Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Lense Thoughts: Canon EF 100-400mm F/2.8L Is USM  
User currently offlineAero145 From Iceland, joined Jan 2005, 3071 posts, RR: 19
Posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 6659 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?

Thanks!
David  

PS: Sorry if this title is too attention making.

[Edited 2006-06-29 21:56:29]

44 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineTimdeGroot From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 3674 posts, RR: 64
Reply 1, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 6645 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

100-400 2.8L IS? Keep on dreaming Smile

Tim



Alderman Exit
User currently offlineDLKAPA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 6638 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?

User currently offlineAero145 From Iceland, joined Jan 2005, 3071 posts, RR: 19
Reply 3, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 6621 times:

I think so, yes. But does that mean that the lense will be smaller than for example f/1.4-f/4?

-David


User currently offlineMikephotos From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 2923 posts, RR: 54
Reply 4, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 6621 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.

Mike

[Edited 2006-06-29 22:34:57]

User currently offlineINNflight From Switzerland, joined Apr 2004, 3767 posts, RR: 60
Reply 5, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 6617 times:

Quoting Aero145 (Reply 3):
f/1.4-f/4?

Wat?

 Wink

F.



Jet Visuals
User currently offlineIL76 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2004, 2238 posts, RR: 48
Reply 6, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 6606 times:

Oh the joy of youth. So fresh and naive... Not afraid to ask silly questions.
E

Quoting Aero145 (Thread starter):
The 100-400 is very bulky, and I'm wondering if a 2.8 version would be too big to be handhold.

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.


User currently offlineLHRSIMON From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2002, 1343 posts, RR: 22
Reply 7, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 6587 times:

I just want any L glass at f2.00 above 135 mm. That would make me happy.........

Oh it also needs to be sold at a price at about £1000.00 so i dont have to sell a kidney !!!!!!



Canon 1D Mk III,Canon 20D+17-40 L f4.0,70-200 L IS USM f2.8,400 L USM f5.6,135 mm L f2.0, 50 mm f1.8,1.4 x II extender
User currently offlineIngemarE From Sweden, joined Mar 2005, 285 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 6563 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!?  Confused
15cm diameter and about 12kg's would do I think!  cheeky  Big grin

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 !!!!!!

Who said it has to be your kidney/s!?  mischievous 



In thrust I trust.
User currently offlineMikephotos From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 2923 posts, RR: 54
Reply 9, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 6556 times:

Quoting IngemarE (Reply 8):
Who said it has to be your kidney/s!?

Maybe because all of the other parts are worthless  Wink (sorry, had to  Smile)

Mike


User currently offlineAero145 From Iceland, joined Jan 2005, 3071 posts, RR: 19
Reply 10, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 6536 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.

Is 100-400 f4.5-5.6 10 kgs? Or even 5kgs?

-David

[Edited 2006-06-30 02:16:32]

User currently offlineGVerbeeck From Belgium, joined Mar 2005, 245 posts, RR: 24
Reply 11, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 6517 times:

Quoting Aero145 (Thread starter):
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)?

...you'd better start weightlifting now  Wink


User currently offlineAero145 From Iceland, joined Jan 2005, 3071 posts, RR: 19
Reply 12, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 6507 times:

Why starting, when I'm started??? Wow!

-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...

[Edited 2006-06-30 03:56:43]

User currently offlineAndrewUber From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2528 posts, RR: 40
Reply 13, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 6507 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.  sarcastic 

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.

Drew



I'd rather shoot BAD_MOTIVE
User currently offlineGlennstewart From Australia, joined Jun 2003, 1124 posts, RR: 54
Reply 14, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 6482 times:

Canon EF 100-400mm F/2.8L Is USM....

I'm dreaming right now. Unfortunately I have neither the budget, nor arms big enough to carry this non-existent lens.
But I can keep dreaming  Smile

Glenn



Respected users.... If my replies are useful, then by all means...
User currently offlineAirSpare From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 589 posts, RR: 6
Reply 15, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 6478 times:

Quoting INNflight (Reply 5):
Quoting Aero145 (Reply 3):
f/1.4-f/4?

Wat?

Some zoom lenses will not have the same speed at all focal lengths. I have no Canon glass so I can't comment further on the lens.

cheers~md



Get someone else for your hero worship fetish
User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 51
Reply 16, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 6474 times:

Quoting IL76 (Reply 6):
Imagine a lens like the 100-400, twice as long,

That's a pretty silly response...a lens twice as long as a 100-400mm would be a 200-800mm lens. Duh.

Remember what focal length is??


User currently offlineAero145 From Iceland, joined Jan 2005, 3071 posts, RR: 19
Reply 17, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 6472 times:

Quoting Glennstewart (Reply 14):
Canon EF 100-400mm F/2.8L Is USM....

I'm dreaming right now. Unfortunately I have neither the budget, nor arms big enough to carry this non-existent lens.
But I can keep dreaming Smile

Glenn

 checkmark 

Quoting JeffM (Reply 16):
That's a pretty silly response...a lens twice as long as a 100-400mm would be a 200-800mm lens. Duh.

Remember what focal length is??

 Smile  Wink  checkmark 

Quoting AndrewUber (Reply 13):
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.

Thanks for this, Andrew.

Regards,
David

PS: Sorry for a low-quality post.


User currently offlineGlennstewart From Australia, joined Jun 2003, 1124 posts, RR: 54
Reply 18, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 6462 times:

Quoting Aero145 (Thread starter):
Could the lense geniuses tell me something about f/ versus size?

I think size sometimes comes down to genes.... and I so lucked out.

But seriously....I wouldn't mind knowing the technical reason either for lens size versus aperture.



Respected users.... If my replies are useful, then by all means...
User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 51
Reply 19, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 6460 times:

Quoting Glennstewart (Reply 18):
....I wouldn't mind knowing the technical reason either for lens size versus aperture.

$$


User currently offlineIL76 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2004, 2238 posts, RR: 48
Reply 20, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 6448 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)


User currently offlineChrisH From Sweden, joined Jul 2004, 1136 posts, RR: 16
Reply 21, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 6430 times:

I've been wondering why a 600mm lens isn't 60cm+ long. Any ideas? I know canon has that DO tech... but Nikons normal 600mm is 43cm long for instance.


what seems to be the officer, problem?
User currently offlineStealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5723 posts, RR: 44
Reply 22, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 6421 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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!
User currently offlineViv From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3142 posts, RR: 28
Reply 23, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 6415 times:

Quoting Mikephotos (Reply 4):
The Nikon 200-400/f4 is roughly $ 5,099.95.

Could you tell us the EXACT price? (Just joking).

Seriously, such a lens would be very bulky, very heavy, and very expensive. I doubt that it will ever be developed.



Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2
User currently offlineDullesGuy From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 247 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 6373 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 Post contains images Mikephotos : Sorry, can only give you a rough estimate Mike
26 Post contains images 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 Post contains images 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 Post contains images 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 Post contains images 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 Post contains images 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 Post contains images Aero145 : OK Jeff. It'll be like it is then. Regards, David
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Anyone Using The Canon EF 100-400mm F/4.5-5.6L Is? posted Sun Jul 13 2003 22:13:52 by Brick
Canon EF 28-300mm F/3.5-5.6L Is USM posted Thu Aug 24 2006 00:51:24 by Brick
Canon EF-S 17-85MM F4-5.6 Is USM posted Wed Jul 13 2005 18:12:23 by Scottieprecord
EF 100-400mm L Is Dimensions posted Tue Jun 15 2004 23:36:12 by SHAMROCK_107
Canon EF 100-300mm/4,5-5,6 USM posted Sun Feb 10 2002 16:19:05 by Ndizani
Canon EF 75-300 III, III USM Or IS? posted Thu Jul 12 2001 07:47:38 by AA_Cam
Canon EF 100-400 W/Extender posted Thu May 18 2006 14:15:51 by Canberra
Canon 28-300 F3.5-5.6L Is USM posted Mon Apr 17 2006 19:57:15 by AirbusfanYYZ
Canon EF 100-300 1:5.6 posted Fri Jun 17 2005 23:08:47 by Gulfstream
Canon EF 28-300mm F/3.5-5.6L Is USM And EF 70-300m posted Wed Mar 24 2004 12:24:35 by Joge