Canon needs this lens

Ok I want Canon to make a 400mm f4 IS like the 300mm version. Anyone with me? I keep saying that at all the shows I go to and the Canon rep stooges look at me like I'm crazy. Anyway I think that would be a great lens to have. Keep it under 1800$, L series, it would fly off the shelf. Maybe thats why they don't make it.......

Canon already makes a 400/4 IS....It costs quite a bit more than $1800.

Canon has already fulfilled your wish... LINK
The only little thing you don't have right is the price.

vpnd wrote in post #11499331
Ok I want Canon to make a 400mm f4 IS like the 300mm version. Anyone with me? I keep saying that at all the shows I go to and the Canon rep stooges look at me like I'm crazy. Anyway I think that would be a great lens to have. Keep it under 1800$, L series, it would fly off the shelf. Maybe thats why they don't make it.......

This lens is never going to be $1800. Not even close.

Now granted, the 400/4 DO is very pricy due to the DO optics. So make a conventional 400/4 IS and it will be less than the DO.

To get an idea how much, think about what this is similar to.

Put a 1.4X TC on the 300/2.8 IS and you now have a 420/4 IS. So this is pretty much the lens you are wanting.

How much does the 300/2.8 IS cost? The old one was $4300 and the new V2 one is $7000. The 400/4 IS would probably list about 20% higher.

May be a bad example because it's a zoom and keeping a constant aperture is more problematic but the Nikon 200-400 is a constant f/4 and it costs nearly $7K!

400 f/4 for $1800 or less? Not gonna happen...

300mm f4 IS is what 1500 bucks? not a DO , If they made a 400mm version it would sell. I'm not talking about slapping a 1.4 on a 300mm 2.8. That would kind of defeat the purpose wouldn't it. (price).

Look I don't want to sound angry or anything, but the price for a DO or slapping a tc on a 300mm 2.8 is not what I'm saying. What I want is a lens that is L series quality, f4 is fine, IS. not a zoom (100-400), the 300mm f4 version is 1259$ on bh right now. I shoot professionally with an 85L, 24-70, 70-200, 17-40, etc. I want the 400 for birds and sports for me. If it was under 2000 I could save my pennies. I'm not buying a 6000 lens for personal use. Hope I dont sound angry.

A 300mm lens needs a minimum physical aperture diameter of 75mm to achieve f/4. A 400mm would need that diameter to jump to 100mm for f/4. That will need to be a big lens to achieve that, and economically I would think completely impossible to come in at your suggested price level.

vpnd wrote in post #11502651
Look I don't want to sound angry or anything, but the price for a DO or slapping a tc on a 300mm 2.8 is not what I'm saying.

I understand what you are thinking, but you are mistaken. Making the 300/4 a 'mere' 33% longer with the same maximum aperture ratio is not a small shift. It's huge.

And my comparison to the 300/2.8 + 1.4X TC is very apt. The hypothetical EF 400/4 IS would be very similar to the 300/2.8+TC in size, weight and cost.

You know, the DO technology is intended to make lenses especially small and light. Look how huge the 400/4 DO is. The lens you want would necessarily be bigger and heavier than the 400/4 DO, right?

Not angry, just mistaken. When you get into the range of 300+mm lenses, every stop in aperture makes a lens a huge step greater in size and cost.

Here is another way to look at this. Compare the EF 400/5.6L (about the same size as the 300/4 IS) and then the EF 400/2.8L IS (which is 12 pounds in the old version and $12,000 in the new version). The 400/4 is going to be somewhere between these, and I venture it will be at least halfway from the f/5.6 to the f/2.8.

If it was only that easy to tell a corporation to change their prices...
OP, keep going. If it works I've got some other prices I'd like to see drop

vpnd wrote in post #11502651
Look I don't want to sound angry or anything, but the price for a DO or slapping a tc on a 300mm 2.8 is not what I'm saying. What I want is a lens that is L series quality, f4 is fine, IS. not a zoom (100-400), the 300mm f4 version is 1259$ on bh right now. I shoot professionally with an 85L, 24-70, 70-200, 17-40, etc. I want the 400 for birds and sports for me. If it was under 2000 I could save my pennies. I'm not buying a 6000 lens for personal use. Hope I dont sound angry.

300/4 requires a 75mm optical path. This is about the same size aperture as a 135 f2, 400mm f5.6, 200mm f2.8, and 85mm f1.2. Those lenses sell for $750-$1800.

400mm f4 requires a 100mm optical path. Other lenses in that same class are the 200mm f2 and 300mm f2.8. Those sell for about $4400-5000. Totally different league.

One other interesting thing to note is that all those cheaper third party 500mm zooms, are actually 500mm f6.3, which leaves a 79mm diameter and puts them back in pretty much the same class as the 300mm f4 and 400mm f5.6.

vpnd wrote in post #11502651
Look I don't want to sound angry or anything, but the price for a DO or slapping a tc on a 300mm 2.8 is not what I'm saying. What I want is a lens that is L series quality, f4 is fine, IS. not a zoom (100-400), the 300mm f4 version is 1259$ on bh right now. I shoot professionally with an 85L, 24-70, 70-200, 17-40, etc. I want the 400 for birds and sports for me. If it was under 2000 I could save my pennies. I'm not buying a 6000 lens for personal use. Hope I dont sound angry.

Why would you choose to be angry over such a matter? It's a lens under discussion not the next election.

David

canon 400mm f5.6= $1200

you're asking for an extra stop, and IS...that's certainly going to cost you...the stop alone would probably double the price...putting an IS unit in it...i'm guessing you'd be at $3,000

DreDaze wrote in post #11504215
canon 400mm f5.6= $1200

you're asking for an extra stop, and IS...that's certainly going to cost you...the stop alone would probably double the price...putting an IS unit in it...i'm guessing you'd be at $3,000

Using the 200mm f2.8 and 300mm f4 as a point of reference, I think your estimates are very low.

200mm f2.8 -> 200mm f2 IS = 7x price increase
300mm f4 -> 300mm f2.8 = 4x price increase (already had IS, though)

tkbslc wrote in post #11504273
Using the 200mm f2.8 and 300mm f4 as a point of reference, I think your estimates are very low.

200mm f2.8 -> 200mm f2 IS = 7x price increase
300mm f4 -> 300mm f2.8 = 4x price increase (already had IS, though)

85/1.8L => 85/1.2L = 5X price increase