Quote:
Originally Posted by ddk632
For those of you guys that shoot the long lenses, I have a question. I've noticed the Canon EF 400 f/5.6 is an oddball as far as pricing goes in the Canon "Super-tele" lineup.
My question is, besides the fact that it's f/5.6 and has no IS, any other reason why it's so cheap compared to the others?
The longest telephoto I have ever used is my EF 70-300 (variable aperture, non-L, has IS, was about $550 brand new). I have not many people who have a good opinion of this lens.
Just curious if the 400 f/5.6 is viewed similarly in the super-tele world, or if it's a great lens at a great price and has great IQ, but is just priced so low due to not having the wider aperture and IS?
Welcome any thoughts on the topic!
|
You're right, it's a relatively old design with no IS and a relatively small aperture, making it inexpensive. If they simply added IS, I wouldn't be surprised if the price went up over $500. You can look at the big 400s to see what adding aperture does to the price and size.
Dave