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

[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.

Many (most?) lenses get sharper stopping down some from max aperature because lens aberrations reduce sharpness at or near wide open. The aberrations are competing with diffraction for which is worse at a given aperature. If you need depth of field, then giving up some sharpness to get it may be a reasonable trade.
The posted chart is an approximation because at f/4 the chart says corners and center are the same. That can't be strictly correct because even the theoretical MTF for the lens shows some degradation at edges and corners of the frame. Maybe within measurement error the author gets equal results across the frame.


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. ???

 

[YuengLinger]

Time to workout, save up, and just go for the 2.8.

 

[Scythels]

The new 400mm, like most of canon's telephoto primes, is approximately diffraction limited at maximum aperture. Aberrations with rho dependency are decreased in magnitude as the lens is stopped down, as rho-max is decreased. The diffraction limit decreases as rho is decreased as well. This does not produce a 'fight' as the diffraction limit is more of a max than a contribution to the resolution of the lens.

Fresnel lenses are no more affected by diffraction than other lenses.

If the lens' MTF is > 50% at the nyquist of the sensor, which it is in this case, MTF50 testing can show equal resolution across the frame even if the lens does not strictly have that behavior.

Theoretical MTF charts are also only valid at infinity, test charts are not at infinity.

 

[pwp]

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.

Wide open is precisely where I would expect the 400 f/4 DO II to be at it's sharpest.
My big whites very rarely get moved from f/2.8 and I doubt if they've ever been past f/4.

-pw

 

[Hjalmarg1]

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.

Right now in my wish list. Just wait the prices settle down.

 

[sdfreeland]

I wonder why nobody has posted samples at 800mm. The exciting news was that the MFT charts showed almost no drop in sharpness with a 2x iii.

 

[e17paul]

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.

Photozone is based in Australia so far as I know, despite the German web domain.

 

[Meatcurry]

You're not wrong Photozone.de does appear to be based in Oz, but the I think the comment about prices was referring to the review in ePhotozine which looks to be UK based.

 

[mustafa]

Why would anyone want to use this lens at f11 or smaller? F4 and 5.6 should be where the action is.

 

[Bennymiata]

As far as I know, there are some in stock in Australia.

 

[geonix]

Why would anyone want to use this lens at f11 or smaller? F4 and 5.6 should be where the action is.

Because there are plenty of situations in wildlife- or sports- or actionphotography were f5.6 would result into a too shallow depth of field, so that areas of the subject that are intended to be sharp would be out of focus.
F8-11 are often essential, especially if you use a full-frame body.

 

[dtaylor]

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 ...

If the lens is diffraction limited then the sharpness at those apertures would be no worse then any other lens, and quite likely better.

A lens that improves as it's stopped down a bit is fighting diffraction and lens aberrations. The best it can do is hit an aperture setting where the aberrations become insignificant and the sharpness/resolution is bound by diffraction...like the 400 DO II appears to be at any aperture.

Put another way you're not losing anything at f/8 or f/11...you are gaining something at f/4.

 

[mrsfotografie]

Loosing sharpness when stopping down? That kills it as a motorsports lens for me then ;D ;D ;D

Oh well I guess I will just have to upgrade my version of the 100-400L :

Just imagine all the money not spent, whatever the excuse.

 

[AlanF]

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?

Sorry, I missed this post and apologise for the delay in answering. The price for the 400 DO II at Wex in the UK is £6999, that for the 300mm/2.8 II is discounted to £4899. So, there is a huge price differential here.

Even if the price were the same, it would be a difficult choice. Firstly, the weights are pretty close, 2350g vs 2100g, and they are both amazingly sharp. Secondly, you have to balance how much you would like 300mm at f/2.8 vs 400mm at f/4. Thirdly, I would guess that my most used combination would be either the 400+1.4xTC or the 300+2xTC, with little too choose between them. However, I have been playing around with the 100-400 II plus 2xTC using live view at f/11 on the 7DII, and am very impressed with 800mm!

Having the 100-400 II does confuse the issue even more. I would dearly like to have the DO as well, but it would be difficult to justify for a second-rate amateur like me.

 

[paul110590]

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.

It sells for more - £7,799 or about $11,811 at Wex Photographic (one of the biggest photographic suppliers in the UK). The reason why it is only slightly more expensive than the 400 DO II is because for some reason the 400 DO II sells for a LOT more in the UK - £6,999 or about $10,600 at Wex Photographic.

 

[Deleted member 91053]

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.

Try a Canon 800 and you may change your mind! Also, if you are buying used, they are much cheaper than the 600 Mk2 here in the UK. When I bought my Canon 800 there were no used 600 Mk2's on the market but my young mint-ish 800 was half the price of a new 600 Mk2 at the time. As to being pointless well it is, by far, my most used lens and I am delighted with it - far superior the the 600 IS Mk1 that I sold to help pay for it!

 

[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?

Sorry, I missed this post and apologise for the delay in answering. The price for the 400 DO II at Wex in the UK is £6999, that for the 300mm/2.8 II is discounted to £4899. So, there is a huge price differential here.

Even if the price were the same, it would be a difficult choice. Firstly, the weights are pretty close, 2350g vs 2100g, and they are both amazingly sharp. Secondly, you have to balance how much you would like 300mm at f/2.8 vs 400mm at f/4. Thirdly, I would guess that my most used combination would be either the 400+1.4xTC or the 300+2xTC, with little too choose between them. However, I have been playing around with the 100-400 II plus 2xTC using live view at f/11 on the 7DII, and am very impressed with 800mm!

Having the 100-400 II does confuse the issue even more. I would dearly like to have the DO as well, but it would be difficult to justify for a second-rate amateur like me.

Thanks, AlanF. There's a lot of confusion when talking about the relative prices of these lenses in this thread, because forum members live in so many different countries and are offered these same lenses at disparate prices. Here in the USA, the 300 f/2.8 is $6599 and the 400 DO II is $6899. With only a $300 difference between the two of them, I had to ask if you feel they're both "so expensive." I appreciate your clarification.

I am really liking the looks of this new lens, and feel that it would be a better fit for me, given I'd typically use the 100-400 II racked out to 400 for wildlife. The extra stop is to die for when the light gets low. And the squat size and shape simply appear like it would be easier to hand-hold for longer periods of time. Now, if we can only get to see some in stock, somewhere!

 

[[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.

Try a Canon 800 and you may change your mind! Also, if you are buying used, they are much cheaper than the 600 Mk2 here in the UK. When I bought my Canon 800 there were no used 600 Mk2's on the market but my young mint-ish 800 was half the price of a new 600 Mk2 at the time. As to being pointless well it is, by far, my most used lens and I am delighted with it - far superior the the 600 IS Mk1 that I sold to help pay for it!

That makes sense to me in those circumstances. You actually made me go check out eBay for current 800mm used prices. As it seems now, the best retail price is $13k (gray market), and the best, and rather common, used price is $10k. For the used price to stay up that high, people must like the lens a lot. But I can get a 600mm II for close to that. Perhaps the price differentials are different in UK/elsewhere.

In any case, I have my fingers crossed that there is an 800 II in the works.

 

[riker]

I really don't understand the whole concept of 400/4 DO II and why anyone would actualy buy it. It's probably my fault.
But let's go back for a second in time when the first generation of 400/4 DO was introduced.

400/4 DO IS - 1940g
300/2.8L IS - 2550g
400/2.8L IS - 5370g

The whole point of the 400/4 DO and the DO technology itself was beeing LIGHT! Much lighter than other lenses. Canon has sacrificed image quality to make a LIGHT lens. It was a welcomed innovation by many. You could choose to have an L lens with superb image quality or a very light (also smaller), "mobile" DO lens. Whichever you needed.
600g difference between 400/4 and 300/2.8 (which is a 420/4 with 1.4X) was significant.

And now...

400/4 DO IS II - 2100g
300/2.8L IS II - 2350g
400/2.8L IS II - 3850g

300/2.8 has improved. A LOT. It's lighter, (all II gen lenses got lighter) it's even better optically than before and also has a shorter minimum focusing distance (2m from previous 2.5m). THAT is improvement.
Meanwhile 400/4 DO got heavier. The previous 600g difference is now only 250g. Minimum focusing distance is 3.3m. Yes, it got better, much better optically. But we already had superb lenses. What we don't have is light lenses. The primary goal of DO should be to reduce weight and size. Image quality only comes second, no matter how strange that could sound to you. The first generation wasn't sold for it's image quality either.
Or maybe is it cheap? It's not.

In my opinion, the 400 DO beeing 2100g is a big FAIL. It does not stand up to the 300/2.8 (+1.4X) at all.

 

[hoodlum]

Riker, although I don't necessarily agree with your last comment on the 300mm f2.8 + TC, I do believe Canon has lost its way with the DO lens. The 1st gen lens could barely be handheld for long periods but now I think the 2nd gen lens has passed that threshold. Even Canon seems to agree as the tripod collar is no longer removable like on the 1st gen.

I think Nikon did the right thing with their new 300mm f4 "DO" by allowing it to be handheld all day if needed. Initial field reports from production lenses seem to suggest the compromise in IQ was minimal to get to the reduced size. Maybe Canon will do a 400mm f5.6 DO lens that is sharpest wide open. It would be a lot lighter and likely half the price of the F4 DO lens.

Hopefully Canon has a lighter DO lens planned as a light handheld telephoto prime would be nice to see. Dropping an additional 1kg with a 600mm DO lens will still require a tripod so the benefits wouldn't be as noticeable.