October 24, 2014, 05:45:42 PM

Author Topic: Why no 400mm f/4L IS exists?  (Read 9536 times)

King Eyre

  • Power Shot G7X
  • **
  • Posts: 19
  • 1Dx
    • View Profile
Re: Why no 400mm f/4L IS exists?
« Reply #45 on: February 11, 2014, 04:47:42 AM »
Hi Loren, glad you are enjoying the 400 DO!!...join the (small??) club!!

I use a mk3 2x as I also have a mk2 300 2.8, and I'm using a 1Dx which I think (although it's a bit subjective) improves the keeper rate over my previous 1 Ds3....although..oops..just seen you have a 5D3..

My photography is mostly wildlife, mammals, so I'm not doing birds in flight generally therefore perhaps not pushing the combo as much as others as my subjects tend to be slower moving, however almost all shots are sharp as a tack.

I'd go for the mk3 anyway, as firstly, it's future proof, and secondly, I think it's sharper than the mk2.

Best of luck!!

George.


canon rumors FORUM

Re: Why no 400mm f/4L IS exists?
« Reply #45 on: February 11, 2014, 04:47:42 AM »

adhocphotographer

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 548
    • View Profile
    • An ad hoc photographer
Re: Why no 400mm f/4L IS exists?
« Reply #46 on: February 11, 2014, 09:31:55 AM »
400 DO has always interested me, but I think i would even be happy with an up-dated 300 f4 IS replacement.

Might give it a rent and see how it goes, DO that is! :)
5D MkIII & 100D
17-40L, 24L II, 24-105L, 70-200L, 500L II
-------www.adhocphotographer.com--------

Loren E

  • Power Shot G7X
  • **
  • Posts: 24
    • View Profile
Re: Why no 400mm f/4L IS exists?
« Reply #47 on: February 11, 2014, 10:15:40 AM »
Hi Loren, glad you are enjoying the 400 DO!!...join the (small??) club!!

I use a mk3 2x as I also have a mk2 300 2.8, and I'm using a 1Dx which I think (although it's a bit subjective) improves the keeper rate over my previous 1 Ds3....although..oops..just seen you have a 5D3..

My photography is mostly wildlife, mammals, so I'm not doing birds in flight generally therefore perhaps not pushing the combo as much as others as my subjects tend to be slower moving, however almost all shots are sharp as a tack.

I'd go for the mk3 anyway, as firstly, it's future proof, and secondly, I think it's sharper than the mk2.

Best of luck!!

George.

Thanks for reporting back George on what you're using, much appreciated!

King Eyre

  • Power Shot G7X
  • **
  • Posts: 19
  • 1Dx
    • View Profile
Re: Why no 400mm f/4L IS exists?
« Reply #48 on: February 11, 2014, 11:54:15 AM »
400 DO has always interested me, but I think i would even be happy with an up-dated 300 f4 IS replacement.

Might give it a rent and see how it goes, DO that is! :)

I think you'll be pleasantly surprised, and they are reasonable on the second hand market.

George

GMCPhotographics

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 728
    • View Profile
    • GMCPhotographics
Re: Why no 400mm f/4L IS exists?
« Reply #49 on: February 21, 2014, 10:01:59 AM »
If you want a 400mm f4 LIS...then consider the new 300mm f2.8 LIS mkII and a 1.4x TC
It's an astonishing combo.

mackguyver

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2999
  • Who Dares Wins
    • View Profile
    • My Personal Work
Re: Why no 400mm f/4L IS exists?
« Reply #50 on: February 21, 2014, 10:35:00 AM »
If you want a 400mm f4 LIS...then consider the new 300mm f2.8 LIS mkII and a 1.4x TC
It's an astonishing combo.
+1 - I can vouch for that pairing and check out the-digital-picture's comparison at f/4:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=739&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=1&LensComp=338&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

King Eyre

  • Power Shot G7X
  • **
  • Posts: 19
  • 1Dx
    • View Profile
Re: Why no 400mm f/4L IS exists?
« Reply #51 on: February 21, 2014, 11:34:56 AM »
If you want a 400mm f4 LIS...then consider the new 300mm f2.8 LIS mkII and a 1.4x TC
It's an astonishing combo.

Must admit, I have both the 300 2.8 mk2 both extenders, and the 400 f4 DO and I sometimes wonder if I should sell one or other of these combos, but I always come back to the lightweight of the DO, it's optical performance is, as I've said, apart from the contrast issue which is easily fixed, excellent and it gives me the option of an 800 f8 which is easily portable, unlike it's 5.6 big brother.
Where the 300 plus extender wins is a shade quicker af but for safaris I take both and hang the DO on the crop body (or I would if a 7Dmk2 was available, sold the old 7D as it just didn't cut the mustard any more) so for my next trip I'm fortunate that I can borrow another 1 Dx and a 200-400 from Canon....but I wouldn't even be considering the 2-400 if I wasn't vehicle based all the time...I'm not that strong!!
George.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Why no 400mm f/4L IS exists?
« Reply #51 on: February 21, 2014, 11:34:56 AM »

GMCPhotographics

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 728
    • View Profile
    • GMCPhotographics
Re: Why no 400mm f/4L IS exists?
« Reply #52 on: February 25, 2014, 07:36:00 AM »
If you want a 400mm f4 LIS...then consider the new 300mm f2.8 LIS mkII and a 1.4x TC
It's an astonishing combo.
+1 - I can vouch for that pairing and check out the-digital-picture's comparison at f/4:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=739&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=1&LensComp=338&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Although the 400 Do is a bit lighter, it's not THAT much lighter than the new 300 mkII. I think the 300 mkII and converters is one of the best travel / long lenses currently available. It's a great combo and does so much very well.

King Eyre

  • Power Shot G7X
  • **
  • Posts: 19
  • 1Dx
    • View Profile
Re: Why no 400mm f/4L IS exists?
« Reply #53 on: February 25, 2014, 08:23:11 AM »


Although the 400 Do is a bit lighter, it's not THAT much lighter than the new 300 mkII. I think the 300 mkII and converters is one of the best travel / long lenses currently available. It's a great combo and does so much very well.
[/quote]

I wouldn't disagree, and with the mk3 tcs the af is still remarkable..really don't notice any reduction in af speed with the 1.4.

tron

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1865
    • View Profile
Re: Why no 400mm f/4L IS exists?
« Reply #54 on: February 25, 2014, 12:19:32 PM »
I  believe the difference in weight is not negligible as you seem to mean: 2.35 kg for the 300mm II + 225g for the 1.4X III = 2.575Kg versus the 1.94Kg for the 400mm DO a difference of 635g.

If you have tried both combinations (with the same camera body) and you still think so I give up. I haven't - I do have tried 5DMkIII with a 500 f/4 IS II though - but I believe that in this category every weight saving counts.

In fact the change from a Manfrotto 055Prob + 410 Gear Head = 3.7Kg versus a Gitzo Systematic 3541LS + Markins M20 head = 2.3 Kg has made quite the difference for me (OK it's 1.4Kg less but you see the point... when walking everything counts)

King Eyre

  • Power Shot G7X
  • **
  • Posts: 19
  • 1Dx
    • View Profile
Re: Why no 400mm f/4L IS exists?
« Reply #55 on: February 25, 2014, 12:43:02 PM »
I  believe the difference in weight is not negligible as you seem to mean: 2.35 kg for the 300mm II + 225g for the 1.4X III = 2.575Kg versus the 1.94Kg for the 400mm DO a difference of 635g.

If you have tried both combinations (with the same camera body) and you still think so I give up. I haven't - I do have tried 5DMkIII with a 500 f/4 IS II though - but I believe that in this category every weight saving counts.

In fact the change from a Manfrotto 055Prob + 410 Gear Head = 3.7Kg versus a Gitzo Systematic 3541LS + Markins M20 head = 2.3 Kg has made quite the difference for me (OK it's 1.4Kg less but you see the point... when walking everything counts)

Well, As I've already said, I have both and yes there is a difference as has been pointed out, the DO really is a pleasure to use, and it beats me as to why Canon don't push it more!...every time I go to a Canon show, you are struggling to find one in the line up, perhaps as it technically isn't an L lens.

If I had to get rid of one, it would have to be the DO, but only that it's the older lens and has, in theory, poorer IS.
However it won't go as once I get a second body (I sold my 7D a bit ago) I'll hang the DO on a crop body and use the 300 mk2 with or without extenders on the 1 Dx, if I'm travelling I don't like to constantly change lenses and bodies, especially in dusty environments.

I see that Canon recently filed a patent for a 600 DO...now that would be one beast of a lens..and perhaps I could lift it!!

George.

GMCPhotographics

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 728
    • View Profile
    • GMCPhotographics
Re: Why no 400mm f/4L IS exists?
« Reply #56 on: February 25, 2014, 07:03:45 PM »
I  believe the difference in weight is not negligible as you seem to mean: 2.35 kg for the 300mm II + 225g for the 1.4X III = 2.575Kg versus the 1.94Kg for the 400mm DO a difference of 635g.

If you have tried both combinations (with the same camera body) and you still think so I give up. I haven't - I do have tried 5DMkIII with a 500 f/4 IS II though - but I believe that in this category every weight saving counts.

In fact the change from a Manfrotto 055Prob + 410 Gear Head = 3.7Kg versus a Gitzo Systematic 3541LS + Markins M20 head = 2.3 Kg has made quite the difference for me (OK it's 1.4Kg less but you see the point... when walking everything counts)

Lol...it's all relative and a personal choice at the end of the day. I regularly use a 400mm f2.8 L IS and chose a 3541LS for it's stability and not it's weight saving. I choose the f2.8 because it's one of the most stunning optics I've ever used, certainly one of Canon's finest ever. So for me, lugging that great lump about is worthwhile and I like the photographs I get from it. A 600g weight saving for me is quite minor but your mileage might vary. sure, I'd like a mkII and a serious weight reduction...maybe next year.

tron

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1865
    • View Profile
Re: Why no 400mm f/4L IS exists?
« Reply #57 on: February 25, 2014, 07:38:54 PM »
I  believe the difference in weight is not negligible as you seem to mean: 2.35 kg for the 300mm II + 225g for the 1.4X III = 2.575Kg versus the 1.94Kg for the 400mm DO a difference of 635g.

If you have tried both combinations (with the same camera body) and you still think so I give up. I haven't - I do have tried 5DMkIII with a 500 f/4 IS II though - but I believe that in this category every weight saving counts.

In fact the change from a Manfrotto 055Prob + 410 Gear Head = 3.7Kg versus a Gitzo Systematic 3541LS + Markins M20 head = 2.3 Kg has made quite the difference for me (OK it's 1.4Kg less but you see the point... when walking everything counts)

Lol...it's all relative and a personal choice at the end of the day. I regularly use a 400mm f2.8 L IS and chose a 3541LS for it's stability and not it's weight saving. I choose the f2.8 because it's one of the most stunning optics I've ever used, certainly one of Canon's finest ever. So for me, lugging that great lump about is worthwhile and I like the photographs I get from it. A 600g weight saving for me is quite minor but your mileage might vary. sure, I'd like a mkII and a serious weight reduction...maybe next year.
Whatever suits anyone. A 400 2.8 IS II though is much lighter than its predecessor so I wish you to replace it as soon as possible. I was speaking theoretically for 400 DO vs 300 + 1/4 (I have mentioned before that I do not own them). Maybe if I tested both combinations I would not find them a lot different in weight.

Now, I chose 500 4 IS II because I had 300 f/4L (the non IS version) and 100-400L and I wanted something longer and as light - OK do not laugh I meant not extremely heavy- as possible.

Although light by comparison  in one case I had to carry it (I had a Bataflae 26L, the 500 occupied half the bag but the other half was not completely filled to save weight) it was heavy! I'd rather carry as less as possible gear with my 500.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Why no 400mm f/4L IS exists?
« Reply #57 on: February 25, 2014, 07:38:54 PM »

LShooter

  • SX60 HS
  • **
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: Why no 400mm f/4L IS exists?
« Reply #58 on: March 27, 2014, 12:22:55 PM »
I have the 400 5.6 and it's Canon's best kept secret. It is sharp and fast to focus. In the day of great ISO cameras like the 5k Mk III, IS is not needed if the shooter does their job. Kind of like the 24-70. No IS, but amazing images. Too many folks rely on IS which does help, don't get me wrong; but if you use the right ISO and shutter speed you'll have tack sharp photos.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Why no 400mm f/4L IS exists?
« Reply #58 on: March 27, 2014, 12:22:55 PM »