Why no afordable 400f/4?

Started Feb 9, 2013 | Questions thread
(unknown member) Veteran Member • Posts: 3,849
A few reasons

happysnapper64 wrote:

I posted this in 3rd party lens forum by mistake, so will ask here in the correct forum! Canon do a 300f/4 IS L that is reasonably affordable, £1250 &, a 400f/5.6 for about the same. The 400f/4 IS is a whopping £5500! why nothing in between like a 400f/4 without IS? would it be possible for them to do this for £1500 or so? I only took photography just over a year ago, so not really up on this sort of thing.

-- hide signature --

lee uk.
There are old pilots, & there are bold pilots, but there are no old bold pilots.

Although I understand why you would like it (I would too) there are a few reasons why it won't work.

Increasing the aperture is expensive and that works exponentially, rather than in a linear fashion. So turning a 400/5.6 into a 400/4 would increase the price by a significant amount.

More importantly in this case is that the lenses you mention are twenty year old designs. If Canon would make a new version of those, they could easily be twice the price anyway.

Personally, I'm hoping Canon will make a 400/5.6L IS for $2,500-3,000, but somehow I suspect that may even be wishful thinking, so I'm keeping an eye on future Sigma 'Sports' lenses.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow