Long telephotos

[Deleted member 91053]

I have never used the Canon 400 DO Mk2, but I have tested 3 Canon 400 DO Mk1 lenses. Two were very sharp and out resolved my (then) Canon 600 F4 L IS at the same distance - no mean feat! The other was mediocre at best, pictures were dead, flat and not that sharp.
I read that this has all been corrected in the Mk2 version but it is very expensive and at these prices I can't help feeling that the 500 F4 L IS Mk2 is a better option. Now if Canon were to make a straightforward 400 F4 L (skip the IS), possibly with a built in extender (like the 200-400) then I would be at the front of the queue!

 

[candc]

So roger at lensrentals tested the 400doii lens and says its sharper than the 300ii wide open by a fair margin. Dxo says the 300 is significantly better than the 400. Either therer is some faulty testing or some drastic copy variation.

Not quite, this is what he wrote:

"We tested the 300mm lens at both f/2.8 and at f/4 to level the playing field a bit.

400mm f/4 DO II 300mm f/28 IS II f/2.8 300mm f/2.8 IS II f/4
Ctr 1490 1395 1580
Avg 1350 1220 1330
Avg Corner 1100 1100 1160

These results are about what I expected, since we already knew that the 400 DO II is really excellent. Shot at its native f/4 it has a bit better resolution than the 300 f/2.8 does shot at f/2.8. Stop the 300mm lens down to f/4, though, and it's a bit sharper than the DO."
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/page/2

Also slrgear has the 300 slightly sharper
http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=1747
http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1369/cat/10

But, they are both spectacular, and we are splitting hairs. I am waiting for DxO to do the 100-400mm II and the Sigma 150-600mm C and S.

That's what he wrote about the bare lenses. He also compared 400 to the 300+1.4 and the 400 5.6

400mm f/4 DO II 300mm f/2.8 with 1.4X 400mm f/5.6 L
Ctr 1490. 1330 1390
Avg 1350 1210 1160
Avg Corner 1100 1080 990


The results, again, are fairly triumphant for the DO. The DO version I, which I shot with frequently, definitely gave up some image quality compared to a 300 f/2.8 with teleconverter. Most of us who shot the DO were willing to do so because it weighed less, and the weight was distributed near to the mount making it easier to handhold. The version II 300 f/2.8 is much lighter than its predecessor, so the weight savings isn't quite as significant. However, it's clear that from a resolution standpoint at least, the 400 DO is slightly better than the 300 f/2.8 IS II with teleconverter


According to that the 400 is better than the 300+tc but like he said, both options are really good.

 

[Chisox2335]

Not too surprising actually. I think the TDP test makes it pretty clear that while good in its own right, the 400 DO just isn't quite in the same league as its L counterparts. I must say that the thought of compromised performance (even a little) at $7,000 doesn't really sit that well with me, but I guess it's still an extra stop at 400mm and that in itself could make a big difference in IQ in certain scenarios.

Curious to get thoughts on the 500, although it seems to be a significantly heavier (and costlier!!) package than the 400.

ETA: Partly answering my own question, interesting take on the 500 by this guy who claims he could handhold it for a few hours http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/2012/09/21/hand-holding-the-canon-500mm-f4-l-is-ii/ wonder if others agree.

I just got the 500mm mkii. It is a dream. It's amazingly sharp and I find it hand hold able.

These were all taken with a 70D. The three Ospreys also had a 1.4x teleconverter.

 

[markesc]

Great shots!

I'm in the same boat! 500 II or bust! It seems everything else is a compromise...

Should eventually get there! have the tamron 600 and 75-300L to sell...gonna keep the 100-400 II as the mfd is just awesome..

Congrats on the lens!!!

Not too surprising actually. I think the TDP test makes it pretty clear that while good in its own right, the 400 DO just isn't quite in the same league as its L counterparts. I must say that the thought of compromised performance (even a little) at $7,000 doesn't really sit that well with me, but I guess it's still an extra stop at 400mm and that in itself could make a big difference in IQ in certain scenarios.

Curious to get thoughts on the 500, although it seems to be a significantly heavier (and costlier!!) package than the 400.

ETA: Partly answering my own question, interesting take on the 500 by this guy who claims he could handhold it for a few hours http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/2012/09/21/hand-holding-the-canon-500mm-f4-l-is-ii/ wonder if others agree.

I just got the 500mm mkii. It is a dream. It's amazingly sharp and I find it hand hold able.

These were all taken with a 70D. The three Ospreys also had a 1.4x teleconverter.

 

[Chisox2335]

Thanks. I have the 100-400 mki and it's given me some great shots without a doubt. My wife is kind of picking up photography so she is currently using it now. If she wasn't going to I'd probably sell the 100-400 mki and put the money towards the mkii in the future but I'm not sure how frequently I'd use it with the 500mm.

 

[Hjalmarg1]

I am in the same boat and I am also leaning towards the new 400 DO II. Weight, portability, reach and sharpness is more important than a fast f2.8 aperture.

 

[Apop]

Hi all,

So a day that I never thought would come might actually be approaching this year. Specifically, that's the day I might actually be able to splurge on one of the big whites But just one. And only the handholdable ones...

We're talking the $5K-7K price range, which narrows it to 3, essentially. Specifically I am asking for those who own a 200f2, a 300 2.8 (version 2) or the new 400 DO to shed some thoughts on their experiences.

I am leaning towards the new 400 DO - although I do have the 100-400 already, the 400 f4 with a 1.4x yields a 560 5.6 which puts it right in animal/bird territory. 300 on crop is just starting to approach that sweet spot, but 400 would be even better. And with 560 I could even use the 5D3.

The other option I'm considering is the 200 f2 IS. Poorly lit ice skating shows push me in that direction - one show I just squeaked by with 135 f2 and 7D (original, now have Mark II)...200 with a 5D3 would be an additional stop (through ISO) to work with...I cap the 7D at 3200. Still, rumblings of a version II - and potential resale difficulty - have me a bit hesitant.

As for the 300 2.8, I probably have the least need for that focal length - the 100-400 covers it nicely and I've also got a 70-300 (which may get sold)...and indoors, more likely to grab a 70-200 2.8 - still, it's in the same price range and the IQ seems to be astounding - with a 1.4x it becomes a 420 f4 and difference seems minuscule between that and the bare 400 f4...but seems like the 400+1.4 is superior to the 300+2.0 according to TDP.

Anyone with these lenses - specifically the 400 DO II, seems to be rare - chime in with their experiences? It could help me out. Remember, I'm looking for something I can handhold...

Thanks!

Allow me to play for the devil, I have put in greats amounts of time of looking into lenses , crops, data and stuff over the past 3 years, I try to be really objective as of lately, Even though i went through great effort justifying the nikon 200-400/ Canon 300 2.8ISII etc, in the end the data available online made it hard considering price/performance differences.

300 2.8IS II , I liked it a lot , i preferred it with 2xIII over the 500 f4 IS with 1.4 tc,
Still fast autofocus on the 1dIV and nice and sharp, but if was tospend as much cash today i would consider something else also( The devil part).

-Sell 100-400,
-Get Sigma 120-300 Sports + sigma 150-600 sports,

The sigma 150-600 was shown to be better than the nikon 300 2.8II with 2x on a d800 ( dpreview) @ longer distances ( I think it was 30/40 feet), and by quite a margin to my eye
So It should not be that far off the canon 300 2.8 + 2xIII,

Then according to dpreview, dxomark , and slgear ,
The 120-300 sports is very very sharp and not far off the 300 2.8 IS in the center, but the sigma 120-300 Sports beats the canon 200-400 until 1/3rd off centre @ 300mm even at 2.8
It ''destroys'' the nikon 200-400 btw !(which i owned and found remarkable)

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/lens-compare?lensId=sigma_120-300_2p8&cameraId=canon_eos7d&version=0&fl=300&av=2.8&view=mtf-ca

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/lens-compare?lensId=canon_200-400_4&cameraId=canon_eos7d&version=0&fl=300&av=4&view=mtf-ca

Which is remarkable,
Further more most reviews suggest the sigma 150-600 sports is as sharp or sharper than the tamron @f8, and until 500mm it is really really good(the sigma)

so
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/lens-compare?lensId=tamron_150-600_5-6p3_vc&cameraId=canon_eos7d&version=0&fl=600&av=8&view=mtf-ca

compared to 200-400 with 1.4 extender
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/lens-compare?lensId=canon_200-400_4_1p4x&cameraId=canon_eos7d&version=0&fl=560&av=5.6&view=mtf-ca


The sigma 120-300 and 150-600 are also weather sealed and have fast AF (Not as fast as canon, but i rarely go from min focus distance to infinity and will apply limiters always, which they both have)
( they both work 1.4 converter, they just released new ones, although I think the sigma needs to be stopped to 4.5, even 5.6 , when with the canon 300 you can shoot wide open), still would make a nice 168-420 4.5 lens and and in case of emergency 840mm f9

This means if you get 120-300 2.8 (with great IQ in the centre)
and 150-600 with great IQ up to 500 and comparable to the 200-400 @560 vs 600mm ( you are 5.6 vs 6.3 on light tho')


TDP, a great indicator when comparing canon lenses to each other , but a bit lacking sometimes(IMO)
A bit pointless to compare tamron/sigma/nikon stuff ,
He seems in a hurry with off brand lenses only showing full frame crops, which makes it harder to judge,
The tamron 150-600 doesn't look that bad on his site, but i miss 60d/7dII crops,

I think he takes a lot more time with canon lenses and more samples(look at the difference in his 70-200 IS II for example) with tamron/sigma he doesn't try as much( Also i think he shoots at minimal focus distance or close 2 , which negatively impacts sigma lenses for example)

His results do not really reflect the DXO measurements(perceptual megapixels), or the graphs published on Dpreview(of lenses), or those of SLRgear, if you compare canon/nikon/sigma/tamron, So i would look at multiple scources! before drawing any conclusions!



400II, I would stay away from this unless i was not in good enough shape to carry something heavier, maybe they had a 'bad' sample because TDP crops look almost flawless, but I have a bit more faith in SLRgear objectiveness and testing

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1747/cat/10
7d
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/zsamples/canon400f4is2/7d/VFA/zcanon400f40vfa400f40_7d.jpg
1dsiii
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/zsamples/canon400f4is2/1dsmkiii/VFA/zcanon400f40vfa400f40_1dsmkiii.jpg

It's good to play around with and look at the crops, they also got one with bottles and colors/threads nice to see detail.( they tested the 150-600 C, not S unfortunately, but the C even looks very good @ 600mm)


SLR gear also has crops up off the sigma 120-300 S sports , and 300 2.8 IS II,
The sigma looks really good in the centre even comparable(Color shot with the bottles) to the 300 2.8 IS II, it is just 'much' worse on full frame corners and also not as good on crop bodies compared to the 300 2.8 IS II.
Still compared to the 400II do(which some think is sharp), it looks a lot better.

In the end, here it's 3000+1900 euros for the 2 sigmas, so 4900 euros, leaves room for a body even

Here the 300 2.8 IS II is 6200 euros and the 200-400 is 11000 euros,
The 300 2.8 IS II will not be bested in IQ, but the 200-400 will be equalled or bested at times, Considering the price and versatility you can get , it is quite remarkable....

It is almost to good to be true, and the downside is that they are quit heavy lenses and you'd be carrying 2 of them instead of 1 , which would be like lugging around an older 400 2.8 or 600 f4,

Also if you care about the corners a lot and often ''miss'' your target or do compositions in the corners, there will be a significant difference ( Not sure about the 150-600 corners but it should be impossible for them to match the 200-400/300).


Am in a bit of hurry atm, bbl

 

[AlanF]

So roger at lensrentals tested the 400doii lens and says its sharper than the 300ii wide open by a fair margin. Dxo says the 300 is significantly better than the 400. Either therer is some faulty testing or some drastic copy variation.

Not quite, this is what he wrote:

"We tested the 300mm lens at both f/2.8 and at f/4 to level the playing field a bit.

400mm f/4 DO II 300mm f/28 IS II f/2.8 300mm f/2.8 IS II f/4
Ctr 1490 1395 1580
Avg 1350 1220 1330
Avg Corner 1100 1100 1160

These results are about what I expected, since we already knew that the 400 DO II is really excellent. Shot at its native f/4 it has a bit better resolution than the 300 f/2.8 does shot at f/2.8. Stop the 300mm lens down to f/4, though, and it's a bit sharper than the DO."
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/page/2

Also slrgear has the 300 slightly sharper
http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=1747
http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1369/cat/10

But, they are both spectacular, and we are splitting hairs. I am waiting for DxO to do the 100-400mm II and the Sigma 150-600mm C and S.

That's what he wrote about the bare lenses. He also compared 400 to the 300+1.4 and the 400 5.6

400mm f/4 DO II 300mm f/2.8 with 1.4X 400mm f/5.6 L
Ctr 1490. 1330 1390
Avg 1350 1210 1160
Avg Corner 1100 1080 990


The results, again, are fairly triumphant for the DO. The DO version I, which I shot with frequently, definitely gave up some image quality compared to a 300 f/2.8 with teleconverter. Most of us who shot the DO were willing to do so because it weighed less, and the weight was distributed near to the mount making it easier to handhold. The version II 300 f/2.8 is much lighter than its predecessor, so the weight savings isn't quite as significant. However, it's clear that from a resolution standpoint at least, the 400 DO is slightly better than the 300 f/2.8 IS II with teleconverter


According to that the 400 is better than the 300+tc but like he said, both options are really good.

The 300 + 1.4xTC has a focal length of 420mm. This gives a magnification of 1.05x over 400mm. This factor gives an effective increase of MTF compared with the 400mm DO II to be, in practice, for the 420 lens of 1400 at the centre, 1270 at avg and 1130 in the corner.

 

[Act444]

Well...turns out with the latest price drop that the 300 2.8 + 1.4x is now actually cheaper than the bare 400 DO. Making a decision just got that much tougher...

 

[candc]

Well...turns out with the latest price drop that the 300 2.8 + 1.4x is now actually cheaper than the bare 400 DO. Making a decision just got that much tougher...

Plus you can actually get the 300. The new 400 is not in stock anywhere. Camera Canada ordered one from canon for somebody when it was announced. He got sick of waiting and cancelled out so I took his place. I already have the sigma 120-300s its good with the series iii tc's and the new sigma tc's. Its better with the tc-2001 than the 2xiii and about the same with the 1.4x versions. Its good for bif with the 1.4x on a crop body but its heavy for extended handheld overhead shooting. I also have the tamron. I sent it in and had the firmware updated which makes the af better. The zoom locks at 400 and that's the best way to use it for bif. The af performance drops dramatically at longer fl.

 

[bholliman]

Well...turns out with the latest price drop that the 300 2.8 + 1.4x is now actually cheaper than the bare 400 DO. Making a decision just got that much tougher...

+1

I've been looking at 300 to 400mm options for some time and have decided to go with the 300/2.8 II and TC's. Not only is the price lower and the lenses available, but I will often shoot at 300mm and will need f/2.8 at times, so the 400DOII really doesn't check enough of my boxes anyway.

Now, I just need to convince my wife that my hobby requires an additional $6k investment...

 

[danski0224]

Now, I just need to convince my wife that my hobby requires an additional $6k investment...

Better to ask for forgiveness than permission

 

[Yiannis A - Greece]

Now, I just need to convince my wife that my hobby requires an additional $6k investment...

Dear danski,
as soon as she is convinced that your hobby will keep you away from anything "dangerous" for your relationship, she'll happily (?) say "YES" to the most perverted of your photographic demands! Women (when you have a strong G.A.S syndrome) usually think this way; "Better let him play solo with his brand new expensive toys than having him fool around with chicks and gambling"!
If you're not married to an angel (???), like the one i'm married to, that equally shares my "G.A.S issue", try make her think the way i described upwards...

Be lucky, be happy, be surrounded by those you love the most, live your life like you owe yourself to do; A SINGLE TICKET JOYRIDE...

Yours
Yiannis.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Now, I just need to convince my wife that my hobby requires an additional $6k investment...

Better to ask for forgiveness than permission

True...until she decides she won't forgive any more....then it all gets very painful, tricky and expensive.

 

[NancyP]

I am pleased to see that my old cheapie 400 f/5.6L punches well above its weight - not as good as the lenses costing 4X as much, but darn good anyway. I have other G.A.S. candidates: 7D2 (from 60D) and new high-specced laptop, and probably the Sigma Art 50.

 

[Yiannis A - Greece]

I am pleased to see that my old cheapie 400 f/5.6L punches well above its weight - not as good as the lenses costing 4X as much, but darn good anyway. I have other G.A.S. candidates: 7D2 (from 60D) and new high-specced laptop, and probably the Sigma Art 50.

Dear Nancy,
i'd like to inform you that, after spending three months with my brand new 7D Mk2, shooting...19.5k (!!!) images, going forth and back with center point AF issues with faster than f2.8 lenses, and after losing time (half a dozen visits to Canon Service, where they pretended to know nothing about the issue although admitting there was one)and cash (bought for 1650 Euros, sold for 1100), i finally got rid of the damn thing and did myself the favour and got a second brand new 5D Mk3, to use it exclusively with Magic Lantern! the 7D has lots of potential with nice cleaning (in post procedure) high ISO images and videos (up to ISO6400 almost competing with 5D Mk3) but, it's a nightmare to get a piece working correctly.

So, before making your "G.A.S. driven" decisions, take a moment or two and think about getting a 5d Mk3 for a little more cash than 7D Mk2. I'm not a full frame aficionado, i've taken shots to bring tears to my eyes each time i take a look at them even with "5$" cameras but, being the owner of a 60D as you mention, i'd suggest you make the big leap and get the "big one". You'll need some time to get used to filling the frame again but, once you make it there, you'll never look back. If you don't want to spend that much, a 70D will suit your needs perfectly and you'll have the 1.6x crop factor and the 3-10x video mode! Then, spend the 1000~1700$ you'll have saved, invest on a nice trip to the tropics and use your new 70D to seize the moments.

Always be lucky, be strong, be surrounded by whom or what you love the most.

Yiannis

 

[AlanF]

My 7DII has taken 7.5k bird photos in 4 months and it works perfectly, though the fastest lens I use is f/2.8. Is yours ok for f/2.8-f/8 lenses?

 

[Yiannis A - Greece]

My 7DII has taken 7.5k bird photos in 4 months and it works perfectly, though the fastest lens I use is f/2.8. Is yours ok for f/2.8-f/8 lenses?

Dear Alan,
My "ex" 7D Mk2 was ok with anything slower than f2.8. I could shoot birds in flight all day long with f4+ without any problems but, as soon as i reached for f2.8, i started looking for ...pills to keep myself from going insane! The only lens that worked fantastically (only +1 AFMA needed) down to f1.8 was my 85mm f1.8. Sigmas were a total disaster even at f8+! I wasted too much time and quite some cash with that weird piece of camera but when it worked, it worked well. Anyway, 5D Mk3 works much better and is super consistent with ANY lens, that's why i bought a second one for exclusive use with Magic Lantern.

7D Mk2 is a great all-around APS-C camera but, you must be lucky enough to find a good copy of it! Unfortunately, most of the times, i have to handle low light situations and f2.8- is something i use regularly.

All my best wishes Alan, be lucky, enjoy those you love the most.
Yiannis

P.S: Please feel free to ask me whatever you like about 7D Mk2 or any other thing i could possibly be aware of.

 

[bholliman]

Now, I just need to convince my wife that my hobby requires an additional $6k investment...

Better to ask for forgiveness than permission

I've successfully used that tactic at times and gotten away with it, but not going to risk it for this amount of money. I've started my sales pitch. It will take some time, but I think I'll get there.

A happy wife is worth much more than any lens in the world.

 

[Act444]

Update - got to play with a (version 1) 300 2.8 at the local store - probably about the limit of what I'm willing to carry around (5.6 lbs)...so this likely rules out the 500. I got to take some pics as well, not all turned out, but the ones that did were amazing. But to justify getting one, specifically over the 400, I needed to go back and figure out if I ever had/will ever have a "need" for native 300 2.8. Turns out there might be a couple after all...but then again, hearing that the 300 + 2.0x isn't the best on 7D2 is a bit discouraging and takes away from its versatility.

Also, I notice that Ken Rockwell (yes, I know...) has a review up on the 400 DO which is quite positive.

Not getting any easier...