The New Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II

[Steve Balcombe]

Somehow, I do not believe it would beat the 300mm f/2.8. Throw in the TC though, and there is a chance. AF should be faster than the 300 +TC.

I don't think so either, but it only needs to equal the 300/2.8, not beat it.

TC's have perfprmed poorly on DO lenses, so if one worked well, that would be a huge improvement.

Good point. It would be no use to me if it wasn't excellent with a 1.4x. I'd be ok if it wasn't all that special with the 2x, for the same reason I don't mind being unable to stack both Extenders on the 300/2.8. It's asking too much.

 

[RGF]

The image quality would have to be impeccable though...

Something the two DO lenses released to date aren't known for.

Personally, I'm not really interested in a 400mm f/4 lens...I'd rather have the 300/2.8 for the faster aperture when needed.

You reach 560 with this lens with just 1.4XTC whereas the 300/2.8 is still only at 420. To most people a 2xTC degrades the image to much. So basically this new lens could beat the 300/2.8 in the range 400 - 560. That's pretty important - we shall see.

Well, if I need to reach 560mm, I'll be using my 600/4L IS II, giving me an extra stop of light, and even more reach with a TC if needed.

Exactly and I was really hoping the next DO lens (with better IQ in theory) would be a 600mm (f/4 or f/5.6). Smaller size & weight at that focal length would make a lot more sense to me.

600 F5.6 DO could be really sweet depending upon price, weight (undoubtably easily handheld), and IQ.

Like to see how the new 400 DO II stacks up against the 400 DO (original). I have heard but was never confirmed that Canon made small improvements in the 400 DO over the years. Wonder if that was true?

 

[neuroanatomist]

Yep, I bet that 600/4 II is a brute to carry around - all up weight with box must be quite something

I hike with it frequently, hung on a BR Sport-L strap so most of the weight is on my shoulder. I shoot handheld if I stop briefly, put it on the monopod hanging from my belt if I'll be standing there for a while. If I'm staying near the car and in one place (usually winter shooting for raptors), I put it on the tripod with the gimbal head. It's 50% more focal length than the 400 DO, and the body+lens combo is about 50% more weight.

As for carrying it around, I spend far more time carrying one of my three kids than I do the lens, and the lightest of my three kids weighs ~26 lbs, more than double the weight of the 1D X + 600 II.

 

[Steve]

My kit's 16 pounds worth of lens and camera, not including my tripod and gimbal. Just because I can hike it no problem doesn't mean everyone else is my age and ability. This lens would be, I imagine, pretty great for folks who don't want to or simply can't haul a bunch of heavy gear around but still want a good amount of reach. 560mm at 5.6 with 1.4x TC is pretty respectable in a 4lb lens. I bet it fits in an overhead compartment a lot easier, too.

 

[neuroanatomist]

My kit's 16 pounds worth of lens and camera, not including my tripod and gimbal. Just because I can hike it no problem doesn't mean everyone else is my age and ability. This lens would be, I imagine, pretty great for folks who don't want to or simply can't haul a bunch of heavy gear around but still want a good amount of reach. 560mm at 5.6 with 1.4x TC is pretty respectable in a 4lb lens. I bet it fits in an overhead compartment a lot easier, too.

I didn't say a 400/4 DO II wouldn't be a good or useful lens, I didn't say it wasn't the right choice for everyone or anyone, I said it wasn't the right choice for me.

Hope that's clear...

FWIW, the current 400/5.6 is a lot lighter, a lot cheaper, and delivers IQ pretty close to the current 400/4 DO.

 

[wtlloyd]

Agree. Keep shutter speed up and it does fine. What it doesn't do is IS and f/4.0.

FWIW, the current 400/5.6 is a lot lighter, a lot cheaper, and delivers IQ pretty close to the current 400/4 DO.

 

[Steve]

Or take a TC well/at all

 

[neuroanatomist]

Or take a TC well/at all

Well, not everyone has the age and ability to carry around the 400/4 DO, which is 2 lbs heavier. Nor does everyone have the financial means to spend several thousand dollars on a lens. So the 400/5.6 is pretty great for folks who don't want to haul heavy gear around or can't afford a supertele, but still want a decent amount of reach.

You see what you I did there?

 

[Steve]

Well, not everyone has the age and ability to carry around the 400/4 DO, which is 2 lbs heavier. Nor does everyone have the financial means to spend several thousand dollars on a lens. So the 400/5.6 is pretty great for folks who don't want to haul heavy gear around or can't afford a supertele, but still want a decent amount of reach.

You see what you I did there?

Those are all things I agree with!

 

[TexPhoto]

Now I can afford the Mark I version!!!!

Hope that works out for you. Prices on used MkI versions of the other superteles went up by ~$1K due to the uber-high announced MkII pricing.

I can vouch for that. I bought my 400mm f2.8 IS for $3950 about 3 months before VII came out. I then saw them selling at $4500 to $6000 used.

 

[RickWagoner]

FWIW, the current 400/5.6 is a lot lighter, a lot cheaper, and delivers IQ pretty close to the current 400/4 DO.

Lots of entry level birders buy into Cannon because of this single lens and most stick with it. A perfect walk around affordable lens!

 

[NancyP]

Yes, the 400 f/5.6L is a fun lens to shoot with, and I don't mind at all carrying a 1.2 kg lens around for hours and miles, whether it is the 400 f/5.6L or my other hefty, the 180 f/3.5L macro.

 

[privatebydesign]

If they solved their bokeh problems, perhaps the lens would have more appeal, but I think that bokeh is a problem inherent in the DO design?

The 400 didn't have a bokeh problem. The 70-300 DO was the lens with the sometimes weird bokeh. The internet seems to have lumped both lenses together as if they were one and the same. Spec highlights on the 400 could have a bit of a bullseye effect but that was about it. The OOF areas aren't as nice as the 300 2.8 or 400 2.8 in my opinion, but they aren't really problematic either.

I think the 400 f4 DO II would be pretty amazing if it were about 2/3rd or 1/2 the cost of a 300 2.8 IS II but that's really unlikely.

That depends on your definitions of "problem" and "bokeh".

I think the 400 MkI does have bokeh problems, I used one for a day and got it to do stuff like this, I am sorry but for >$6,000 I want much better than that. Now I will admit that I personally shot over water like this regularly, so for me it was an unsurmountable issue, and I can well understand others happy and extensive use that never induces such low quality, but for me the 300 f2.8 IS MkI and 1.4TC was a much better, and cheaper, buy and in my opinion DO sucks, yes the 400 DO sucks less than the 70-300 DO (which really sucks) but they both suck.

 

[jrista]

That depends on your definitions of "problem" and "bokeh".

I think the 400 MkI does have bokeh problems, I used one for a day and got it to do stuff like this, I am sorry but for >$6,000 I want much better than that. Now I will admit that I personally shot over water like this regularly, so for me it was an unsurmountable issue, and I can well understand others happy and extensive use that never induces such low quality, but for me the 300 f2.8 IS MkI and 1.4TC was a much better, and cheaper, buy and in my opinion DO sucks, yes the 400 DO sucks less than the 70-300 DO (which really sucks) but they both suck.

Hmm, are you sure that's the lens? With the 600/4 II, a stellar lens that is capable of producing phenomenal boke, I have seen much the same effect as that. I was worried when I first saw it...then I started noticing that on the days my images had that kind of boke, there was a lot of evaporating water in the air. I tend to get low for my bird shots whenever I can. During the early part of last summer, when we had a few REALLY hot days here in Colorado, I noticed that my boke was really crappy like that...and that you could clearly see the water vapor evaporating off the mud flats between me, my subject, and my subject and the background. Here is an example of crappy water-vapor warped boke with my 600/4 II:

And here is an example of better boke:

This second image is still shot over water (I don't usually keep photos with OOF boke blur circles in the background, so I don't have many examples), so it still isn't perfect. But it's a lot better, as this was taken on a much cooler day, and there wasn't any visible mirage-type warping of the air due to an overload of evaporating water.

It looks like the photo you shared is shot over some kind of body of water. I'd suspect there is a lot of water vapor in the air, which is probably totally warping the boke blur circles.

 

[mrsfotografie]

Seems I'm not the only one to look at this lens and wonder, why?

Jim

Whatever the reason, I'm happy Canon is still pushing this technology. In the end, that's what creates progress if not through revolution, then through evolution. Just look at all the other technology around you... How much of it has been developed / evolved from earlier examples?

If any big white is of interest to me, this is the one. The focal length, size and weight are right, if performance is good even with a 1.4 TC then I might at one point save up enough pennies to buy one.

 

[Vossie]

The lens is about the weight and size of the 300 2.8 II, which is recognized as one of the very best (Canon) lenses that combines really well with TC's. Unless it is significantly cheaper than the 300 (which is highly unlikely), my guess is that many people would choose the 300 (+1.4x) combo over this lens.

Like most of you, I am interested to read the first reviews of this lens to how good the IQ is.

 

[Synkka]

I am really interested to see how this lens performs. Canon seems keen on the DO technology so it will be really interesting to see what improvements they have made over time. I don't think this lens will fill the niche between the stand teles and the big whites, I expect it will be priced with the rest of the big whites.
I hope this lens can shake the DO stigma as from what I can tell a major drawback of the previous DO lens is it's depreciation compared to the other super teles.

 

[privatebydesign]

That depends on your definitions of "problem" and "bokeh".

I think the 400 MkI does have bokeh problems, I used one for a day and got it to do stuff like this, I am sorry but for >$6,000 I want much better than that. Now I will admit that I personally shot over water like this regularly, so for me it was an unsurmountable issue, and I can well understand others happy and extensive use that never induces such low quality, but for me the 300 f2.8 IS MkI and 1.4TC was a much better, and cheaper, buy and in my opinion DO sucks, yes the 400 DO sucks less than the 70-300 DO (which really sucks) but they both suck.

Hmm, are you sure that's the lens? With the 600/4 II, a stellar lens that is capable of producing phenomenal boke, I have seen much the same effect as that. I was worried when I first saw it...then I started noticing that on the days my images had that kind of boke, there was a lot of evaporating water in the air. I tend to get low for my bird shots whenever I can. During the early part of last summer, when we had a few REALLY hot days here in Colorado, I noticed that my boke was really crappy like that...and that you could clearly see the water vapor evaporating off the mud flats between me, my subject, and my subject and the background. Here is an example of crappy water-vapor warped boke with my 600/4 II:

And here is an example of better boke:

This second image is still shot over water (I don't usually keep photos with OOF boke blur circles in the background, so I don't have many examples), so it still isn't perfect. But it's a lot better, as this was taken on a much cooler day, and there wasn't any visible mirage-type warping of the air due to an overload of evaporating water.

It looks like the photo you shared is shot over some kind of body of water. I'd suspect there is a lot of water vapor in the air, which is probably totally warping the boke blur circles.

Well I have thousands of shots from the 300 f2.8 IS MkI and it is never as bad as the image I posted, not just for the harshness but for the magenta, so I believe the 400 DO MkI does have a propensity for badness in those circumstances. Now as I said many may never shoot in those situations, but I did very regularly, three to four times per week, so for me it was a complete nonstarter.

 

[jrista]

Well I have thousands of shots from the 300 f2.8 IS MkI and it is never as bad as the image I posted, not just for the harshness but for the magenta, so I believe the 400 DO MkI does have a propensity for badness in those circumstances. Now as I said many may never shoot in those situations, but I did very regularly, three to four times per week, so for me it was a complete nonstarter.

When it comes to the magenta, that's definitely something different...could be some kind of color fringing due to the diffraction.

The pattern of your boke circles, however, looks nearly identical to mine that suffered from the water vapor issue. I think the "standard" boke circle for Canon's old DO lenses is a multi-ringed circle, sometimes a doughnut. It's usually consistent, not warped like the ones from our water shots, but otherwise still not as clean and pristine as a non-do lens is capable of.

 

[Steve]

Yeah, that example you posted doesn't look awesome, pbd, but like jrista I've got quite a few pics taken with my 300 2.8 with less than stellar OOF areas. Different conditions will give different results.

I don't think anyone would say the 400 DO outperforms or even equals modern Canon superteles. Canon does not give them the L designation, after all. I just don't think they are utterly broken, useless garbage like much of the internet seems to think. There's a lot of promise in the tech. Its actually a bit of a mixed blessing that Canon is the one with the patents; they have the resources to put toward development but not much in the way of incentive since they are already King of Lens Hill.