Hands-on With the Canon EF 400 f/4 DO IS II

[candc]

Am I the only one that thinks making the tripod foot non-removable almost totally defeats the purpose of this lens, which is to make it very light and easily handholdable? If I were in the market for a lens like this, this one simple thing would be a show-stopper for me. I keep the tripod ring off my 70-200/2.8 and 100-400L unless I'm actually using it on a tripod for exactly this reason - handholding comfort. It even looks really uncomfortable to hold in the video with the foot in his palm.

i agree that the foot should be removable, are you sure it's not?

I guess I'm not totally sure, but it doesn't look removable, and I don't see any evidence that it is.

looking at the product photo i see it has slots in the ring like its supposed to slide off the studs.

 

[Lee Jay]

Am I the only one that thinks making the tripod foot non-removable almost totally defeats the purpose of this lens, which is to make it very light and easily handholdable? If I were in the market for a lens like this, this one simple thing would be a show-stopper for me. I keep the tripod ring off my 70-200/2.8 and 100-400L unless I'm actually using it on a tripod for exactly this reason - handholding comfort. It even looks really uncomfortable to hold in the video with the foot in his palm.

i agree that the foot should be removable, are you sure it's not?

I guess I'm not totally sure, but it doesn't look removable, and I don't see any evidence that it is.

looking at the product photo i see it has slots in the ring like its supposed to slide off the studs.

Well, if it is removable, then that's good.

 

[ScottyP]

How did they let "That Nikon Guy" play with the merchandise? He should be on a no-try list somewhere at Canon.

 

[Loswr]

looking at the product photo i see it has slots in the ring like its supposed to slide off the studs.

I don't see how the tripod ring would slide off over the switches and the drop-in filter holder.

But as for it being uncomfortable holding the foot, just rotate it to the top of the lens...

 

[Khalai]

Besides if it was an L lens it would be $2000 more than it is. "L" means "Lots of Money" (I am probably wrong on that, however I arrived at that conclusion from experience and I challenge anyone to dispute my findings)

I can think of some relatively cheap L lenses. 17-40L, 24-105L or 70-200/4L (non IS) comes to mind. 100L is also quite reasonable, especially considering its performance. But in general, you are quite correct, my L lens setup is more expensive than car

 

[infared]

Why isnt this a "L" Lens?

It has all the bells and whistles of L series, but the ring is green not red, that's all

Canon tried painting a red ring over the green one, but it came out black. They tried painting the red ring next to the green one, but decided people might only buy it at Christmas. So they just stuck with the green ring.

When I was a kid my sisters nail polish would have fixed the ring problem right up.

Besides if it was an L lens it would be $2000 more than it is. "L" means "Lots of Money" (I am probably wrong on that, however I arrived at that conclusion from experience and I challenge anyone to dispute my findings)

http://www.findtape.com/product554/3M-Scotchcal-Striping-Tape.aspx?bc=F&vid=6370&gclid=CM_9xaO76MACFSMV7Aodz3UALQ

I have red pin-striping tape for all of my lenses..even my Zeiss and Sigma......

 

[iMagic]

Touched "everything?"

I suppose he is seeking his 15seconds of fame and people seem to be lapping it up.

Matt Granger has proved to be nothing more than a tool.

Thank you for your valued opinion. Sharing Your expertise in this matter is greatly appreciated.

 

[infared]

Am I the only one that thinks making the tripod foot non-removable almost totally defeats the purpose of this lens, which is to make it very light and easily handholdable? If I were in the market for a lens like this, this one simple thing would be a show-stopper for me. I keep the tripod ring off my 70-200/2.8 and 100-400L unless I'm actually using it on a tripod for exactly this reason - handholding comfort. It even looks really uncomfortable to hold in the video with the foot in his palm.

Hmm...good call Lee Jay...I didn't notice that either...yeah...the ring looks like it is part of the lens... So maybe it will not remove like the tripod support ring on my 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II. ....but I attached a photo...it looks like the foot is removable ...but I do not know if that is a part of the design for actual use. What about the old one...how is that set up????

...but the Ring may just loosen and slide off the back of the lens...

 

[Khalai]

Am I the only one that thinks making the tripod foot non-removable almost totally defeats the purpose of this lens, which is to make it very light and easily handholdable? If I were in the market for a lens like this, this one simple thing would be a show-stopper for me. I keep the tripod ring off my 70-200/2.8 and 100-400L unless I'm actually using it on a tripod for exactly this reason - handholding comfort. It even looks really uncomfortable to hold in the video with the foot in his palm.

Hmm...good call Lee Jay...I didn't notice that either...yeah...the ring looks like it is part of the lens... So maybe it will not remove like the tripod support ring on my 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II. ....but I attached a photo...it looks like the foot is removable ...but I do not know if that is a part of the design for actual use. What about the old one...how is that set up????

...but the Ring may just loosen and slide off the back of the lens...

You can always turn the foot sideways, maybe even upwards (IDK about prism/foot conflict). With my 70-200/2.8, I always keep the foot upside down, so I can support the lens with my hand as well as use it as a handle By the way, this lens is just as heavy (or light) as 70-200/2.8, that's quite manageable actually!

 

[Lee Jay]

By the way, this lens is just as heavy (or light) as 70-200/2.8, that's quite manageable actually!

I don't know where you got that idea, but the 70-200/2.8L IS II is 1,490g, and the 400/4DO II is 2,100g.

 

[Old Sarge]

Am I the only one that thinks making the tripod foot non-removable almost totally defeats the purpose of this lens, which is to make it very light and easily handholdable? If I were in the market for a lens like this, this one simple thing would be a show-stopper for me. I keep the tripod ring off my 70-200/2.8 and 100-400L unless I'm actually using it on a tripod for exactly this reason - handholding comfort. It even looks really uncomfortable to hold in the video with the foot in his palm.

Hmm...good call Lee Jay...I didn't notice that either...yeah...the ring looks like it is part of the lens... So maybe it will not remove like the tripod support ring on my 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II. ....but I attached a photo...it looks like the foot is removable ...but I do not know if that is a part of the design for actual use. What about the old one...how is that set up????

...but the Ring may just loosen and slide off the back of the lens...

You can always turn the foot sideways, maybe even upwards (IDK about prism/foot conflict). With my 70-200/2.8, I always keep the foot upside down, so I can support the lens with my hand as well as use it as a handle By the way, this lens is just as heavy (or light) as 70-200/2.8, that's quite manageable actually!

Looking at the MK I, and reading the manual, the foot is removable. Looking at the MK II I am doubtful if it is removable. I came to this conclusion after seeing that the Canon badge (medal plate with information about the model lens, etc.) would come off with the foot if it was removed. It also doesn't have the release screw/knob in the foot area as the MK I does. Also the Canon badge, on the MK I, is just ahead of the foot and doesn't come off with it. I could be wrong but I don't believe you can remove this foot completely.

 

[Bennie_CanonShooter]

the tripod ring can be removed - but requires extra steps.

the tripod foot is removable by unscrewing 4 hex/allen screws.

see attached photo (EF 200 2.0 is)

~ unless Canon decided to make the 400 DO different.

as for the tripod ring/foot - I find it useful to have as it provide a balance point for my hands (I use AF all the time. So, there's no need for me to touch the focus ring at all)

if I need to get it our of my way, I rotate it 90 degree to the left which serves as a nice reference point for my hands when I need to do portrait orientation shoots.

 

[wtlloyd]

Just rotate it up, no big deal. I prefer it down, I don't want my hand on the focus ring when I'm using AF.
The foot in place is essential when using a beanbag, for the same reason.

 

[Loswr]

Am I the only one that thinks making the tripod foot non-removable almost totally defeats the purpose of this lens, which is to make it very light and easily handholdable? If I were in the market for a lens like this, this one simple thing would be a show-stopper for me. I keep the tripod ring off my 70-200/2.8 and 100-400L unless I'm actually using it on a tripod for exactly this reason - handholding comfort. It even looks really uncomfortable to hold in the video with the foot in his palm.

Hmm...good call Lee Jay...I didn't notice that either...yeah...the ring looks like it is part of the lens... So maybe it will not remove like the tripod support ring on my 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II. ....but I attached a photo...it looks like the foot is removable ...but I do not know if that is a part of the design for actual use. What about the old one...how is that set up????

...but the Ring may just loosen and slide off the back of the lens...

Yes, the bottom part of the foot assembly can be removed with 4 hex-key bolts. On some lenses, Canon provides a shorter monopod foot, that's how you swap them (or in my case, how you install the RRS replacement foot).

 

[applecider]

Can we assume from the mtf curves that the new 400 is going to do real well with extenders ?

It looks like the center is going to be good in sharpness but can anything be said about boka flair , ca or saturation from the curves?

This might make a kick ass hiking wildlife lens.

 

[Viggo]

+1 for the RRS-plate, it has a much lower profile so it's great for support, and at least for me, is way more comfortable than holding with no foot.

 

[infared]

+1 for the RRS-plate, it has a much lower profile so it's great for support, and at least for me, is way more comfortable than holding with no foot.

Thank!s...did not know that RRS made a replacement for the foot. Link?
....but will it fit the new lens?

 

[Viggo]

+1 for the RRS-plate, it has a much lower profile so it's great for support, and at least for me, is way more comfortable than holding with no foot.

Thank!s...did not know that RRS made a replacement for the foot. Link?
....but will it fit the new lens?

Afaik there all the same four screws.

Here's a link :
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1259208/0

 

[Besisika]

How did they let "That Nikon Guy" play with the merchandise? He should be on a no-try list somewhere at Canon.

If I am not mistaken he had done some review of canon stuff on youtube, this is not his first time. I am a Canon shooter but I value what he has to say. Given the time frame, I appreciate this video.

 

[Loswr]

+1 for the RRS-plate, it has a much lower profile so it's great for support, and at least for me, is way more comfortable than holding with no foot.

Thank!s...did not know that RRS made a replacement for the foot. Link?
....but will it fit the new lens?

No foot yet. But there wasn't one for the 300/2.8 IS MkI (also had a removable foot). The 300/2.8 II has a foot, should fit the 400 DO II; RRS will no doubt test it once they get the new lens in their hands.

http://www.reallyrightstuff.com/s.nl/it.A/id.3230/.f?sc=26&category=3565