as well.

Then there are those marvelous SIGMA and Nikon Zooms that Canon has no answer for,
120-300mm f/2.8
100-300mm f/4
and the pricey large supertele's
200-400mm f/4
300-800mm f/5.6

[Tom W]

Of all those you've mentioned, CDS, the 200-400 f/4 is the most enticing to me. What a nice finish to the holy trinity of zooms - 16-35, 24-70, 70-200, and 200-400. Of course, it would not be cheap! :)

[MrChad]

Most of these lenses have new versions...

They are called VR Nikkors and you can order them soon. Seriously, if need an update to more then one of the above mentioned super-teles/super-zoom - I fail to see how pairing them with a Nikon D3 couldn't be out of the question.

On another side note many of the motorsport or sport photographers in general that I know use the current gen of Canon teles; however, you'd be surprised at how often they don't use the IS feature, sic.

If I'm shooting HS football with a zoom like the 100-400L I turn it off, I'm just moving the lens around too quickly to have it be of value for me. Not to say I don't have value for it, I just don't use it as often as I thought I would. So an update to 4-stop IS wouldn't gain me much IMO. Not sure how others feel, anyone find their 70-200 IS or super tele IS to be an issue as is?

[ChrisSearle]

500mm f5.6L iS. Smaller, lighter and cheaper than the 500/4.
If they make one I'll buy it.

[MrChad]

500mm f5.6L iS. Smaller, lighter and cheaper than the 500/4.
If they make one I'll buy it.

Really?
You are still likely looking at a lens the size of a 300mm/2.8 IS and costing the same.

Siggy's 500/4.5 is what we use to have from Canon, it's not a bad lens either and cheaper.

[vpnd]

If Canon brught out a 400mm L IS 5.6 it would be a seller!
400mm F/4 IS @ $1200 would be a dream come true.

[Liam:]

400mm F/4 IS @ $1200 would be a dream come true.

I believe canon spent a rather lot of money on their magical DO optics so would never make anything that would take away the sales of that. I would have thought you would have to kiss away your hopes of a 400mm f5.6 IS and a 400mm f4 IS.

I can only hope I am proved wrong.........

[Tom W]

400mm F/4 IS @ $1200 would be a dream come true.

It would be a dream, but you won't see that kind of price on such a large lens.

[MrChad]

Folks should go check out the types of lenses companies such as Canon have been churning out for years.

200, 300, 400, 500, 600, and 800mm primes have been the norm for years. Canon's basically re-introducing the 800/5.6 they had back in the FD line.

Almost every current super-tele is modern update of a past focal length and speed, and these have always been expensive to make lenses. And the size of lenses has largely been dictated by physics. The DO are the most revolutionary design in years but that doesn't come cheap for consumers.

Most of today's lenses have internal high-speed AF systems and IS systems. Much beyond that we don't have many new revolutionary designs and/or focal lengths.

A good but inexpensive 500mm might be a 500/8 reflex re-introduced with AF much like the Konica-Minolta/Sony lenses but w/ IS if possible.

If anything digital and better optics have made today's lenses larger and heavier - not smaller and lighter. The 400mm DO likely an exception, somewhat. And even so the Do is much heavier then the older 400mm/4.5 of years gone by - but AF and IS don't come for free and big glass has always been heavy.

I'm not trying to be a downer here, this post might sound a bit negative and that's not the case I'm trying to make at all.

[Britman]

but why update these lenses are pretty dam fine as is.

On side note, why don't they change some of the lens components, say use carbon fidre for the outer casing. Mind titanium and the like are probably easyer to mold/shape.

[col4bin]

why mess with perfection? is there something wrong with these lenses such that you would not purchase one?

[Dr D]

why mess with perfection? is there something wrong with these lenses such that you would not purchase one?
Yes ... the exorbitant price! ;)

[bbbig]

I am sure that lens engineering can ALWAYS get better. Just take a look at 70-200 f/4 IS, released in 2006, vs. previous 70-200s. Its optical performance is just superb. Some people even selling their 135 F/2 in favor of that lens. I'm pretty sure that 300/400/500mm can all benefit by going Mark II - we'll be looking back and re-thinking what "sharp" meant with the old lens.

[Larry Weinman]

The 300mm f 2.8 is the sharpest lens Canon makes. Why would they want to mess around with it?

[bbbig]

Cuz it can be even sharper!

[MrChad]

Cuz it can be even sharper!

No it can't it's not a compromised zoom lens.

[wallybud]

no such thing as too sharp ;)...i want blood spilt!