Aero145 From Iceland, joined Jan 2005, 3070 posts, RR: 23 Posted (6 years 11 months 21 hours ago) and read 3843 times:
Hello guys.
As the Canon 100-400mm lense is now getting old, and has an old stabilizer, do you think Canon will come up with a f/2.8 version of the lense? The 100-400 is very bulky, and I'm wondering if a 2.8 version would be too big to be handhold. I'm thinking about this lense in the future; would the f/2.8 turn out to be too big and too expensive (also heavy)?
Could the lense geniuses tell me something about f/ versus size?
DLKAPA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (6 years 11 months 21 hours ago) and read 3822 times:
First of all in order to stay f/2.8 through the entire range wouldn't the lens have to stay one length, ala abandon the push-pull and make it similar to the 70-200?
Mikephotos From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 2923 posts, RR: 56 Reply 4, posted (6 years 11 months 21 hours ago) and read 3805 times:
Quoting DLKAPA (Reply 2): First of all in order to stay f/2.8 through the entire range wouldn't the lens have to stay one length, ala abandon the push-pull and make it similar to the 70-200?
No, at least it hasn't in the past. Nikon had a 80-200/f2.8 that was push-pull.
The Nikon 200-400/f4 is roughly $ 5,099.95. I could imagine what a (Canon or Nikon) 100-400/f2.8 would cost.
IngemarE From Sweden, joined Mar 2005, 285 posts, RR: 5 Reply 8, posted (6 years 11 months 20 hours ago) and read 3747 times:
Quoting IL76 (Reply 6): Imagine a lens like the 100-400, twice as long, a diameter of 20cm, weighing 20kg costing $20.000. I'm sure it'll sell like hot cakes
Aren't you exagerating a little bit!?
15cm diameter and about 12kg's would do I think!
Quoting LHRSIMON (Reply 7): Oh it also needs to be sold at a price at about £1000.00 so i dont have to sell a kidney !!!!!!
Aero145 From Iceland, joined Jan 2005, 3070 posts, RR: 23 Reply 10, posted (6 years 11 months 17 hours ago) and read 3720 times:
Quoting IL76 (Reply 6): Oh the joy of youth. So fresh and naive... Not afraid to ask silly questions.
Silly answer, especially for you, Ed.
Joy of youth. No, I am not really enjoying it.
Not afraid to ask silly questions. (Why should I be afraid of that???) Silly for you, not silly for others. I'd love to see your face when Canon comes up with a f/2.8 version of the 100-400, very sharp, only $1500. I'm not saying they WILL come with that lense, but not think you would be disappointed with a 2.8 version of the 100-400. F/4.5-5.6 is all right, but isn't it nice to have a zoom lense that reaches the Canon 400mm f/2.8L?
Quoting IL76 (Reply 6): Imagine a lens like the 100-400, twice as long, a diameter of 20cm, weighing 20kg costing $20.000. I'm sure it'll sell like hot cakes.
Aero145 From Iceland, joined Jan 2005, 3070 posts, RR: 23 Reply 12, posted (6 years 11 months 15 hours ago) and read 3691 times:
Why starting, when I'm started???
-David
PS: When I tried the 100-400 last December, it was much heavier than my 75-300mm lense, but still not as heavy as I imagined. Don't think that I can't carry the 100-400 for a day at Heathrow...
AndrewUber From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2528 posts, RR: 44 Reply 13, posted (6 years 11 months 15 hours ago) and read 3691 times:
Quoting IL76 (Reply 6): Oh the joy of youth. So fresh and naive... Not afraid to ask silly questions.
Way to go Ed. I'm sure a lot of folks will feel comfortable asking questions around here after reading your post. Great job encouraging people.
Quoting IL76 (Reply 6): Imagine a lens like the 100-400, twice as long, a diameter of 20cm, weighing 20kg costing $20.000. I'm sure it'll sell like hot cakes.
He actually asked if it would be too big and heavy. A simple "Yeah" would have been appropriate.
Give the guy a break. No need to try to make him look like an idiot - bashing him only makes YOU look like an idiot.
IL76 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2004, 2235 posts, RR: 51 Reply 20, posted (6 years 11 months 11 hours ago) and read 3632 times:
Quoting Glennstewart (Reply 18): But seriously....I wouldn't mind knowing the technical reason either for lens size versus aperture.
Devide the focal length by the size of your lenscap and you'll find a number pretty close to the max aperture. (Yes I was exaggerating in my previous reply. I tend to do that when I get questions like: "Can a future Hummer do 100 miles to the gallon?" and stuff like that)
StealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5434 posts, RR: 49 Reply 22, posted (6 years 11 months 9 hours ago) and read 3605 times:
Quoting ChrisH (Reply 21): I've been wondering why a 600mm lens isn't 60cm+ long. Any ideas?
This is likely to be an oversimplification and some boffin may correct the details..
Basically a lens with a focal length of 600mm will require only a single(the front) element to focus a point source of light on a plane 600mm away(remember the magnifying glass you used to burn holes in paper as a kid?).
The other elements in a lens are used to further correct the light path to make the lens shorter and more compact.
Oh yes, as I said that is a gross oversimplification and photography is not about point sources of light so it is somewhat more complex than this!
If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
DullesGuy From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 247 posts, RR: 1 Reply 24, posted (6 years 11 months 4 hours ago) and read 3557 times:
on a side note..what modifications do you think will be made to the 100-400L IS lense in the future?
"..the joy of the Lord is your strength" Nehemiah 8:10
25 Mikephotos: Sorry, can only give you a rough estimate Mike
26 KFLLCFII: Well, considering the f/2.8 version of the 400mm at 11.7 lbs is roughly four times as heavy as the f/5.6 versions (prime at 2.8 lbs & 100-400mm at 3.
27 Aero145: I remember this scene! What do you think of Canon EF 100-400mm f/2.8 DO IS USM? -David
28 DLKAPA: the length between the front element and the focal point?
29 RG828: Was'nt there talk of a 500mm f2.8 some time ago? Did'nt Canon develop a 28-135 f2.8 as well, apparently it was the size of a 300mm 2.8. They built a p
30 Aero145: Why EF-S mount? So fewer camera owners can use the lenses? -David
31 RG828: Why not? Whats the point in making cameras with EF-S mounts if you dont make lenses for them in every focal range? Despite the now affordable Canon f
32 Aero145: If an EF lens can be mounted on 20D, 20Da, 30D, DR XT and DR, then why not making it for ALL EOS cameras? -David
33 DLKAPA: Because Ultra-Low Dispersion is better than Diffractive Optics. Because any lens with an EF-S mount can take any EF lens.
34 OD720: The closest lense to the one you want is the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 and that's one heavy lens even without the IS. I don't know how the optical engineers
35 Aero145: I asked: "What do you think of Canon EF 100-400mm f/2.8 DO IS USM?"
36 Aero145: Then, wouldn't it be a good idea to talk to Jeroen Hribar?
37 KFLLCFII: And he answered: An Ultra-Low Dispersion ("L" glass) model, which was originally suggested in the thread, would be better than a Diffractive Optics (
38 Aero145: I asked: "What do you think of Canon EF 100-400mm f/2.8 DO IS USM?" He didn't answer my question. He only said that the UL dispersion glass is better
39 Jhribar: Hi David, sorry but I'm not a Canon insider, so I can only guess... My guess is that a 100-400L 2.8 will not be on the market for a while. Maintainin
40 Aero145: Thanks Jeroen, let's close this thread. -David
41 Paparadzi: I'd be happy with a Canon EF 200-400 f/4 IS at the size / price of the current 100-400 or 70-200 f/2.8 IS.
42 Aero145: Haha. If the 100-400 2.8 doesn't come, I hope the 100-400 f/4 L IS USM will come. -David
43 JeffM: Not likely either. Too much expense for too little gain.
44 Aero145: OK Jeff. It'll be like it is then. Regards, David
Sponsor Message: 
From Iceland, joined Jan 2005, 3070 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 3674 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Austria, joined Apr 2004, 3765 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2002, 1342 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Mar 2005, 285 posts, 
From Belgium, joined Mar 2005, 245 posts, 
From Australia, joined Jun 2003, 1124 posts, 
From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3106 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
