Another Mention of Big White Lens Revisions [CR1]

[Jopa]

aww... I have twins... big baby and a little baby

Are you sure they are twins? The size and the race seem to be different

 

[Steve Balcombe]

Thats a DO lens, and its too expensive for its performance and at the price you are better off with 300mm f/2.8 + 1.4x TC.

Actually for many people that's not true. Yes the 400 DO is £1000 more (only £650 if you factor in the cost of an extender), but it's smaller, lighter by over 500 g than the 300 plus 1.4x, and AF performance is better due to no extender. I have the 300, and the main reason I haven't switched (yet) is the 3.3 m minimum focusing distance which is a concern for small birds, reptiles etc. - and I may still relent on that.

 

[Mikehit]

Thats a DO lens, and its too expensive for its performance and at the price you are better off with 300mm f/2.8 + 1.4x TC.

That is a very broad generalisation and is related only to image quality, not its real-world use. The 400 plus 1.4tc gives you 560mm f5.6 - the 300mm plus 2xtc gives you 600mm at f5.6 with the negatives that a 2xtc bring. And the 400mm gives you the option of going to 800mm.
So which part of the 'performance' do you think it is too expensive for....? For me, the 300mm would not do 90% of the stuff I have used the 400mm DO for since I got it.
If I were doing athletics or soccer, or photographing big wildlife, the 300mm would probably have been sufficient for me. But it ain't.

 

[tron]

Thats a DO lens, and its too expensive for its performance and at the price you are better off with 300mm f/2.8 + 1.4x TC.

That is a very broad generalisation and is related only to image quality, not its real-world use. The 400 plus 1.4tc gives you 560mm f5.6 - the 300mm plus 2xtc gives you 600mm at f5.6 with the negatives that a 2xtc bring. And the 400mm gives you the option of going to 800mm.
So which part of the 'performance' do you think it is too expensive for....? For me, the 300mm would not do 90% of the stuff I have used the 400mm DO for since I got it.
If I were doing athletics or soccer, or photographing big wildlife, the 300mm would probably have been sufficient for me. But it ain't.

+1 plus 300 +1.4 (latest editions) have less IQ than 400DO II with no teleconverter. For anyone not believing this they can check lensrentals article:

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/01/more-canon-400m-do-ii-comparisons/

 

[arbitrage]

I would like to see 500 f/5.6 & 400 f/4 IS L being added to lineup replacing the 300 f/4 IS L and 400 f/5.6 L. Both those lenses still sell like hot cakes and are in need of replacement soon.

There is a 400/4 IS already:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-400mm-f-4.0-DO-IS-II-USM-Lens.aspx

Thats a DO lens, and its too expensive for its performance and at the price you are better off with 300mm f/2.8 + 1.4x TC. Since the advent of the 150-600mm lenses from Sigma and Tamron , that 400mm f/5.6L is the most dumped lens on used market and it can be found for around 45000Rs(~660$). I just hope we get update to those two old L lenses sooner.

I would disagree that one is always better off with 300/1.4. I had both and I sold off the 300 after comparing the two. The 400DOII at 400 is sharper than the 300/1.4. The 400/1.4 at 560 is sharper than the 300/2x at 600. The bare 400 is about equal to the bare 300....the bare 300 may have a slight edge but basically meaingless in real world results.

There is really only one decision one has to make....do you want the option to shoot 800 f/8 or the option to shoot 300 f/2.8? I chose 800 f/8 because of the 1DX2 makes focusing with that combo just as fast and with all the AF options as previous cameras did at f/5.6. Because I mainly do birds, 300mm is rarely used.

Also the 400 is lighter and smaller by a little bit.

So in the end I disagree with your statement and I can speak from first hand experience with both lenses. Have you owned either of them?

 

[arbitrage]

I think the only way people would buy updates to the 300, 400, 500, 600 would be with integrated TCs. I don't think Canon updating IS and decreasing the weight (can't see it being a large decrease this time like the 400 and 600 were last time) will be enough for most of us to update.

The 800 could use an update and would be able to lose weight but personally I think the 800 is redundant next to the 600/1.4TC.

DO is the other popular option and I've been wanting to get the 600DO since we saw the prototype over a year ago.

However, remember that DO is not a huge weight saver, DO is a length saver and that does bring some weight savings. DO does nothing for front element diameter and therefore isn't a width/girth saver.

As much as I lust for the 600DO, I continue to wonder if the weight savings will be significant enough to justify what is expected to be a very, very expensive upgrade from the 600II.

I think that if Canon released a 600DO (that didn't get to the 500II weight or better) and a 600 with 1.4TC that weighed the same as the 600II does, I'd probably spend my money on the 600 with 1.4TC built in.

If the 600DO doesn't even get down to 500II weight than I don't think I will spend the money just for the length savings. The length savings would be valuable for flying but it has to have significant weight savings also and I'm not sure if it will have as much weight savings as we all expect.

 

[ERHP]

Having had an original 600 and now the 600 II, I do not hesitate to bring up to the Canon reps that I would love to see a 1.4X integrated into this focal length. Being on the DO platform would be nice as the length would still be shorter overall but if it was on the L glass, I'd buy that as well. Not only would it open up a lot more framing possibilities but I'd probably have less dust in my 1DX MK II.

 

[padam]

It is either-or.
Canon chose to go simpler, shorter and lighter weight (and possibly better optical quality) as opposed to a built-in extender.

The 400/2.8 could very well be the one to get an extender next time. It is a stop faster and is less likely to be tried hand-held, so it is less of a design consideration.

 

[H. Jones]

It is either-or.
Canon chose to go simpler, shorter and lighter weight (and possibly better optical quality) as opposed to a built-in extender.

The 400/2.8 could very well be the one to get an extender next time. It is a stop faster and is less likely to be tried hand-held, so it is less of a design consideration.

Good point. That said, I think Canon isn't afraid of putting extenders in hand-holdable lenses. The weight of the 200-400 doesn't give me any issues hand-holding it, even though it could have been lighter without an extender. With that in mind, I wouldn't mind if they made a 300mm f/2.8 1.4x lens, since they could probably find ways to cut some weight to make up for the extender anyway and keep it around the same weight, which would still be very hand-holdable.

 

[Chaitanya]

I would like to see 500 f/5.6 & 400 f/4 IS L being added to lineup replacing the 300 f/4 IS L and 400 f/5.6 L. Both those lenses still sell like hot cakes and are in need of replacement soon.

There is a 400/4 IS already:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-400mm-f-4.0-DO-IS-II-USM-Lens.aspx

Thats a DO lens, and its too expensive for its performance and at the price you are better off with 300mm f/2.8 + 1.4x TC. Since the advent of the 150-600mm lenses from Sigma and Tamron , that 400mm f/5.6L is the most dumped lens on used market and it can be found for around 45000Rs(~660$). I just hope we get update to those two old L lenses sooner.

I would disagree that one is always better off with 300/1.4. I had both and I sold off the 300 after comparing the two. The 400DOII at 400 is sharper than the 300/1.4. The 400/1.4 at 560 is sharper than the 300/2x at 600. The bare 400 is about equal to the bare 300....the bare 300 may have a slight edge but basically meaingless in real world results.

There is really only one decision one has to make....do you want the option to shoot 800 f/8 or the option to shoot 300 f/2.8? I chose 800 f/8 because of the 1DX2 makes focusing with that combo just as fast and with all the AF options as previous cameras did at f/5.6. Because I mainly do birds, 300mm is rarely used.

Also the 400 is lighter and smaller by a little bit.

So in the end I disagree with your statement and I can speak from first hand experience with both lenses. Have you owned either of them?

I regularly rent both 300 and 400 f/2.8 lenses with or without 1.4x TC. I rarely need a telephoto lens so never got around paying for the big glass(Spent more on my macro gear). Also unluckily the DO lens is not available with any rental service in my city. I do like the results from both those lenses(300mm and 400mm f/2.8) with or without TC attached.

 

[bholliman]

I would disagree that one is always better off with 300/1.4. I had both and I sold off the 300 after comparing the two. The 400DOII at 400 is sharper than the 300/1.4. The 400/1.4 at 560 is sharper than the 300/2x at 600. The bare 400 is about equal to the bare 300....the bare 300 may have a slight edge but basically meaingless in real world results.

There is really only one decision one has to make....do you want the option to shoot 800 f/8 or the option to shoot 300 f/2.8? I chose 800 f/8 because of the 1DX2 makes focusing with that combo just as fast and with all the AF options as previous cameras did at f/5.6. Because I mainly do birds, 300mm is rarely used.

Also the 400 is lighter and smaller by a little bit.

So in the end I disagree with your statement and I can speak from first hand experience with both lenses. Have you owned either of them?

You have obviously done your own comparisons, but the TDP lens tool shows the 300II + 1.4 slightly better at 400/420 to my eyes:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=962&Camera=453&Sample=1&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=739&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

I've had the 300 f/2.8 II for a couple of years now and love it, but I'm doing more and more wildlife photography and really need more reach. I briefly considered the 400DOII, but just don't think it will give the reach I'm looking for, and from what I've seen isn't much of an upgrade over my current set-up. You can get 800 f/8 while the 300 can give you 300 f/2.8, so both of strengths. One big plus for me is the MFD of the 300 is much better (79" vs. 130" for the DO), which is something I appreciate as I often use the 300 with and without extension tubes for close-up nature stuff.

Currently, I'm thinking about keeping the 300 and adding a 500/f4 II or 600 f/4 II. I know the 600 is better for the intended use, but am trying to justify the additional cost to myself since this IS just a hobby. I've rented both and can hand hold the 500 effectively, while I can't do that with the 600 for very long.

 

[Steve Balcombe]

I've had the 300 f/2.8 II for a couple of years now and love it, but I'm doing more and more wildlife photography and really need more reach. I briefly considered the 400DOII, but just don't think it will give the reach I'm looking for, and from what I've seen isn't much of an upgrade over my current set-up. You can get 800 f/8 while the 300 can give you 300 f/2.8, so both of strengths. One big plus for me is the MFD of the 300 is much better (79" vs. 130" for the DO), which is something I appreciate as I often use the 300 with and without extension tubes for close-up nature stuff.

Currently, I'm thinking about keeping the 300 and adding a 500/f4 II or 600 f/4 II. I know the 600 is better for the intended use, but am trying to justify the additional cost to myself since this IS just a hobby. I've rented both and can hand hold the 500 effectively, while I can't do that with the 600 for very long.

This is my story almost exactly, and I went for the 500. No regrets at all.

 

[Maiaibing]

Currently, I'm thinking about keeping the 300 and adding a 500/f4 II or 600 f/4 II. I know the 600 is better for the intended use, but am trying to justify the additional cost to myself since this IS just a hobby. I've rented both and can hand hold the 500 effectively, while I can't do that with the 600 for very long.

Utility is a quality in itself.

I've been considering adding one of these to my 300mm f/2.8 IS L II myself later this year and have decided that if applicable I'll go for the 500mm because I can see myself carrying and shooting it from a sling. Not so with the 600mm. This alone would make me use it less. Rather then go with 500mm + 1.4x when needed.

 

[bholliman]

Currently, I'm thinking about keeping the 300 and adding a 500/f4 II or 600 f/4 II.

This is my story almost exactly, and I went for the 500. No regrets at all.

I've been considering adding one of these to my 300mm f/2.8 IS L II myself later this year and have decided that if applicable I'll go for the 500mm because I can see myself carrying and shooting it from a sling. Not so with the 600mm. This alone would make me use it less. Rather then go with 500mm + 1.4x when needed.

I rented both the 500 II and 600 II for weekends last fall and came away with great pictures from both. Sure, I liked the extra reach of the 600, but being tethered to a tripod and gimbal is very limiting. My attempts to hand hold the 600 were not very successful and I certainly wouldn't want to hike very far with one.

I'm thinking I'll add a 500 before the spring migration for Sand Hill cranes (mid March). My wife suggested that maybe I consider selling my 300 to help fund the 500, but I convinced her and myself that I will still use it extensively after adding the 500.