Official: Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
I always thought so too....then realized I never shoot at 300mm. It's too long on a zoom (IQ), and too short as a wildlife lens, at least here out west. (I do have a 70-300L, but 300mm is just a grab shot for later identification or as a field note).
400 DO handheld on the trail stalking, and 600 on a gimbal for stationary setup. Focal lengths are pretty close together, but the way I intend to use each lens is very different.
400 DO handheld on the trail stalking, and 600 on a gimbal for stationary setup. Focal lengths are pretty close together, but the way I intend to use each lens is very different.
neuroanatomist said:Impressive. Most impressive.
I'd still choose the 300/2.8L IS II over this, although I might choose differently if I didn't have the 600/4L IS II.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:Impressive. Most impressive.
Totally OT, but did anyone else read this in Darth Vader's voice?
If they managed to do this with 400 DO, I wonder if they can pull same trick with 70-300 DO. That would be one nice travelling telezoom
Upvote
0
I actually had somewhat of a dilemma between the 300 II & the original 400 DO. I'm glad this lens came out now, otherwise I'd still be trying to choose. I have zero regrets with the 300 as it's more flexible and I love the f/2.8, but after using a 400mm (the f/5.6) it seems a bit short sometimes. This new lens is likely to make decisions very hard.DARSON said:
Upvote
0
wtlloyd said:
..there are MTFs and MTFs. Look at the ones for the 400/5.6 - they don't do this pretty good prime much justice.
Nevertheless the MTF curves at 560 for the DO are impressive. But expect some competition from the Sigma 150-600 Sport at a lower price but a bit heavier.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
wtlloyd said:I always thought so too....then realized I never shoot at 300mm. It's too long on a zoom (IQ), and too short as a wildlife lens, at least here out west. (I do have a 70-300L, but 300mm is just a grab shot for later identification or as a field note).
400 DO handheld on the trail stalking, and 600 on a gimbal for stationary setup. Focal lengths are pretty close together, but the way I intend to use each lens is very different.
neuroanatomist said:Impressive. Most impressive.
I'd still choose the 300/2.8L IS II over this, although I might choose differently if I didn't have the 600/4L IS II.
I usually use the 600 II with a 1.4xIII. 400mm or even 560mm would be too short most of the time. For me, the 300/2.8 would be for sports, and as a 'travel' birding lens with the 2xIII.
Upvote
0
Agree! A 300mm f2.8L IS II + 1.4x/2x III extenders and a 7DII makes a very very interesting package.neuroanatomist said:wtlloyd said:I always thought so too....then realized I never shoot at 300mm. It's too long on a zoom (IQ), and too short as a wildlife lens, at least here out west. (I do have a 70-300L, but 300mm is just a grab shot for later identification or as a field note).
400 DO handheld on the trail stalking, and 600 on a gimbal for stationary setup. Focal lengths are pretty close together, but the way I intend to use each lens is very different.
neuroanatomist said:Impressive. Most impressive.
I'd still choose the 300/2.8L IS II over this, although I might choose differently if I didn't have the 600/4L IS II.
I usually use the 600 II with a 1.4xIII. 400mm or even 560mm would be too short most of the time. For me, the 300/2.8 would be for sports, and as a 'travel' birding lens with the 2xIII.
Upvote
0
I'm actually thinking, waiting, for any reviews which expose any inherent flaws with using DO elements - like contrast in backlit scenes, or prone to flare, etc. (note: I kinda made those up!). I'm not trying to knock the lens btw, just thinking in terms of one of the big rules of photography in general is you can't break the laws of physics (though plenty believe you can with an FF camera and red ring lens 
lol). I wouldn't mind if there was the odd flaw or two with it ... might make it cheaper hehe.
Pretty sure this lens would slaughter any of the consumer lenses like the new 150-600m's or my own Sigma 120-300. Don't get me wrong they are great bang-for-buck and I'm quite happy with the 1.4x TC output with my Sigma, but on paper anyway, this lens with a 2X would best it! And being a prime with probably much less focus breathing probably be just as long.
I know, I know ... let me dream of owning one
LOL
lol). I wouldn't mind if there was the odd flaw or two with it ... might make it cheaper hehe.Pretty sure this lens would slaughter any of the consumer lenses like the new 150-600m's or my own Sigma 120-300. Don't get me wrong they are great bang-for-buck and I'm quite happy with the 1.4x TC output with my Sigma, but on paper anyway, this lens with a 2X would best it! And being a prime with probably much less focus breathing probably be just as long.
I know, I know ... let me dream of owning one
LOL
Upvote
0
It certainly looks nice -- love the size/weight/MTF -- but I think it's too short for birding. I've been trying to talk myself into buying the 500mm f/4L II, so I'm hoping this lens lives up to its promise, so that Canon releases a 600mm f/4 DO! ;D
Upvote
0
Khalai said:neuroanatomist said:Impressive. Most impressive.
Totally OT, but did anyone else read this in Darth Vader's voice?
If they managed to do this with 400 DO, I wonder if they can pull same trick with 70-300 DO. That would be one nice travelling telezoom
Yup.
Now I have to wonder how much work it took to get this lens where it is. Whether it's a matter of blood, sweat and tears with every new design, or if they found the magic formula for Green Rings of Glory.
If they do have a magic formula, we now know what feature all our MkIII lenses will have.
Upvote
0
not the exact why heheSimilar threads
