What's the purpose/market of the 400mm f4 IS DO II?

[MJ]

Dear CR members, I don't quite understand the reason of the existence for this lens.

Sure it's nicely designed, weather sealed and doesn't change size, a bit shorter and lighter than a conventional designed lens, but for a walk around super tele lens it's still pretty bulky and heavy and *only* f4.

Point two is the currently still exorbitant price it's still (even with CPW specials going on).

There are other alternatives - like the 100-400 II which may not be as sharp and snappy but a hell of a lot more versatile, smaller and lighter at only one stop less for a THIRD of the price. If I were to drop more than 6K on a lens I'd go all the way and get 600/800mm lenses or a 200-400mm or at least a 400 2.8 II.


Am I totally missing something here?
I'm curious to hear what you think!

 

[neuroanatomist]

Wildlife shooters concerned about weight (hiking or age). As for the cost relative to 400/5.6, that extra stop of light will cost you a lot of money, across the lineup. Compare 300/4 to 300/2.8, 200/2.8 to 200/2, 85/1.8 to 85/1.2, etc.

 

[danski0224]

The 100-400 II isn't f/4, nor can you get to 800mm with a 2x TC and retain AF with it.

A 400 f/2.8 is a whole lot heavier than the 400 DO II f/4.

If I'm not mistaken, the 400 DO II is the only way to get 400mm at f/4 in a Canon lens.

Going to 600 or 800mm in Canon White will run you almost 2x your $6k figure for a new VII lens (the 800 does not have a VII designation).

If you have not used a Canon big white in comparison to something like the 100-400II, then you will not understand.

 

[candc]

This seems to come up here time to time. I have the 400doii, 600ii, sigma 120-300, tamron 150-600, sigma 80-400. And I have used most of the other popular wildlife/bird lenses, 500ii, 300ii, 100-400, 100-400ii.

I think the 400doii is the best wildlife/bird lens going. the af is incredible. From what I have seen its as sharp as any other canon lens made.

The doii is just about the perfect combination of iq, size, weight, max aperture. It works exceptionally well with the canon xiii converters. you get a fantastic handholdable 560 f/5.6 and a really good 800 f/8. I don't use it much with the 2x converter on my 7dii its a bit more fl than I usually want and I only have center point af but its a sharp combo. I think the lens + 2x combo would be really useful on the 1dxii where you get more f/8 af points

You can say its only f/4 but that's the same as the 500 and 600. There is the 400 f/2.8 but that lens is comparable in size and weight to the 600. The 500 is somewhere in between but its still big and heavy compared to the 400doii.

 

[stochasticmotions]

Me, as soon as I can afford one. A telephoto lens that can handle both teleconverters and still fit in a bag (and have low enough weight) that I can take it on white knuckle airlines that have significant weight restrictions. Costa Rica and the Osa Peninsula would have been amazing with that lens. I also carry my lenses in a backpack on long treks through swamps, mountains and often a lot of snow. The longest lens I can get at the lowest weight (along with the major improvement in IQ compared to the original) makes this my most wanted lens right now.

 

[scyrene]

If I'm not mistaken, the 400 DO II is the only way to get 400mm at f/4 in a Canon lens.

In a single lens (barring the mark I 400 DO), but strictly speaking you could mount a 2x teleconverter on the 200 f/2 and get 400 f/4, although the image quality would not be as good (and that lens's IS isn't as good, I'm led to believe). You could even mount a 2x TC on the 200 f/1.8 and get 400 f/3.5! But no IS with that combo of course.

 

[danski0224]

In a single lens (barring the mark I 400 DO), but strictly speaking you could mount a 2x teleconverter on the 200 f/2 and get 400 f/4, although the image quality would not be as good (and that lens's IS isn't as good, I'm led to believe). You could even mount a 2x TC on the 200 f/1.8 and get 400 f/3.5! But no IS with that combo of course.

Yes, I should have clarified single lens without converters.

 

[candc]

In a single lens (barring the mark I 400 DO), but strictly speaking you could mount a 2x teleconverter on the 200 f/2 and get 400 f/4, although the image quality would not be as good (and that lens's IS isn't as good, I'm led to believe). You could even mount a 2x TC on the 200 f/1.8 and get 400 f/3.5! But no IS with that combo of course.

Yes, I should have clarified single lens without converters.

There is the 200-400. I have never used that lens but I have a couple friends who have it. Everyone seems to clamor over that lens but when they get it they don't use it much. It's 2x as heavy as the doii and costs more. I think that lens is really suited for sports more than birds/wildlife.

 

[BeenThere]

Best lens in the Canon line-up, maybe any line-up, for hand held bird photography. Some others are close for a lot less money, but this one is the best. I've used this one and the 400mm f/5.6 and the 100-400 ii. One stop makes a difference when you need motion stopping shutter speed.

 

[Eldar]

In a single lens (barring the mark I 400 DO), but strictly speaking you could mount a 2x teleconverter on the 200 f/2 and get 400 f/4, although the image quality would not be as good (and that lens's IS isn't as good, I'm led to believe). You could even mount a 2x TC on the 200 f/1.8 and get 400 f/3.5! But no IS with that combo of course.

Yes, I should have clarified single lens without converters.

There is the 200-400. I have never used that lens but I have a couple friends who have it. Everyone seems to clamor over that lens but when they get it they don't use it much. It's 2x as heavy as the doii and costs more. I think that lens is really suited for sports more than birds/wildlife.

I find the 200-400 f4L IS 1.4x more difficult to handhold than the 600 f4L IS II, due to the zooming. It is a fantastic lens for wildlife and I know several professional bird/wildlife photographers who use this as their main lens. Personally I go for the 600 most of the time, because I am reach limited in most situations and I bring along the 100-400 f4.5-5.6L IS II or 300 f2.8L IS II for flexibility. The 200-400 is also a fantastic lens for sports shooting and I know several photographers who use it every week for that. But I agree, it is not getting nearly as much use as my 600 and 100-400 lenses.

The 400 f4 DO IS II is in my view a very interesting lens. Yes, it is one stop behind the 400 f2.8L IS II, but it is a lot smaller and lighter. It can take a 2x extender and you still have good AF with a 1DX-II. For longer hikes and for flights with strict size and weight restrictions, the size and weight of this lens is very convenient.

When handholding, you probably should not be too concerned over the one stop disadvantage to the the 400 f2.8L IS II You probably win back that one stop aperture disadvantage in shutter speed. You will be more stable with the DO lens and thus be able to shoot with about a one stop improvement equivalent in shutter speed.

 

[IglooEater]

No you're not missing anything. But everyone's needs are different. If I could afford it, I'd jump on it. Seriously. It's light and compact enough to be easy to stick in a backpack, but long enough for wildlife, and wide enough aperture for 2X tele giving 800mm. That would be an amazing lens for me. I'd take it over the 100-400 and the 400mm 2.8

 

[scyrene]

In a single lens (barring the mark I 400 DO), but strictly speaking you could mount a 2x teleconverter on the 200 f/2 and get 400 f/4, although the image quality would not be as good (and that lens's IS isn't as good, I'm led to believe). You could even mount a 2x TC on the 200 f/1.8 and get 400 f/3.5! But no IS with that combo of course.

Yes, I should have clarified single lens without converters.

There is the 200-400. I have never used that lens but I have a couple friends who have it. Everyone seems to clamor over that lens but when they get it they don't use it much. It's 2x as heavy as the doii and costs more. I think that lens is really suited for sports more than birds/wildlife.

I find the 200-400 f4L IS 1.4x more difficult to handhold than the 600 f4L IS II, due to the zooming. It is a fantastic lens for wildlife and I know several professional bird/wildlife photographers who use this as their main lens. Personally I go for the 600 most of the time, because I am reach limited in most situations and I bring along the 100-400 f4.5-5.6L IS II or 300 f2.8L IS II for flexibility. The 200-400 is also a fantastic lens for sports shooting and I know several photographers who use it every week for that. But I agree, it is not getting nearly as much use as my 600 and 100-400 lenses.

The 400 f4 DO IS II is in my view a very interesting lens. Yes, it is one stop behind the 400 f2.8L IS II, but it is a lot smaller and lighter. It can take a 2x extender and you still have good AF with a 1DX-II. For longer hikes and for flights with strict size and weight restrictions, the size and weight of this lens is very convenient.

When handholding, you probably should not be too concerned over the one stop disadvantage to the the 400 f2.8L IS II You probably win back that one stop aperture disadvantage in shutter speed. You will be more stable with the DO lens and thus be able to shoot with about a one stop improvement equivalent in shutter speed.

I dunno. Everyone's different, but I wouldn't go from 1/250 to 1/125 due to using a lighter lens, because subject movement would blur the image - in the case of most of the subjects I'd be shooting with such a long lens (birds, mostly). The limiting factor is often subject movement, not camera shake.

 

[Eldar]

In a single lens (barring the mark I 400 DO), but strictly speaking you could mount a 2x teleconverter on the 200 f/2 and get 400 f/4, although the image quality would not be as good (and that lens's IS isn't as good, I'm led to believe). You could even mount a 2x TC on the 200 f/1.8 and get 400 f/3.5! But no IS with that combo of course.

Yes, I should have clarified single lens without converters.

There is the 200-400. I have never used that lens but I have a couple friends who have it. Everyone seems to clamor over that lens but when they get it they don't use it much. It's 2x as heavy as the doii and costs more. I think that lens is really suited for sports more than birds/wildlife.

I find the 200-400 f4L IS 1.4x more difficult to handhold than the 600 f4L IS II, due to the zooming. It is a fantastic lens for wildlife and I know several professional bird/wildlife photographers who use this as their main lens. Personally I go for the 600 most of the time, because I am reach limited in most situations and I bring along the 100-400 f4.5-5.6L IS II or 300 f2.8L IS II for flexibility. The 200-400 is also a fantastic lens for sports shooting and I know several photographers who use it every week for that. But I agree, it is not getting nearly as much use as my 600 and 100-400 lenses.

The 400 f4 DO IS II is in my view a very interesting lens. Yes, it is one stop behind the 400 f2.8L IS II, but it is a lot smaller and lighter. It can take a 2x extender and you still have good AF with a 1DX-II. For longer hikes and for flights with strict size and weight restrictions, the size and weight of this lens is very convenient.

When handholding, you probably should not be too concerned over the one stop disadvantage to the the 400 f2.8L IS II You probably win back that one stop aperture disadvantage in shutter speed. You will be more stable with the DO lens and thus be able to shoot with about a one stop improvement equivalent in shutter speed.

I dunno. Everyone's different, but I wouldn't go from 1/250 to 1/125 due to using a lighter lens, because subject movement would blur the image - in the case of most of the subjects I'd be shooting with such a long lens (birds, mostly). The limiting factor is often subject movement, not camera shake.

True, a faster lens will always be a faster lens. However, putting a 2x extender on any of them means handholding 800mm, which I do a lot (600+1.4x). That would probably imply having an ability to go from 1/1000s (or faster) to 1/500s (or faster). On a tripod, the faster lens always win.

 

[Silverman]

The 400 DO II is a great hand held & bird in flight lens and works well with the 1.4x and 2x TC on a pro Body.

Recently I visited Island with a 16-35 (landscape), 100-400 (landscape and relative tame animals) and the 400 DO II with both TC (birds).
For this trip I picked the 400 DO II over the 600 IS II due to weight restrictions, need for a light setup for hiking several hours and limited space in my backpack (F-Stop Satori was half full with clothes for the trip).
The 400 DO II made "my life easy" (no need for tripod) and proofed to be the right choice for this trip - there was rarely a situation where I would have needed the 600 IS II - only some "more" low light & more reach situations.

The 200-400 EXT would be a great pick for Safari in Africa, the 600 IS II for shooting mainly birds / close ups.

In my eyes - today there is only a limited need for a 300 f2.8 and 400 f2.8. f4 wont cut all but most of it.

 

[AlanF]

Jack, Geoff and I have just purchased copies. I have to agree 100% with candc. It's by far the best hand holdable super telephoto lens out there in terms of image sharpness, IS and AF. Look at the lensrental.com for a very recent analysis of it and other 400s. It takes a 1.4xTC with virtually no loss of IQ to give a 560mm f/4 that is in a different league from the 100-400mm II at 560mm or the 150-600mms on a 7DII or 5DS R. It's lighter than the Nikon 200-500 even.

On the 1DX etc, it gives a hand holdable 800mm.

But, it is very esoteric lens. The serial numbers of our new copies are in the 60-120's, showing very few have been made.

 

[Jack Douglas]

Jack, Geoff and I have just purchased copies. I have to agree 100% with candc. It's by far the best hand holdable super telephoto lens out there in terms of image sharpness, IS and AF. Look at the lensrental.com for a very recent analysis of it and other 400s. It takes a 1.4xTC with virtually no loss of IQ to give a 560mm f/4 that is in a different league from the 100-400mm II at 560mm or the 150-600mms on a 7DII or 5DS R. It's lighter than the Nikon 200-500 even.

On the 1DX etc, it gives a hand holdable 800mm.

But, it is very esoteric lens. The serial numbers of our new copies are in the 60-120's, showing very few have been made.

Alan, would you care to offer your best guess as to what exactly is happening with 400 X2 to clarify for me. So, with the smaller pixels such as 5Ds or 7DII you're saying 560 is for all intents and purposes as good as 800, but that isn't the case for 1DX II. If that's the case, it would mean the 5D4 wouldn't be a good fit either. What would account for this?

Jack

 

[AlanF]

Jack, Geoff and I have just purchased copies. I have to agree 100% with candc. It's by far the best hand holdable super telephoto lens out there in terms of image sharpness, IS and AF. Look at the lensrental.com for a very recent analysis of it and other 400s. It takes a 1.4xTC with virtually no loss of IQ to give a 560mm f/4 that is in a different league from the 100-400mm II at 560mm or the 150-600mms on a 7DII or 5DS R. It's lighter than the Nikon 200-500 even.

On the 1DX etc, it gives a hand holdable 800mm.

But, it is very esoteric lens. The serial numbers of our new copies are in the 60-120's, showing very few have been made.

Alan, would you care to offer your best guess as to what exactly is happening with 400 X2 to clarify for me. So, with the smaller pixels such as 5Ds or 7DII you're saying 560 is for all intents and purposes as good as 800, but that isn't the case for 1DX II. If that's the case, it would mean the 5D4 wouldn't be a good fit either. What would account for this?

Jack

Jack
You have switched threads from http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=30529.0
5D4 is in the "etc" class along with the 1DX II, 5D3, 5DIV, which are full frame, have AF at f/8 and diffraction limited apertures above f/8. On the 5DS R and the 7DII, f/8, the widest aperture of the 400mm DO, is above the their diffraction limited apertures of f/6.7. The increasing diffraction blurring and the hit in IQ from the 2xTC combine to lower the IQ so you don't get any advantage in resolution from going to 800mm from 560mm for these very small pixel cameras. You should see better resolution on your 6D, but you have to focus manually.

 

[Jack Douglas]

Posted this in the other thread too. Not sure which thread is the best to maintain.

Anyway, from my experience it's looking to me like I'll be able to get 300 2.8 II X 2 III level IQ from the 400 X2. It's not spectacular but very respectable and that's what I was after, the 800 reach. When 560 is OK it performs even better so I'm gearing up to sell my 300 so I'll have cash for the new camera - so what should it be 1DX II or 5D4?

Jack

 

[AlanF]

The lens is simply spectacular if you can afford it. I now use it at 560mm with a 1.4xTC III on the 5DS R where it out resolves the sensor with superb AF. It's the ultimate hand-holdable super telephoto that doesn't need a tripod for extended use.

 

[Deleted member 91053]

Dear CR members, I don't quite understand the reason of the existence for this lens.

Sure it's nicely designed, weather sealed and doesn't change size, a bit shorter and lighter than a conventional designed lens, but for a walk around super tele lens it's still pretty bulky and heavy and *only* f4.

Point two is the currently still exorbitant price it's still (even with CPW specials going on).

There are other alternatives - like the 100-400 II which may not be as sharp and snappy but a hell of a lot more versatile, smaller and lighter at only one stop less for a THIRD of the price. If I were to drop more than 6K on a lens I'd go all the way and get 600/800mm lenses or a 200-400mm or at least a 400 2.8 II.


Am I totally missing something here?
I'm curious to hear what you think!

"What's the purpose/market of the 400mm f4 IS DO II?" Very simple! ME!!!!!

I have used a few Canon 400 F5.6 L lenses and they are very good, I have the Canon 100-400 Mk2 and it is very nice. The versatility of the 100-400 Mk2 for me is the close focus, as to the 100-399mm zoom - I could care less. Don't get me wrong it is a lovely lens and I am very pleased with my copy.

The 400 F2.8 is just superb but very heavy and simply too much for many users.

So we have the 400 DO. Have you tried one? If not do so - you might well be converted! The Mk1 version appears to have been very variable - I tried out 3 of them. One was pretty mediocre, however the other two out resolved my (then) Canon 600 F4 L IS at the same range - yes read that again. There was a little loss of contrast and colour vibrancy - but it was minor and easily corrected. The Mk2 400 DO virtually eliminates this and seems to have cured the copy variation as well.

If I could sell my 300 F2.8 L IS and 100-400 Mk2 and get close to the cost of a 400 DO mk2 I would do it in a heartbeat!