That is what I call scientific testing! Note they use DxO analyser. SLRgear was my first go-to site and, as you say, still the most reliable.
SLRGear just posted their review.
I really don't understand the whole concept of 400/4 DO II and why anyone would actualy buy it. It's probably my fault.Hi,
400/4 DO IS II - 2100g
300/2.8L IS II - 2350g
400/2.8L IS II - 3850g
300/2.8 has improved. A LOT. It's lighter, (all II gen lenses got lighter) it's even better optically than before and also has a shorter minimum focusing distance (2m from previous 2.5m). THAT is improvement.
Meanwhile 400/4 DO got heavier. The previous 600g difference is now only 250g. Minimum focusing distance is 3.3m. Yes, it got better, much better optically. But we already had superb lenses. What we don't have is light lenses. The primary goal of DO should be to reduce weight and size. Image quality only comes second, no matter how strange that could sound to you. The first generation wasn't sold for it's image quality either.
Or maybe is it cheap? It's not.
In my opinion, the 400 DO beeing 2100g is a big FAIL. It does not stand up to the 300/2.8 (+1.4X) at all.
Why big fail?? EF 400mm F4 DO IS II is still smaller, lighter and sharper than EF 300mm F2.8L IS II... basically, the EF 400mm F4 DO IS II is for those who need the smallest, lightest and sharpest 400mm lens out there.
Have a nice day.
I agree with weixing and very much disagree with riker. The new 400 DO lens may be only 250g lighter than the 300 II but if 250g isn't much for you, the weight difference between the older 400 DO and the new is only 160 g.
For me the size is actually more important than the weight (which is light enough for me). The new 400 DO is really small compared to most L Tele Primes and thats whats so interesting about this lens.
It is a superb lens - pity it is so expensive.
AlanF, just curious, I know you own the 300 f/2.8. Since the new 400 DO II is only $300 more expensive, do you feel the 300mm is "so expensive," as well? In other words, how do you rate the relative value of these two lenses, given their fairly large differences in focal length, aperture and weight--but relatively small difference in cost?
I'm looking to step up from the 400L f/5.6 primarily because I want IS, and I'd certainly appreciate that extra stop. I could get the new 100-400L II, but since my lighter and more compact 70-300L is my go-to travel lens, I think the 100-400 would remain parked at 400. For these reasons, price aside, the new 400DO II is awfully appealing.
Finally, CR claimed the 400 DO's were going to start shipping on Dec 18th, but I've yet to see one show up anywhere online for sale. B&H shows two "user reviews," but Adorama and Amazon show none. LensRentals says you can pre-reserve one, so they don't have one yet, either. When Canon originally announced the lens, it was supposed to start shipping in Nov 2014, but thus far seems like vaporware. Has anyone heard anything about Canon's actual ship date?
And how at 60mm? Does the lens thermally contract?Snowy owl. 60mm and f8 handheld.... and yes, the lens does work at -20C.....
The real question is, why are you working at -20C?
The Tamron has deteriorated somewhat vs the sharper 300 series.
What a lens - the 300 f/2.8 II!
Still, I see you added the zoom (100-400II) to your collection. Is that because of the zoom? What is the benefit for you in the field?