What If: EF 400mm f/5.6L IS

We've seen the 2010 Super Teles and the pricing are... mind-boggling for good reason.

With that in mind let us talk about the most popular super tele prime used by many talented wildlife photographers worldwide: the EF 400mm f/5.6L.

It is a good long lens that disgustingly easy to hand hold but lacks two things: Image Stabilization and Weather Sealing. Which is odd as it is most likely used outdoor.

So what if tomorrow Canon announces a EF 400mm f/5.6L with 4-stops of IS, weather sealing, weight reduction of 28%, improved build quality, improved image quality, closer minimum focus distance & other improvements found in the 2010 Super Teles would this be worth $2,175-2,300?

Price assumption is based on the pricing strategy of Canon for the 70-200 f/4 vs 70-200 f/4 IS & 70-200 f/2.8 vs 70-200 f/2.8 IS II.

I'd certainly appreciate it over my current 400 F/5.6 except for the weight difference (I personally think the weight helps stabilise it somewhat), but knowing that Canon would increase the asking price significantly I wouldn't bother upgrading.

My experience is that 1 out of every 4 or 5 shots at shutter speeds like 1/125s actually come out sharp - likely due to the good weight and balance - so the lack of IS doesn't ruin it for me. And I normally have enough light for much higher shutter speeds than that anyway.

IS, weather sealing, AND improved IQ? Sign me up, I'd buy it in a heart beat. Weight reduction and better build would be icing on the cake.

Hmm...sounds like speculation to me. While I don't mind seeing the 400 5.6 upgraded optically with 4 stop IS, I personally don't mind owning this lens over a 400 2.8.

I think I would stick to my 300mm f/4L IS + the occasional 1.4x teleconverter.
Now, if Canon released a 400mm f/4L IS (non-DO) for somewhere around $2,500 then I'd consider that.

There is the 100-400 it has IS at least, though not as sharp as a prime obviously.

I have the 400mm 5.6 and would upgrade if the proposed IS lens cost $1500 or less. I have no interest in the 100-400mm zoom.

I think IS on the 400 is long overdue!

I would stick with my current 400 but my opinion is skewed because I now have the 500 lens

One thing to consider above the change in MFD is that one of the reasons this lens has such good focus tracking is probably because there is not much travel for the autofocus. I think the thing that has impressed me the most about my 400L is the fast autofocus and the silky smooth tracking.

That being said, I'd love to have an IS version. 4 stops of IS would make this lens so much more versatile. I end up using a tripod about 90% of the time since I use it in the woods. Everything else I like about the lens. Awesome autofocus: check, sweet built in lens hood: check, light weight and great balance for BIF shots: check, superb autofocus: check. This is one of those lenses that you love if you've used it. The lack of IS turns A LOT of people away.

Not for that price. I could buy a used 100-400 AND a used 400 prime for that kind of money. It would have to be cheaper than that (perhaps $1600-$1700).

In2Photos wrote in post #10817768
Not for that price. I could buy a used 100-400 AND a used 400 prime for that kind of money. It would have to be cheaper than that (perhaps $1600-$1700).

As much as I'd love to see this, I would be willing to bet money that Canon will want more than that for the lens... You make a valid point about the 100-400 and 400 combo though.

40Driggs wrote in post #10817778
As much as I'd love to see this, I would be willing to bet money that Canon will want more than that for the lens... You make a valid point about the 100-400 and 400 combo though.

Oh I'm sure Canon wouldn't sell it for that! Which likely means I'm not buying! Unfortunately Canon hasn't produced anything lately that has me wanting to part with my money!

Just the IS will be nice. Don't care for less weight, thing is super light as is (when coming from superteles). Keep price under $2k which won't happen,

Better option would be 100-400L with updated IS and as sharp as 400mm f5.6.

bobbyz wrote in post #10817942
Better option would be 100-400L with updated IS and as sharp as 400mm f5.6.

A good quality of the zoom seems to be very close anyway, but the bokeh really turns me off (close grass/leaves/branches seems to bring out the worst of it unfortunately).