Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II USM

[wopbv4]

Hi candc,

thanks for the info. the 28 makes sense for my lens as I got it May.
Indeed, it is puzzling to think that so few of these lenses are made.
I have read an article that the double DO elements need to be perfectly matched and that apparently is a "manual" job.

Anyway, I love my 400 DO II and I am sure that you will be pleased as well

 

[wopbv4]

3120000052. i thought the first numbers were a model designation but now i am curious.

the interweb says the first 2 numbers are a date code. 28= apr 2015, 31= jul 2015. the third number is the version "2"

afaik the rest is the sequential serial number. i just have a hard time believing that there are that few of these lenses being produced.

I've got #49. Been trying to write a review of just the lens for BIF shooting, but I'm finding it difficult to separate lens performance from body performance. Most of my shots so far have been on 7D II with 1.4 x III. For BIF, the AF hit rate on this combination has been OK, but not as good as I had hoped for. At some point I will have some 5D III shots for comparison. Still shots are almost always great. I need some more experience with the lens to finish the review.

I have an old 7D mark 1 and for BIF with this lens it is far from perfect, some people would use other words to describe it.
Having said that, the 1DX with 400 DO II works great, even with the 1.4 extender. Using the 1DX with 2.0 III extender is not practical for BIF

 

[wopbv4]

This pic has lost a lot of it sharpness when I downsized it for the web. the original is tack sharp

 

[candc]

This pic has lost a lot of it sharpness when I downsized it for the web. the original is tack sharp

great shot

 

[gwilson]

My serial number is 240000047. I got it in December 2014.
I am using it on a 6D with a 1.4 III extender when I photograph wildlife.
It would seem so far that 400 DO II owners form a very small club.
Gary

 

[candc]

these shots are from the same distance. bare lens and 1.4xiii

standard dxo conversion

 

[candc]

600ii for comparison

 

[candc]

2 more just for fun. these are the tamron 150-600 at f/6.3 and f/8. the tamron looks really good especially considering the cost difference. of course it is slower aperture and does not have the af performance but shows that you don't need to spend thousands on a supertele if you can live with its limitations.

 

[meywd]

yeah the quality is really good, but looking at the 600mm II photos, man that's amazing.

 

[ejenner]

I finally got my cash together to get my order in for one. I have been using the Sigma 150-600C. It's great value, but I find I want to stop down to f8 to get any decent sharpness, and then if I crop ..... well let's just say it's a great $1000 lens for the range.

Anyway, I have a 7D and 5DIII and was hoping to use this with the 7D mostly, but I guess I'll have to see how that works out and whether I'll also end up needing to get a 7DII. I guess if the IQ with a x2 is not that great, the f8 on the 7DII might not be all that useful. Maybe it will be good enough for me for perched birds.

I'm not getting a 1Dx. But if I'm spending $7k on a lens, what's another $1500 on a camera, right?

 

[candc]

I finally got my cash together to get my order in for one. I have been using the Sigma 150-600C. It's great value, but I find I want to stop down to f8 to get any decent sharpness, and then if I crop ..... well let's just say it's a great $1000 lens for the range.

Anyway, I have a 7D and 5DIII and was hoping to use this with the 7D mostly, but I guess I'll have to see how that works out and whether I'll also end up needing to get a 7DII. I guess if the IQ with a x2 is not that great, the f8 on the 7DII might not be all that useful. Maybe it will be good enough for me for perched birds.

I'm not getting a 1Dx. But if I'm spending $7k on a lens, what's another $1500 on a camera, right?

.

I tried it with the 2xiii and the sigma tc-2001. Iq and af was better with the sigma but I still wasn't happy with it. Maybe it would be ok on ff but it seems to be stretching it to far on the 7dii.

 

[wopbv4]

The 2X II extender does reduce IQ, the image looks flatter and looses contrast. However, if there is enough light, let's say iso 1600 or less, this can easily be corrected in ACR or lightroom.
Biggest issue for me is focussing speed (uhh, slowness?) with 2X, even on the 1DX, I am disappointed.
For those who have a 70-200 F2.8 II, the reduction in focus speed for the 2X is comparable.
I have attached two files, which were taken in relatively low light, iso 10,000 for the second one (2X).
I pushed both images a fair bit in ACR

 

[AlanF]

I finally got my cash together to get my order in for one. I have been using the Sigma 150-600C. It's great value, but I find I want to stop down to f8 to get any decent sharpness, and then if I crop ..... well let's just say it's a great $1000 lens for the range.

Anyway, I have a 7D and 5DIII and was hoping to use this with the 7D mostly, but I guess I'll have to see how that works out and whether I'll also end up needing to get a 7DII. I guess if the IQ with a x2 is not that great, the f8 on the 7DII might not be all that useful. Maybe it will be good enough for me for perched birds.

I'm not getting a 1Dx. But if I'm spending $7k on a lens, what's another $1500 on a camera, right?

.

I tried it with the 2xiii and the sigma tc-2001. Iq and af was better with the sigma but I still wasn't happy with it. Maybe it would be ok on ff but it seems to be stretching it to far on the 7dii.

The 2xTCIII isn't good even with the 300/2.8 II on the 7DII. My 100-400 II with a 1.4xTCIII is hardly worse than the 300 at 600mm. But, the 300/2.8 II at 600mm on the 5DIII is excellent. TDP shows the weakness on the 7DII most obviously - it put me off the the 400 DO II.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=739&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=2&LensComp=962&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0

The 7D is hopeless focussing with the 300/2.8 II + 2xTC.

After much yearning for the 400 DO II, I have decided to stick with the 100-400 II - the lighter weight and zoom for me outweigh the IQ advantage and ability to have 560mm at f/5.6 for the 400 II, though it clearly is a fantastic lens.

 

[gwilson]

400DO II with a 2X III extender on a 6D:
Before this I had not even tried the 2X III on the lens. Without af at f8 I hadn't bothered to try it. I did read how to use manual focus with live view so I planned to try it if and when I get a static situation where I can use a tripod.
This was shot close to MFD at f8, 1/160, ISO400 with flash.
Gary

100% crop:

 

[candc]

hi alan,

i don't think these lenses will sell to 300ii owners. especially not if they have a 100-400ii also.

i have the sigma 120-300s and like it a lot but its heavy for extended handheld bif and the 420 f/4 performance is marginal on bif. for me the 400doii is a good fit for what i want which is good performance at 400 f/4 and 560 f/5.6 for handheld bif

the lens doesn't have very close mfd so you don't get much magnification with the bare lens. the 2x tc's seem good to improve on that.

the frog is with the 2xiii and the grasshopper is the sigma tc-2001 shot with a 7dii

 

[ejenner]

Those look pretty good to me. Looking at TDP it looks like the 400 DO with x2 @f8 will be on par with the 70-200 II with a x2 @f5.6. Maybe not what some might hope from a $7k lens, but if this is indeed the case, it would be about what I'd hope for. I wouldn't expect to do BIF with it either.

I figured out quickly when investigating 'big whites' though that using a x2 TC is really not something you want to have to do on any regular basis. Is seems that getting a lens to use primarily with a x2 TC is not a great idea (if not for IQ, then definitely for AF). If I thought I was going to need to use a x2 on the DO a lot, I'd probably suck it up and get a 500 f4 to use with a 1.4. Both size and weight of the DO really appeal to me though - I will be hiking with it.

Interesting that the sigma x2 gives better IQ than the canon. I have a x2TCvII , but may upgrade to the sig if it is better with the DO. The x2 I have is really 'emergency' use with my 135 and 70-200f4 IS, so I'd be looking to get whatever works best with the DO, again though more for a 'better than nothing', that something I'd expect to use much.

 

[candc]

I've used the tc-2001 on the 400doii, 600ii, and 120-300s. The af is faster and more positive than with the 2xiii. To my eye its a bit sharper and has less ca . It does however have a tendency to disturb the bokeh more so than the canon.

 

[ejenner]

I've used the tc-2001 on the 400doii, 600ii, and 120-300s. The af is faster and more positive than with the 2xiii. To my eye its a bit sharper and has less ca . It does however have a tendency to disturb the bokeh more so than the canon.

OK, thanks for that info. Have you tried, or know about the new sigma 1,4 TC?

 

[candc]

I have that one also. As far as I can tell its about equal to the 1.4xiii

 

[AlanF]

Objektivtest.se has measured the effects on MTF of both the 1.4x and 2x TC III (based on the 300mm f/2.8 II). The 1.4x decreases 20 and 30 lp/mm by ~ 10 and 20%, respectively, which means only a minimal loss of contrast and resolution on FF and a not very noticeable loss of contrast on APS-C for a sharp lens. The 2x loses ~20 and 40% respectively, which means a not very noticeable loss of contrast on FF but a noticeable loss of resolution. On APS-C, however, there is significant degradation of both.

In practice, as the 2xTC magnifies the image two fold, the 2xTC gives a significant increase in resolution over the bare lens, but more so for FF than for the APS-C.

http://www.objektivtest.se/