Faster Canon zooms

Think Canon will ever come out with a f/2.8 version of its 100-400 L IS USM or something similar? Image Stabilization supposedly compensates for the "slowness" of the f/5.6 lens, but an f/2.8 version would be outstanding (an very, very pricey, to say the least)!

Heard David Stoecklein talk about the 100-400 on "Photo Safari" the other night...he lauds it was the "most incredible" he's ever used! Agree?
--
EOS Junkie

Mitch Deaver said:

Think Canon will ever come out with a f/2.8 version of its 100-400
L IS USM or something similar?

Click to expand...

Rumor has it that there's supposed to be a 200-400/4 DO IS somewhere in the not-too-distant future. I don't care whether it's a 100-400, 100-300, or 200-400... as long as it's got IS and a constant (ie, non-variable) aperture (f/4 would be fantastic).

JCDoss
--
D30/BiG-ED
28-135IS, 50/1.4

Imagine how heavy that 100-400 2.8 would be...man!

JCDoss said:

Mitch Deaver said:

Think Canon will ever come out with a f/2.8 version of its 100-400
L IS USM or something similar?

Click to expand...

Rumor has it that there's supposed to be a 200-400/4 DO IS
somewhere in the not-too-distant future. I don't care whether it's
a 100-400, 100-300, or 200-400... as long as it's got IS and a
constant (ie, non-variable) aperture (f/4 would be fantastic).

JCDoss
--
D30/BiG-ED
28-135IS, 50/1.4

Click to expand...

--
Tory
D30
24 1.4L
20-35 2.8L
28-70 2.8L
100-400L

I can ... and have ... carried the 100-400L around all day, for several days. I don't think I would want to try that with an f/2.8 model ... it would have to weigh more than the prime ... which is almost twelve pounds!

Tory Gyberg said:

JCDoss said:

Mitch Deaver said:

Think Canon will ever come out with a f/2.8 version of its 100-400
L IS USM or something similar?

Click to expand...

Rumor has it that there's supposed to be a 200-400/4 DO IS
somewhere in the not-too-distant future. I don't care whether it's
a 100-400, 100-300, or 200-400... as long as it's got IS and a
constant (ie, non-variable) aperture (f/4 would be fantastic).

JCDoss
--
D30/BiG-ED
28-135IS, 50/1.4

Click to expand...

--
Tory
D30
24 1.4L
20-35 2.8L
28-70 2.8L
100-400L

Click to expand...

I was just going to comment on this myself. Wow... just take a look at the EF400/2.8L IS... and keep in mind zooms typically weigh even more.

Not only wouldn't you want to carry a 100-400/2.8L, but very few folks could afford such a beast. As others suggested, perhaps a 100-400/4. But quite honestly I wouldn't except to ever see such a lens from Canon.

I was initially excited by the "DO" technology but got turned off when I saw the selling price on the EF400 DO. I've also read reports that stated the DO image quality was not quite what many had hoped for.

-- John

Tory Gyberg said:

JCDoss said:

Mitch Deaver said:

Think Canon will ever come out with a f/2.8 version of its 100-400
L IS USM or something similar?

Click to expand...

Rumor has it that there's supposed to be a 200-400/4 DO IS
somewhere in the not-too-distant future. I don't care whether it's
a 100-400, 100-300, or 200-400... as long as it's got IS and a
constant (ie, non-variable) aperture (f/4 would be fantastic).

JCDoss
--
D30/BiG-ED
28-135IS, 50/1.4

Click to expand...

--
Tory
D30
24 1.4L
20-35 2.8L
28-70 2.8L
100-400L

Click to expand...

The lens is a 200-400 f/4, not 100-400. I bet we'll see this lens within a year.

Although their first DO lens was not what some had hoped for, the 400 f/4 has shown to be far superior to the 100-400L at 400. It's a prime of course, but it shows promise in the new technology. I'd expect a zoom to weigh maybe 7 pounds.

Jason

John Gayman said:

I was just going to comment on this myself. Wow... just take a look
at the EF400/2.8L IS... and keep in mind zooms typically weigh even
more.

Not only wouldn't you want to carry a 100-400/2.8L, but very few
folks could afford such a beast. As others suggested, perhaps a
100-400/4. But quite honestly I wouldn't except to ever see such a
lens from Canon.

I was initially excited by the "DO" technology but got turned off
when I saw the selling price on the EF400 DO. I've also read
reports that stated the DO image quality was not quite what many
had hoped for.

Click to expand...

I had one. Never was that happy with the sharpness. I traded it for a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 and Sigma 50-500. The 50-500 is much sharper. Now I CAN get sharp bird shots. Granted, I lost the IS, but handholding the 100-400 was not foolproof, even with IS. Most of the time I had it on a monopod, so IS was of no use anyway.

I would pick the 50-500 over the 100-400, even if they were the same price. And given the 100% premium you pay for the Canon, there is no question which lens to choose. The extra 50mm wide and 100mm long makes the Sigma an even better choice.

Mitch Deaver said:

Think Canon will ever come out with a f/2.8 version of its 100-400
L IS USM or something similar? Image Stabilization supposedly
compensates for the "slowness" of the f/5.6 lens, but an f/2.8
version would be outstanding (an very, very pricey, to say the
least)!

Heard David Stoecklein talk about the 100-400 on "Photo Safari" the
other night...he lauds it was the "most incredible" he's ever used!
Agree?
--
EOS Junkie

Click to expand...

--
'The Key to Safe Wildlife Photography: Think OUTSIDE of the Bear.'

My Galleries: http://home.attbi.com/~keylargographics/

I don't recall anyone calling it 'far superior' to the 100-400L ... while being faster, it has problems with diffraction halos around bright lights.

Jason Hutchinson said:

Although their first DO lens was not what some had hoped for, the
400 f/4 has shown to be far superior to the 100-400L at 400. It's
a prime of course, but it shows promise in the new technology. I'd
expect a zoom to weigh maybe 7 pounds.

Jason

John Gayman said:

I was just going to comment on this myself. Wow... just take a look
at the EF400/2.8L IS... and keep in mind zooms typically weigh even
more.

Not only wouldn't you want to carry a 100-400/2.8L, but very few
folks could afford such a beast. As others suggested, perhaps a
100-400/4. But quite honestly I wouldn't except to ever see such a
lens from Canon.

I was initially excited by the "DO" technology but got turned off
when I saw the selling price on the EF400 DO. I've also read
reports that stated the DO image quality was not quite what many
had hoped for.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

In my experience ... the 100-400L is very, very sharp ... perhaps you had a dud. Also, the IS works just fine on a monopod ... it's a tripod that causes it problems, as it seems to expect some shake! While the fact that $889 is not 50% of $1399 (my quick price check) I would have to say that the Canon is built like a tank. I've only seen, and not used, the 50-500. For me, hand holding it is absolutely, positively foolproof ... I have some stupendously long exposures that are usable. (I am known to be a steadier hand than the average person.)

Bogey said:

I would pick the 50-500 over the 100-400, even if they were the
same price. And given the 100% premium you pay for the Canon,
there is no question which lens to choose. The extra 50mm wide and
100mm long makes the Sigma an even better choice.

Mitch Deaver said:

Think Canon will ever come out with a f/2.8 version of its 100-400
L IS USM or something similar? Image Stabilization supposedly
compensates for the "slowness" of the f/5.6 lens, but an f/2.8
version would be outstanding (an very, very pricey, to say the
least)!

Heard David Stoecklein talk about the 100-400 on "Photo Safari" the
other night...he lauds it was the "most incredible" he's ever used!
Agree?
--
EOS Junkie

Click to expand...

--
'The Key to Safe Wildlife Photography: Think OUTSIDE of the Bear.'

My Galleries: http://home.attbi.com/~keylargographics/

Click to expand...

When I put the 100-400 on a monopod, and half-press the shutter button, the lens 'pegs' the IS adjustment to the edge. Perhaps I'm too steady with the monopod. Perhaps I did have a dud. Who knows. But the samples (and my own trial) of the 50-500 were incredibly sharp. I can't argue with success. When I was deciding between these two lenses, all the evidence I saw said the Sigma was sharper, but I went with "Canon" and "IS" instead of trusting the samples I saw. I have now rectified my mistake.

Don't get me wrong, the 100-400 is a great lens, but my goal is absolute sharpness and the Sigma beats it (at least the one I had).

Ken Phillips said:

Bogey said:

I would pick the 50-500 over the 100-400, even if they were the
same price. And given the 100% premium you pay for the Canon,
there is no question which lens to choose. The extra 50mm wide and
100mm long makes the Sigma an even better choice.

Mitch Deaver said:

Think Canon will ever come out with a f/2.8 version of its 100-400
L IS USM or something similar? Image Stabilization supposedly
compensates for the "slowness" of the f/5.6 lens, but an f/2.8
version would be outstanding (an very, very pricey, to say the
least)!

Heard David Stoecklein talk about the 100-400 on "Photo Safari" the
other night...he lauds it was the "most incredible" he's ever used!
Agree?
--
EOS Junkie

Click to expand...

--
'The Key to Safe Wildlife Photography: Think OUTSIDE of the Bear.'

My Galleries: http://home.attbi.com/~keylargographics/

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
'The Key to Safe Wildlife Photography: Think OUTSIDE of the Bear.'

My Galleries: http://home.attbi.com/~keylargographics/

Perhaps no one has said that, but when http://www.luminous-landscape.com has to specifically point out that their 100-400 was indeed focused during a test, that says a lot. Having seen their (assume it's the same one) 100-400 handily beat the 70-200IS+2x, I assume there is nothing wrong with it.

Everyone has their own opinion of "tack sharp." I see this thrown around a lot lately. To me "tack sharp" is a 50mm at f/8. The 100-400L is stressed a bit at the far end of the zoom range it seems with the D60... although it has an obvious sweet spot in the middle of the range where it seems very sharp.

I may get a 300f/2.8 some day way off in the future, but for now I'll remain happy with my 100-400.

Ken Phillips said:

I don't recall anyone calling it 'far superior' to the 100-400L
... while being faster, it has problems with diffraction halos
around bright lights.

Click to expand...

Bogey said:

Don't get me wrong, the 100-400 is a great lens, but my goal is
absolute sharpness and the Sigma beats it.

Click to expand...

Sigma 50-500 is sharper than the 100-400L IS??? of course... maybe when pigs can fly....

--
===================
http://www.canon-digital.com
===================

Canon EOS D60, 28-70L, 100-400L IS, Canon Close-Up Lens 500D, TC-80N3 Remote Control, Microdrive...

Bodey

maybe you should read the documentation first.

There is something called IS Mode which on a monopod or for panning should be set to mode 2 so it only stabilizes one direction.

I am certain that either you had a bad lens or it was user error. The 100-400 is certainly a very sharp lens if used correctly but of course with long lenses you can easily make mistakes if not on a tripod (IS doesnt help with movement along the lens axis for example)

--
Michael Salzlechner
StarZen Digital Imaging
http://www.starzen.com/imaging

I agree, sharpness is a bit subjective. It's a combination of acutance and detail captured. I also have the 100-400L, and it's very sharp ... for a 100-400mm zoom ... but my 50mm f/1.4 @ f/8 is sharp enough to cut!

Jason Hutchinson said:

Everyone has their own opinion of "tack sharp." I see this thrown
around a lot lately. To me "tack sharp" is a 50mm at f/8. The
100-400L is stressed a bit at the far end of the zoom range it
seems with the D60... although it has an obvious sweet spot in the
middle of the range where it seems very sharp.

I may get a 300f/2.8 some day way off in the future, but for now
I'll remain happy with my 100-400.

Ken Phillips said:

I don't recall anyone calling it 'far superior' to the 100-400L
... while being faster, it has problems with diffraction halos
around bright lights.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I have to stick up for Bogey, I wasn't impressed with the 100-400 either. Here's an earlier post of mine..

Here's my 2 cents...

I shoot a fair amount of action stuff, mostly Motocross. I rented a 100-400 for 4 days and compared it to my favorite lens, a 12 year old Canon 100-300 5.6L. I was not impressed with the 100-400.

The 100-300 was much more consistant with regards to image quality. The image quality of the 100-400 at wide open was nowhere near what I would call acceptable, very soft. The best it did (when stopped down) was slightly better than my old 100-300.

I took about 300 shots at the track, and threw away about half of them because of focus or panning problems.

I don't have any of the other comparable (long) L zoom lenses, but my guess is the other Canon lenses would be much more consistantly sharp than their 100-400.

Sorry if I offended any 100-400 owners, remember this is just MY 2 cents worth. And yes, I know the focus speed of the 100-300L is pitifully slow, but I don't have to throw out half of the shots when I take my old lens to the track.
John

I also had an interesting observation about sharpness and eyesight last week. My 50 year old brother could not tell the difference in two pictures I showed him, one was much sharper than the other. I showed it to 6 other people and they all saw the difference quickly. (And picked the same one as being sharper). Point is- his eyesite isn't that good! Do you think that might be why some people think a lens is sharp and others don't?

John

I'm receiving a Sigma 50-500 today to work with against a 100-400L. I can't wait to see if the Sigma is as good as Jaja's shots indicate. That is about the ONLY reason I decided to check one out. I should have some answers by the weekend....

Ken Phillips said:

Bogey said:

I would pick the 50-500 over the 100-400, even if they were the
same price. And given the 100% premium you pay for the Canon,
there is no question which lens to choose. The extra 50mm wide and
100mm long makes the Sigma an even better choice.

Mitch Deaver said:

Think Canon will ever come out with a f/2.8 version of its 100-400
L IS USM or something similar? Image Stabilization supposedly
compensates for the "slowness" of the f/5.6 lens, but an f/2.8
version would be outstanding (an very, very pricey, to say the
least)!

Heard David Stoecklein talk about the 100-400 on "Photo Safari" the
other night...he lauds it was the "most incredible" he's ever used!
Agree?
--
EOS Junkie

Click to expand...

--
'The Key to Safe Wildlife Photography: Think OUTSIDE of the Bear.'

My Galleries: http://home.attbi.com/~keylargographics/

Click to expand...

Click to expand...