canon 5.6 400mm is?

as i recollect there was mention of a canon f5.6 400mm is "L" lens ...
was that so much conjecture or shipping product? if so i'd like one -
it would be the right size and i find that the canon rebel xt and 5d
iso 800 are so noise free that i don't feel the 'need for speed' ...

i have the 70-200 L lens ...but the new one is an "i.s" ... decisions
decisions :-) ...

steve

wrote:
as i recollect there was mention of a canon f5.6 400mm is "L" lens ...
was that so much conjecture or shipping product? if so i'd like one -
it would be the right size and i find that the canon rebel xt and 5d
iso 800 are so noise free that i don't feel the 'need for speed' ...

Ah, I was just noticing that the 400/5.6 L USM (but not IS) is Canon's
second most simple lens design; a mere 6 elements in 5 groups, only one more
element than the 28/2.8. Unfortunately, no IS. For four times the price, you
get IS in an f/4.0 DO 400mm lens, and for another US$1200 you can get the
400/2.8 IS USM L.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

wrote:
as i recollect there was mention of a canon f5.6 400mm is "L" lens ...
was that so much conjecture or shipping product? if so i'd like one -
it would be the right size and i find that the canon rebel xt and 5d
iso 800 are so noise free that i don't feel the 'need for speed' ...

Speed via ISO is one thing...but controlling depth of field is dependant
upon aperture.
If you want to isolate an animal or an athelete from a busy background,
there is no substitute for large apertures. That's not to say poo-poo to f4
at all. The trade-off between size, weight and expense is significant, and
will be appealing to many. There are times when I get tired of lugging the
2.8, which is twice as heavy as this new offering...

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

wrote:
as i recollect there was mention of a canon f5.6 400mm is "L" lens ...
was that so much conjecture or shipping product?


I saw a post that said this was coming out in Sept but it appears to be
a speculative post and there was nothing in the Canon press releases
about it, so maybe just a wrong guess. The same post also mentioned a
100-400 f/4 L IS and that also didn't make Canon's press releases so
maybe it was wishful thinking.

My wife has the 400 f/5.6 L and it's a very nice lens, especially good
for birds-in-flight, but the lack of zoom means it doesn't get used
that much use.

Bill

Jim Townsend wrote:
Mark² wrote:

wrote:
as i recollect there was mention of a canon f5.6 400mm is "L" lens
... was that so much conjecture or shipping product? if so i'd like
one - it would be the right size and i find that the canon rebel xt
and 5d iso 800 are so noise free that i don't feel the 'need for
speed' ...

Speed via ISO is one thing...but controlling depth of field is
dependant upon aperture.
If you want to isolate an animal or an athelete from a busy
background, there is no substitute for large apertures. That's not
to say poo-poo to f4 at all. The trade-off between size, weight and
expense is significant, and will be appealing to many. There are
times when I get tired of lugging the
2.8, which is twice as heavy as this new offering...

Don't forget that DOF is also also proportional to focal
length. For a given aperture, increasing the focal length,
reduces the depth of field.

Sure. If I had been more specific, I'd have said that assuming a given
perspective and focal length, you control DOF with aperture.


--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

Bill Hilton wrote:
wrote:
as i recollect there was mention of a canon f5.6 400mm is "L" lens
... was that so much conjecture or shipping product?


I saw a post that said this was coming out in Sept but it appears to
be a speculative post and there was nothing in the Canon press
releases about it, so maybe just a wrong guess. The same post also
mentioned a 100-400 f/4 L IS and that also didn't make Canon's press
releases so maybe it was wishful thinking.

If they release a 100-400 f4 IS, it'll be on my short list for
sure...assuming it's still within the price range of the existing 100-400
IS. I sold my 100-400 some time back after being spoiled by my 70-200's
2.8, but I could live with a constant f4.


--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

unfortunately not only more expensive ...but heavier :-( ...

steve

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 15:19:31 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
wrote:

wrote:
as i recollect there was mention of a canon f5.6 400mm is "L" lens ...
was that so much conjecture or shipping product? if so i'd like one -
it would be the right size and i find that the canon rebel xt and 5d
iso 800 are so noise free that i don't feel the 'need for speed' ...

Ah, I was just noticing that the 400/5.6 L USM (but not IS) is Canon's
second most simple lens design; a mere 6 elements in 5 groups, only one more
element than the 28/2.8. Unfortunately, no IS. For four times the price, you
get IS in an f/4.0 DO 400mm lens, and for another US$1200 you can get the
400/2.8 IS USM L.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan