Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II USM Lens Review

[AlanF]

The first review of the EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II has just appeared in ePhotozine
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/canon-ef-400mm-f-4-do-is-ii-usm-lens-review-26785

The sharpness at f/4 is phenomenal. The sharpness falls off with increasing f number, and rapidly above f/11. From the Canon MTFs, at 560mm with the 1.4xTC it is probably sharper than the 300mm f/2.8 II at 600mm with the 2xTC and slightly lighter. It is a superb lens - pity it is so expensive.

 

[BeenThere]

No dealers in the U.S. Seem to have them in stock.

 

[mackguyver]

The first review of the EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II has just appeared in ePhotozine
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/canon-ef-400mm-f-4-do-is-ii-usm-lens-review-26785

The sharpness at f/4 is phenomenal. The sharpness falls off with increasing f number, and rapidly above f/11. From the Canon MTFs, at 560mm with the 1.4xTC it is probably sharper than the 300mm f/2.8 II at 600mm with the 2xTC and slightly lighter. It is a superb lens - pity it is so expensive.

Thanks Alan, and dammit, I was afraid that it might be an exceptional lens! I wish they had tested flare and bokeh, but at least it's a good review otherwise. I'd kill for a 600mm DO lens.

No dealers in the U.S. Seem to have them in stock.

Amazon had one just the other day. They seem to coming into the US, just slowly.

 

[Deleted member 91053]

It is beginning to look like they got it right with the new DO - I am really fancying one, pity about the price!
Given the weight and size savings I think Mackguyver is right 600 F4 DO would be a wonderful option. It makes me ponder if an 800 F4 DO might be practical? I could never afford one (if it were made) but I can dream......

 

[NancyP]

I would dream about a 600 f/4 DO that handles like my current beloved but S-L-O-W lens the 400 f/5.6L. One of these days I have to woman up and rent the 500 or 600 f/4 for a week. What's an extra 5 or 6 pounds when shooting hand-held?

 

[Don Haines]

I would dream about a 600 f/4 DO that handles like my current beloved but S-L-O-W lens the 400 f/5.6L. One of these days I have to woman up and rent the 500 or 600 f/4 for a week. What's an extra 5 or 6 pounds when shooting hand-held?

Beware the dark side, for once you start down it's path, forever will it consume your destiny

 

[Maiaibing]

The first review of the EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II has just appeared in ePhotozine
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/canon-ef-400mm-f-4-do-is-ii-usm-lens-review-26785

The sharpness at f/4 is phenomenal. The sharpness falls off with increasing f number, and rapidly above f/11. From the Canon MTFs, at 560mm with the 1.4xTC it is probably sharper than the 300mm f/2.8 II at 600mm with the 2xTC and slightly lighter. It is a superb lens - pity it is so expensive.

Sounds like we should be praying for a 300mm f/4 IS DO like Nikon just delivered! However, still want to see how it handles difficult light situations, back lit, flare etc.

 

[Loswr]

Sounds like we should be praying for a 300mm f/4 IS DO like Nikon just delivered!

You can pray for a lens with last-generation, outdated DO technology and a 'black box' warning about flare if you like. I'd prefer something better.

 

[miah]

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?

 

[geonix]

Hello all.

I really look forward to this lens and have started saving for it since it has been annouced at Photokina.
When you look at this Canon video on EF Lenses:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkBOsTVfpdA

they mention that the optical element of the 400mm DO has been moved deeper into the lens to reduce flare and "unnecessary light". So I wonder if such a huge lens hood as schown in the review is still necessary?

 

[BeenThere]

Like you, I don't see any currently available in U.S. A few user reviewed are showing up on the web, and all have been very positive. I think only a few are trickling into retail channels. My guess is that Canon doesn't expect a ton of long term demand for this lens because of the price point, so has set up a very limited production capacity. The new 100-400mm lens has had a lot more units sold, but is also currently in short supply.

 

[miah]

Wow, the 400 f/2.8 seems to sell for a LOT less in Great Britain. The review's author states that the 400 f/2.8 is "slightly more expensive" than the 400 DO II, or $1164 US dollars more. But here in the US, the 400 f/2.8 is $3600 more than the 400 DO II, $10,499 vs $6899.

 

[K-amps]

Perhaps they are referring to the ver i of the 400 f2.8 and not the ii. Is that still available?

 

[sulla]

he sharpness at f/4 is phenomenal. The sharpness falls off with increasing f number, and rapidly above f/11.

Hm. I am thinking about a reason why the lens is sharpest at f/4 and falls off right after this.

Hmmmmmmmmm. Still no clue. Might it be that diffraction of the apertures smaller than 4 and the diffraction of the DO-element somehow amplify each other?? I don't think this lens is diffraction-limited already at 5.6, or is it??

 

[Maiaibing]

You can pray for a lens with last-generation, outdated DO technology and a 'black box' warning about flare if you like. I'd prefer something better.

Since Canon claims to have upgraded their DO lens tech I would expect better. We'll see how the 400mm handles flare soon.

 

[JPAZ]

Seems like they are finally getting the DO technology right. I do know some folks who get excellent stuff from the Mk 1 but the lighting needs to be just right. But, my 300 f/2.8 ii with a 1.4 is my option for this focal length (weighs a bit more but already spent that $ so won't be spending more).

Given the weight savings, do want to see a 500 / 600 / 800 DO down the road.

 

[BeenThere]

he sharpness at f/4 is phenomenal. The sharpness falls off with increasing f number, and rapidly above f/11.

Hm. I am thinking about a reason why the lens is sharpest at f/4 and falls off right after this.

Hmmmmmmmmm. Still no clue. Might it be that diffraction of the apertures smaller than 4 and the diffraction of the DO-element somehow amplify each other?? I don't think this lens is diffraction-limited already at 5.6, or is it??

Yes it could be so good as to be diffraction limited at f/4.

 

[Plainsman]

...beautiful short fat lens that would look even better in black!

 

[geonix]

he sharpness at f/4 is phenomenal. The sharpness falls off with increasing f number, and rapidly above f/11.

Hm. I am thinking about a reason why the lens is sharpest at f/4 and falls off right after this.

Hmmmmmmmmm. Still no clue. Might it be that diffraction of the apertures smaller than 4 and the diffraction of the DO-element somehow amplify each other?? I don't think this lens is diffraction-limited already at 5.6, or is it??

Yes it could be so good as to be diffraction limited at f/4.

The MTF Chart in this review indicates that the lens ist still "excellent" at f8 and f11 but I still find that odd. Often people stop down to f8 or f11 to increase depth of field so if sharpness decreases after f5.6 ...
Also I don't know what the MTF@140mm beneath the chart is about. ???

 

[[email protected]]

It does seem like the 800mm f/5.6 is pretty pointless now, and a Mark II of it would have to be miraculously better to beat the 600mm II + TC... Unless they do a DO job to the 800. It's the only thing I can think of that would make the 800 focal length attractive. It could be 7 pounds, the weight of the 500mm F/4 II.

In retrospect, it seems odd that the 400mm focal length has been the test bed, as working on the longer lenses would be a better value proposition. Price cannibalization doesn't seem like the concern, as - it being Canon - they could just charge $18k for a 800 DO and make even more of a margin with it.