So, has anyone here used before the Canon 400mm DO lens? And maybe have some sample images? ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°
Canon 400mm DO
- Thread starter traingineer
- Start date
There was a (short) thread in the Lens Gallery section on the 400 DO but it seems to have been lost when that section was reorganised. I have no experience with the 400 but after using the 70-300DO ( which isn't as competative in 'IQ' to convential lenses as the 400 is), I think the loss of IQ is worth it if smaller size is very important to you.
However I expect most on CR will disagree
I should add that I wouldn't ever buy a DO lens new. They take such a beating in reviews and other such 'sites their used value plummets, making them good value second hand but unprecedented depreciation (for a Canon lens) from new.
However I expect most on CR will disagree
I should add that I wouldn't ever buy a DO lens new. They take such a beating in reviews and other such 'sites their used value plummets, making them good value second hand but unprecedented depreciation (for a Canon lens) from new.
Upvote
0
I have tried to post some 400DO sample images for Traingineer to view, via the attachment option, but being new to participating in this forum, I must have done something wrong...my post is not showing up and when i tried to do it again I got a message saying I was now double-posting. Any advice on how to post a 500kb jpg in a thread reply like this would be appreciated.
Thanks
Grant
Thanks
Grant
Upvote
0
I own a Canon 400DO and it is my principal wildlife lens. I love it for its relatively compact size and its sharpness. All of my shots with this lens are hand held and I find the results to be excellent as long as I keep the shutter speed at about 1/400 or above.
The lens sort of got a bad reputation back in 2003 when it was first issued. But, if it had bugs they've long since been ironed out. I would recommend this lens unhesitatingly to anyone who wants a fairly compact 400 for field use.
One aspect of the lens that I don't like. It comes equipped with a monstrous lens hood that is nearly as long as the lens itself. Apparently it's the same hood that Canon supplies with the 300 f2.8. My suspicion is that this is overkill and its enormous bulk works against the lens' compact size. I've been scouring the photographic equipment sites for something more compact but have found nothing yet.
Here's a recent image that gives a pretty good idea of this lens' sharpness.
The lens sort of got a bad reputation back in 2003 when it was first issued. But, if it had bugs they've long since been ironed out. I would recommend this lens unhesitatingly to anyone who wants a fairly compact 400 for field use.
One aspect of the lens that I don't like. It comes equipped with a monstrous lens hood that is nearly as long as the lens itself. Apparently it's the same hood that Canon supplies with the 300 f2.8. My suspicion is that this is overkill and its enormous bulk works against the lens' compact size. I've been scouring the photographic equipment sites for something more compact but have found nothing yet.
Here's a recent image that gives a pretty good idea of this lens' sharpness.
Attachments
Upvote
0
I asked about this lens, I forget which thread...and nobody chimed in. Good to see some users actually have and enjoy it.
I've considered renting it, and still might...but I've decided to hold off on renting anything for a while.
I agree it should not be bought new at full price. However, a good used one, or perhaps a refurb...seems like a decent value, from the images and tests I've seen (although if you assume a refurb is a flawed lens that's been returned...then you might want to be leery...but I'm not sure how often this is the case with this lens, or any of the superteles via canon's "refurb").
For all the pomp about the 300 f/2.8 ii, once you slap on that 1.4x iii converter, it's not a vast improvement in sharpness, if any, over the bare 400 f/4 DO...from looking at Bryan's test comparison at the-digital-picture.com. It's really just when you compare both lenses bare with no TC, that the new 300 beats it hands down...along with every other L lens including the other series 2 superteles.
So the reasons I see for getting this instead of the new 300, is if you absolutely need the pound or so lighter weight...you want to save perhaps $800 to $1000 off the used price, and you can live with what must be vastly inferior image stabilization...and I would have to think a vastly slower autofocus (the 300 ii is said to be the fastest autofocusing lens in the world regardless of manufacturer).
The overall contrast is said to be poor via the 400 DO, but based on the great examples in this thread, and also if you have a look at other websites (such as pbase.com...although most examples there are small and shot over 5 years ago on inferior cameras)...you will find that it doesn't really lack for contrast all that much...especially if you add a touch in post, or in camera.
I've called for a new version at a wider focal length, but with a built in switchable TC or two. Most commenters did their best to say it was a stupid idea that would never happen, but I say that's a shame. A 250mm f/2.5 DO, or a 350mm f/3.5 DO, with built in TC, with similar sharpness to the other series 2 superteles...would be a fantastic, ultra lightweight lens...it seems to me. Maybe when they've sold all the 200-400 f/4 zooms they can build, they will consider trying a different approach, but I'm not holding my breath.
I've considered renting it, and still might...but I've decided to hold off on renting anything for a while.
I agree it should not be bought new at full price. However, a good used one, or perhaps a refurb...seems like a decent value, from the images and tests I've seen (although if you assume a refurb is a flawed lens that's been returned...then you might want to be leery...but I'm not sure how often this is the case with this lens, or any of the superteles via canon's "refurb").
For all the pomp about the 300 f/2.8 ii, once you slap on that 1.4x iii converter, it's not a vast improvement in sharpness, if any, over the bare 400 f/4 DO...from looking at Bryan's test comparison at the-digital-picture.com. It's really just when you compare both lenses bare with no TC, that the new 300 beats it hands down...along with every other L lens including the other series 2 superteles.
So the reasons I see for getting this instead of the new 300, is if you absolutely need the pound or so lighter weight...you want to save perhaps $800 to $1000 off the used price, and you can live with what must be vastly inferior image stabilization...and I would have to think a vastly slower autofocus (the 300 ii is said to be the fastest autofocusing lens in the world regardless of manufacturer).
The overall contrast is said to be poor via the 400 DO, but based on the great examples in this thread, and also if you have a look at other websites (such as pbase.com...although most examples there are small and shot over 5 years ago on inferior cameras)...you will find that it doesn't really lack for contrast all that much...especially if you add a touch in post, or in camera.
I've called for a new version at a wider focal length, but with a built in switchable TC or two. Most commenters did their best to say it was a stupid idea that would never happen, but I say that's a shame. A 250mm f/2.5 DO, or a 350mm f/3.5 DO, with built in TC, with similar sharpness to the other series 2 superteles...would be a fantastic, ultra lightweight lens...it seems to me. Maybe when they've sold all the 200-400 f/4 zooms they can build, they will consider trying a different approach, but I'm not holding my breath.
Upvote
0
Canon's own MTF charts show the 300mm f/2.8 II + 1.4xTC III (bottom) to be significantly better than the 400 DO (Top).
ps
Just checked Bryan's TDP comparison: the 300 at 420mm is distinctly sharper
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=338&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=739&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=0
ps
Just checked Bryan's TDP comparison: the 300 at 420mm is distinctly sharper
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=338&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=739&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=0
Attachments
Upvote
0
While I haven't shot the 300mm f/2.8 with a 1.4X telecon, I have shot it indoors and love it. However, for outdoor shooting during hikes and climbs, I love the 400mm DO because of it's size. I've lugged it up 14,000' mountains with no issue, and gotten what are (for an amateur like me) great results. I have a well-connected friend who loans me both of these lenses from time-to-time, so I'm a lucky guy...
Upvote
0
The Tamron 150-600mm is the same weight as the 400 DO, costs less than 1/5th of the price, has much better IS, and you will have a shock when you compare them at 400mm:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=338&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=929&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=338&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=929&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0
Upvote
0
I've got the 400mm DO as well as the 600mm II and the 400+1.4x II gets more use. It's much much easier to hand hold (though that said I hand hold the 600mm II w/ 1.4x III. I'm a nut job 
The Tamron is interesting but it's slower right? Pretty impressively sharp though and not that much slower. I hadn't considered it as a replacement for the 400mm DO, that's an interesting idea. Wonder what I can get for it on the used market.
Has anyone done a 400mm DO -> Tamron 150-600 swap? If so, any regrets? Or are you happy you did the switch?
Birders would be high on my list of interesting people. How well does it autofocus on a 5DIII?
The Tamron is interesting but it's slower right? Pretty impressively sharp though and not that much slower. I hadn't considered it as a replacement for the 400mm DO, that's an interesting idea. Wonder what I can get for it on the used market.
Has anyone done a 400mm DO -> Tamron 150-600 swap? If so, any regrets? Or are you happy you did the switch?
Birders would be high on my list of interesting people. How well does it autofocus on a 5DIII?
Upvote
0
Most telephoto lenses give stunning results if you can fill the frame with the subject. The differences show up when the subjects fill just a small portion of the frame - the better the lens the smaller the image that can be used. To show what a lens is really capable of, you need to show the whole frame, a 100% crop of the image to illustrate the detail, the aperture, ISO, camera, shutter speed etc.
Upvote
0
With regard to Traingineers OP, and AlanF's mention of deep crops, this next image from the EF 400DO was taken with a 5Dmk3, Shutter speed 1/3200sec at f4, Iso 400, resized from a 22mp original and a 3mpixel crop. Sharpened in Adobe Camera Raw and resized to 1500x1000.
Overall, I found the EF 400DO to be very sharp with shorter shooting distances, and still decent with far-off subjects. With its light weight, and rapid focus performance, it is an fun lens to shoot with, and quite responsive. I found it very comfortable to use for tracking moving subjects. Although it delivers images not quite as sharp as the EF 300 f2.8 IS or the EF 500f4L IS it is still good enough for my purposes. The new price is a bit steep though, although a well-priced, good condition used lens would be a viable option.
I have also written up a review on the lens, here: http://www.grantatkinson.com/blog/canon-ef-400-f4-do-is-usm-field-review
I also saw an earlier responders thoughts on a new version of this lens, that would definitely be something to consider if Canon ever made one
cheers
Grant
cheers
Grant
Overall, I found the EF 400DO to be very sharp with shorter shooting distances, and still decent with far-off subjects. With its light weight, and rapid focus performance, it is an fun lens to shoot with, and quite responsive. I found it very comfortable to use for tracking moving subjects. Although it delivers images not quite as sharp as the EF 300 f2.8 IS or the EF 500f4L IS it is still good enough for my purposes. The new price is a bit steep though, although a well-priced, good condition used lens would be a viable option.
I have also written up a review on the lens, here: http://www.grantatkinson.com/blog/canon-ef-400-f4-do-is-usm-field-review
I also saw an earlier responders thoughts on a new version of this lens, that would definitely be something to consider if Canon ever made one
cheers
Grant
cheers
Grant
Attachments
Upvote
0
Similar threads
