# Why no 400mm f/4L IS exists?



## J.R. (Jan 5, 2014)

The most obvious reason would be that Canon doesn't make it  

but could this just be a marketing thing? Or maybe such a lens would sit close to the 300 f/2.8 II in price which if combined with a 1.4x TC makes an excellent 420mm f/4? 

Thoughts ...


----------



## surapon (Jan 5, 2014)

Dear JR.
That is a great question---
May be too many EF 400 mm by Canon in the Market already ???
EF 400 mm. F/ 2.8 L IS MK II = $ 11,490
EF 400 F/ 4.0 DO. IS = $ 6469
EF 400 mm. F/ 5.6 L = $ 1339.
May be one day, Canon may have 400 mm. F/ 4.0 L IS in $ 6000 US Dollars Range----That is my my dream too.
Happy Sunday.
Surapon


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 5, 2014)

Canon developed a prototype 400/4 (bottom lens) in 2000, alongside the 400/4 DO, although only the latter was brought to market.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 5, 2014)

I found a little used Nikon 200-400mm f/4 VR on my local craigslist. A local doctor had bought it and used it twice. I even bought a used D300s to use playing with it, and a gimbal head, and was still below $3300. Considering how over priced Nikon lenses usually are, I'll have no problem selling for a lot more if I ever do it.


----------



## 9VIII (Jan 6, 2014)

From what I can see it's just a matter of the 500f4 being an overall better choice for anyone who thinks they want a 400f4. If 400mm is actually the focal length you need then the 400f2.8 is probably the correct choice, and if you're on a budget then nothing will ever beat the 400f5.6. If you're using the lens in an application where a 600mm or 800mm lens would be ideal, but just don't want the additional size and weight, then the 500f4 is probably a much better compromise than a 400f4 would have been given that you're only losing 100mm in focal length while I doubt a 400f4 would give any better IQ. The 500f4 is also lighter than either of the 200-400f4 zoom lenses out there.
I really think the 500f4 is the ultimate "middle class" big white.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 6, 2014)

9VIII said:


> From what I can see it's just a matter of the 500f4 being an overall better choice for anyone who thinks they want a 400f4. If 400mm is actually the focal length you need then the 400f2.8 is probably the correct choice, and if you're on a budget then nothing will ever beat the 400f5.6. If you're using the lens in an application where a 600mm or 800mm lens would be ideal, but just don't want the additional size and weight, then the 500f4 is probably a much better compromise than a 400f4 would have been given that you're only losing 100mm in focal length while I doubt a 400f4 would give any better IQ. The 500f4 is also lighter than either of the 200-400f4 zoom lenses out there.
> I really think the 500f4 is the ultimate "middle class" big white.



Except that the 500/4 II is $10K, and a 400/4 would likely be $2-2.5K cheaper.


----------



## takesome1 (Jan 6, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Canon developed a prototype 400/4 (bottom lens) in 2000, alongside the 400/4 DO, although only the latter was brought to market.



Kind of makes the thread pointless. Canon does offer a 400mm f/4 IS.
No red ring, but I see this at the local NBA games all the time so it must be ok.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 6, 2014)

takesome1 said:


> Kind of makes the thread pointless. Canon does offer a 400mm f/4 IS.
> No red ring, but I see this at the local NBA games all the time so it must be ok.



It was a common discussion point before the MkII supertele lenses came out, when people felt the 'DO premium' means a non-DO 400/4 would be substantially cheaper. At this point, a 400/4 non-DO would have the built/optical qualities of the MkII lenses, and cost more than the current DO. 

Worth noting that Canon has patented DO teleconverters, and IIRC several new DO supertele designs.


----------



## 9VIII (Jan 6, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > From what I can see it's just a matter of the 500f4 being an overall better choice for anyone who thinks they want a 400f4. If 400mm is actually the focal length you need then the 400f2.8 is probably the correct choice, and if you're on a budget then nothing will ever beat the 400f5.6. If you're using the lens in an application where a 600mm or 800mm lens would be ideal, but just don't want the additional size and weight, then the 500f4 is probably a much better compromise than a 400f4 would have been given that you're only losing 100mm in focal length while I doubt a 400f4 would give any better IQ. The 500f4 is also lighter than either of the 200-400f4 zoom lenses out there.
> ...



Shop around a bit, you can do at least $1K better.


----------



## Old Swede (Jan 23, 2014)

Wish you were correct about being able to get a 500 f4L IS II for less than $10K. Lowest price listed on current canon price watch is $10,187. There are probably some grey market deals for less from non-authorized dealers out there, but I won't go that route.

I agree that I would probably prefer a 500 f4L IS over a 400 f4L IS if the prices were close. The factor that would sway me towards the 400 f4L IS would be a marked weight reduction.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 23, 2014)

Old Swede said:


> Wish you were correct about being able to get a 500 f4L IS II for less than $10K. Lowest price listed on current canon price watch is $10,187.



Try visiting our friendly neighbors to the north…. Camera Canada has it for $9730, and with the current exchange rate that works out to US $8740.


----------



## Imagination_landB (Jan 23, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Old Swede said:
> 
> 
> > Wish you were correct about being able to get a 500 f4L IS II for less than $10K. Lowest price listed on current canon price watch is $10,187.
> ...


And I still don,t get why here the Superteles are way cheaper than in US, but you get all the good discounts on camera bodies, refurbished etc..


----------



## BoneDoc (Jan 24, 2014)

It's called Tax. You see, nothing is ever free


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jan 24, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I found a little used Nikon 200-400mm f/4 VR on my local craigslist. A local doctor had bought it and used it twice. I even bought a used D300s to use playing with it, and a gimbal head, and was still below $3300. Considering how over priced Nikon lenses usually are, I'll have no problem selling for a lot more if I ever do it.


WOW! That is one hell of a sweet deal!


----------



## Sella174 (Jan 24, 2014)

... because there is no need for such a lens.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jan 24, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> ... because there is no need for such a lens.


Why?


----------



## slclick (Jan 24, 2014)

Ok, how about a 400 5.6L IS?


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jan 24, 2014)

slclick said:


> Ok, how about a 400 5.6L IS?


The hope of that one lens kept me from getting the current non-IS one.


----------



## slclick (Jan 24, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, how about a 400 5.6L IS?
> ...



+ONE


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 24, 2014)

9VIII said:


> I really think the 500f4 is the ultimate "middle class" big white.


Does that make my 300 f/2.8 IS II low class? If so, it sure didn't feel that way when I paid my AMEX bill that month. I'm just kidding, but I've never heard the big whites discussed in terms of class


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 24, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > I really think the 500f4 is the ultimate "middle class" big white.
> ...



Well, I don;t know about 'ultimate' but mathematically, 500 is exactly in the middle of a range running from 200 to 800.


----------



## Sella174 (Jan 24, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Sella174 said:
> 
> 
> > ... because there is no need for such a lens.
> ...



There's already five pretty decent lenses covering that focal length: the *f/2.8L IS II*, the *f/4 DO IS*, the *f/5.6L*, the *100–400mm f/4.5–5.6L IS*, and the *200–400mm f/4L IS*. Of these lenses, there are three that offer *f/4 IS* and thus another one would be serious competition for them all.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 24, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> There's already five pretty decent lenses covering that focal length: the *f/2.8L IS II*, the *f/4 DO IS*, the *f/5.6L*, the *100–400mm f/4.5–5.6L IS*, and the *200–400mm f/4L IS*. Of these lenses, there are three that offer *f/4 IS* and thus another one would be serious competition for them all.



There are *11* pretty decent EF lenses covering the 200mm focal length, and of those there are four that offer f/4 IS. I don't think Canon is too converned with multiple lenses covering a given focal length. Generally, more choices are a good thing - as long as Canon sets a price that provides a return on investment for a given number of units sold, it's a win. 

It's also worth noting that two of those three lenses that provide 400mm f/4 IS are quite new, and deliver _substantially_ better optical performance than the 400/4 DO. Given that, there is quite likely a market for a 400mm f/4 IS lens that delivers optical performance on par with the recent MkII supertele lenses as a price that's around that of the current 400/4 DO, i.e. $4K cheaper than the 400/2.8 II or 200-400/4+1.4x.


----------



## Sella174 (Jan 24, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> There are *11* pretty decent EF lenses covering the 200mm focal length ...



Now that's very interesting, as Canon only has three 50mm lenses and two each of 35mm and 24mm, and just one 28mm lens.


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 24, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > There are *11* pretty decent EF lenses covering the 200mm focal length ...
> ...


Now it looks like you're changing your definition to include primes only plus you're forgetting the TS-E 24mm f/3.5II and 28 f/1.8. If you include zooms, Canon has too many to count that cover the 24-28-35-50mm focal lengths.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jan 24, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I found a little used Nikon 200-400mm f/4 VR on my local craigslist. A local doctor had bought it and used it twice. I even bought a used D300s to use playing with it, and a gimbal head, and was still below $3300. Considering how over priced Nikon lenses usually are, I'll have no problem selling for a lot more if I ever do it.



That is the only Nikon lens I wish Canon had in its line-up (next to /other than the 200-400 1.4x). A former colleague of mine has it and it is absofabolutelyfantastic


----------



## cayenne (Jan 24, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Old Swede said:
> 
> 
> > Wish you were correct about being able to get a 500 f4L IS II for less than $10K. Lowest price listed on current canon price watch is $10,187.
> ...



Would that lens bought "up north", still have a US warranty? Is the warranty for North America in general, or is it specifically for CA or US, etc?


----------



## NancyP (Jan 24, 2014)

Don't put off getting the non-IS 400mm f/5.6L if you really want to shoot birds in flight or reasonably well lit birds/ wildlife. The non-IS lens demands good technique, but technique can be learned. This is a great budget birding lens with reliable quick AF. We shall see how the new Tamron 150-600 does in terms of speedy and accurate AF.


----------



## Sella174 (Jan 24, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Now it looks like you're changing your definition to include primes only plus you're forgetting the TS-E 24mm f/3.5II and 28 f/1.8. If you include zooms, Canon has too many to count that cover the 24-28-35-50mm focal lengths.



Yeah, you're right ... serves me right for trying to be clever.


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 24, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Yeah, you're right ... serves me right for trying to be clever.


It happens to the best of us - TGIF


----------



## 9VIII (Jan 24, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > I really think the 500f4 is the ultimate "middle class" big white.
> ...



I'm just thinking about how the 400f2.8, 600f4, and 800f5.6 all seem to fit into roughly the same size and price category.
The 200-400+1.4xTC probably fits in there too, but just for the price.
I just did some cost/mm calculations though, and they do all end up roughly the same. Though the US dealers seem to set all big whites on the same cost/mm as the 300f2.8 bare, where Canadian dealers put the 500mm+ lenses closer to the cost/mm of the 300f2.8 with a 1.4x TC (including price of TC).
I think the difference may be in part due to MAP policies between the two Canon distributors. We've seen B&H give discounts when asked, though it's hard to say how close they would come to price matching.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 24, 2014)

cayenne said:


> Would that lens bought "up north", still have a US warranty? Is the warranty for North America in general, or is it specifically for CA or US, etc?



I'm pretty sure the warranty is for North America and both Canada and the USA are covered.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jan 25, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sella174 said:
> 
> 
> > There's already five pretty decent lenses covering that focal length: the *f/2.8L IS II*, the *f/4 DO IS*, the *f/5.6L*, the *100–400mm f/4.5–5.6L IS*, and the *200–400mm f/4L IS*. Of these lenses, there are three that offer *f/4 IS* and thus another one would be serious competition for them all.
> ...


+1 ... I'd add that there'd be many hobbyists who'd want to buy a 400 f/5.6 L *IS* version, coz not everyone can afford $6000+ for a 400mm prime lens ... but I bet there would be a lot of people willing to buy a 400mm f/5.6 IS lens at around $2000 to $2500, besides the people who are willing to buy the $6000, 400mm f/4 lenses will continue to buy them regardless of a f/5.6 at a much lower price.


----------



## King Eyre (Jan 25, 2014)

I'd take issue with anyone who says the 400 DO isn't as sharp as other more recent lenses.
I use one with a 1DX and 1.4 and 2X TC and have some really excellent results...the only thing I'd say is it needs a wee tweak in PP on the contrast front.....and it can be picked up very reasonably second hand.

As I'm getting a bit long in the tooth (!!) I find the weight (or lack of it) with the DO is a very considerable advantage.....and I use it a lot even although I also have a 300 2.8 mk2.

I suspect a lot of people who criticise the 400 DO haven't actually used it...!!

George.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jan 25, 2014)

King Eyre said:


> I'd take issue with anyone who says the 400 DO isn't as sharp as other more recent lenses.
> I use one with a 1DX and 1.4 and 2X TC and have some really excellent results...the only thing I'd say is it needs a wee tweak in PP on the contrast front.....and it can be picked up very reasonably second hand.
> 
> As I'm getting a bit long in the tooth (!!) I find the weight (or lack of it) with the DO is a very considerable advantage.....and I use it a lot even although I also have a 300 2.8 mk2.
> ...


Just looked up the weight of EF 400mm f/4 DO IS lens and was surprised to see that it weighs same as the Sigma 150-500 OS lens ... that's quite impressive.


----------



## King Eyre (Jan 25, 2014)

Well I'm hoping to borrow a 200-400 +T/C next month (March) to take to Tanzania and Kenya on safari, will be interested to try it but it's a really heavy beast and that's fine when you are shooting from a vehicle but I certainly couldn't use it hand held for more than a couple of minutes!!

I think, although I can't prove it, the a/f system on the 1 Dx is also helping the performance of the 400 DO.

Be interesting if any other DO fans are backing me up!!!....


----------



## J.R. (Jan 25, 2014)

Thanks everyone for commenting. I've "convinced" myself that I "need" to get a 400mm f/4L IS for myself and so will be buying the 200-400mm f/4L IS later this March. I've given up my earlier plans (for now) for the 300 f/2.8L II and the 600 f/4L II in favour of the zoom. Versatility first and the speciality lens can follow later. 

I'd consider the DO lens but am just not convinced with it given that I cannot even try one in my country (nobody I know has this lens and it hopelessly out of stock with the Canon stores here). 

Cheers ... J.R.


----------



## King Eyre (Jan 25, 2014)

J.R. said:


> Thanks everyone for commenting. I've "convinced" myself that I "need" to get a 400mm f/4L IS for myself and so will be buying the 200-400mm f/4L IS later this March. I've given up my earlier plans (for now) for the 300 f/2.8L II and the 600 f/4L II in favour of the zoom. Versatility first and the speciality lens can follow later.
> 
> I'd consider the DO lens but am just not convinced with it given that I cannot even try one in my country (nobody I know has this lens and it hopelessly out of stock with the Canon stores here).
> 
> Cheers ... J.R.



That's a real shame you can't try one, I don't know why Canon don't push it more!!
Well I'm sure you'll love the 200-560 f4-5.6 (which is what it really is...!!) but I hope you aren't planning to carry it a long way!!

Don't know where you are geographically, I've lent mine to a few guys in Scotland and they've al bought them!!


----------



## King Eyre (Jan 25, 2014)

Another thought....can't you speak to your local CPS guy???usually they will help.


----------



## J.R. (Jan 25, 2014)

King Eyre said:


> That's a real shame you can't try one, I don't know why Canon don't push it more!!
> Well I'm sure you'll love the 200-560 f4-5.6 (which is what it really is...!!) but I hope you aren't planning to carry it a long way!!
> 
> Don't know where you are geographically, I've lent mine to a few guys in Scotland and they've al bought them!!



I plan to carry it in my car for the long hauls and thereafter with a tripod (with gimbal) / monopod. That said, I think I need to hit the gym and work on my upper body, I might be able to use it handheld for more than a couple of minutes ;D 

I'm based in India and the DO lenses are seldom seen here (at least I haven't seen any).


----------



## J.R. (Jan 25, 2014)

King Eyre said:


> Another thought....can't you speak to your local CPS guy???usually they will help.



I have my doubts with the abilities of CPS in India but nevertheless, I'll try that and see what gives ... Maybe they can loan me one!

Thanks ... J.R.


----------



## King Eyre (Jan 25, 2014)

I have my doubts with the abilities of CPS in India but nevertheless, I'll try that and see what gives ... Maybe they can loan me one!

Thanks ... J.R.
[/quote]

Well mine will be in Bandhavgarh in 18 months, it had an outing there a couple of years ago and was excellent!!

George


----------



## Albi86 (Jan 29, 2014)

I'm not sure about how much it would/should cost.

Triplicating the price of the 400/5.6 makes it around $5-6K even when factoring the "new product" price premium. That's about the same price of the DO version. As a reference, the price of the now 10-yo 70-300 DO IS USM is pretty much the same as the much newer 70-300 L. 

At this price, a 400/4 could seriously harm the sales of its $10K bigger brothers. That could be one reason why Canon doesn't market one.


----------



## NancyP (Feb 10, 2014)

I'd say that the new 500mm f/4L IS II is in the middle WEIGHT class, at 3.2 kg / 7 #. My beloved 400mm f/5.6L is a bantam weight (I have held it with one hand when shooting close to zenith and using the other hand to balance myself). The 800mm f/5.6L is in the heavy weight class, at ~4.5 kb / 9.9#.


----------



## Loren E (Feb 11, 2014)

King Eyre said:


> I'd take issue with anyone who says the 400 DO isn't as sharp as other more recent lenses.
> I use one with a 1DX and 1.4 and 2X TC and have some really excellent results...the only thing I'd say is it needs a wee tweak in PP on the contrast front.....and it can be picked up very reasonably second hand.
> 
> George.



Hey George, I am loving my 400 DO with 1.4 TCII. I want to get a 2x TC to use with it on my 5DmkIII. Which version of the 2x TC are you using? I am hoping I can get good results with the version II since this lens won't benefit from the chip in the version III anyways. Best -L


----------



## King Eyre (Feb 11, 2014)

Hi Loren, glad you are enjoying the 400 DO!!...join the (small??) club!!

I use a mk3 2x as I also have a mk2 300 2.8, and I'm using a 1Dx which I think (although it's a bit subjective) improves the keeper rate over my previous 1 Ds3....although..oops..just seen you have a 5D3..

My photography is mostly wildlife, mammals, so I'm not doing birds in flight generally therefore perhaps not pushing the combo as much as others as my subjects tend to be slower moving, however almost all shots are sharp as a tack.

I'd go for the mk3 anyway, as firstly, it's future proof, and secondly, I think it's sharper than the mk2.

Best of luck!!

George.


----------



## adhocphotographer (Feb 11, 2014)

400 DO has always interested me, but I think i would even be happy with an up-dated 300 f4 IS replacement.

Might give it a rent and see how it goes, DO that is!


----------



## Loren E (Feb 11, 2014)

King Eyre said:


> Hi Loren, glad you are enjoying the 400 DO!!...join the (small??) club!!
> 
> I use a mk3 2x as I also have a mk2 300 2.8, and I'm using a 1Dx which I think (although it's a bit subjective) improves the keeper rate over my previous 1 Ds3....although..oops..just seen you have a 5D3..
> 
> ...



Thanks for reporting back George on what you're using, much appreciated!


----------



## King Eyre (Feb 11, 2014)

adhocphotographer said:


> 400 DO has always interested me, but I think i would even be happy with an up-dated 300 f4 IS replacement.
> 
> Might give it a rent and see how it goes, DO that is!



I think you'll be pleasantly surprised, and they are reasonable on the second hand market.

George


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Feb 21, 2014)

If you want a 400mm f4 LIS...then consider the new 300mm f2.8 LIS mkII and a 1.4x TC
It's an astonishing combo.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 21, 2014)

GMCPhotographics said:


> If you want a 400mm f4 LIS...then consider the new 300mm f2.8 LIS mkII and a 1.4x TC
> It's an astonishing combo.


+1 - I can vouch for that pairing and check out the-digital-picture's comparison at f/4:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=739&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=1&LensComp=338&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0


----------



## King Eyre (Feb 21, 2014)

GMCPhotographics said:


> If you want a 400mm f4 LIS...then consider the new 300mm f2.8 LIS mkII and a 1.4x TC
> It's an astonishing combo.



Must admit, I have both the 300 2.8 mk2 both extenders, and the 400 f4 DO and I sometimes wonder if I should sell one or other of these combos, but I always come back to the lightweight of the DO, it's optical performance is, as I've said, apart from the contrast issue which is easily fixed, excellent and it gives me the option of an 800 f8 which is easily portable, unlike it's 5.6 big brother.
Where the 300 plus extender wins is a shade quicker af but for safaris I take both and hang the DO on the crop body (or I would if a 7Dmk2 was available, sold the old 7D as it just didn't cut the mustard any more) so for my next trip I'm fortunate that I can borrow another 1 Dx and a 200-400 from Canon....but I wouldn't even be considering the 2-400 if I wasn't vehicle based all the time...I'm not that strong!!
George.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Feb 25, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > If you want a 400mm f4 LIS...then consider the new 300mm f2.8 LIS mkII and a 1.4x TC
> ...



Although the 400 Do is a bit lighter, it's not THAT much lighter than the new 300 mkII. I think the 300 mkII and converters is one of the best travel / long lenses currently available. It's a great combo and does so much very well.


----------



## King Eyre (Feb 25, 2014)

Although the 400 Do is a bit lighter, it's not THAT much lighter than the new 300 mkII. I think the 300 mkII and converters is one of the best travel / long lenses currently available. It's a great combo and does so much very well.
[/quote]

I wouldn't disagree, and with the mk3 tcs the af is still remarkable..really don't notice any reduction in af speed with the 1.4.


----------



## tron (Feb 25, 2014)

I believe the difference in weight is not negligible as you seem to mean: 2.35 kg for the 300mm II + 225g for the 1.4X III = 2.575Kg versus the 1.94Kg for the 400mm DO a difference of 635g. 

If you have tried both combinations (with the same camera body) and you still think so I give up. I haven't - I do have tried 5DMkIII with a 500 f/4 IS II though - but I believe that in this category every weight saving counts.

In fact the change from a Manfrotto 055Prob + 410 Gear Head = 3.7Kg versus a Gitzo Systematic 3541LS + Markins M20 head = 2.3 Kg has made quite the difference for me (OK it's 1.4Kg less but you see the point... when walking everything counts)


----------



## King Eyre (Feb 25, 2014)

tron said:


> I believe the difference in weight is not negligible as you seem to mean: 2.35 kg for the 300mm II + 225g for the 1.4X III = 2.575Kg versus the 1.94Kg for the 400mm DO a difference of 635g.
> 
> If you have tried both combinations (with the same camera body) and you still think so I give up. I haven't - I do have tried 5DMkIII with a 500 f/4 IS II though - but I believe that in this category every weight saving counts.
> 
> In fact the change from a Manfrotto 055Prob + 410 Gear Head = 3.7Kg versus a Gitzo Systematic 3541LS + Markins M20 head = 2.3 Kg has made quite the difference for me (OK it's 1.4Kg less but you see the point... when walking everything counts)



Well, As I've already said, I have both and yes there is a difference as has been pointed out, the DO really is a pleasure to use, and it beats me as to why Canon don't push it more!...every time I go to a Canon show, you are struggling to find one in the line up, perhaps as it technically isn't an L lens.

If I had to get rid of one, it would have to be the DO, but only that it's the older lens and has, in theory, poorer IS.
However it won't go as once I get a second body (I sold my 7D a bit ago) I'll hang the DO on a crop body and use the 300 mk2 with or without extenders on the 1 Dx, if I'm travelling I don't like to constantly change lenses and bodies, especially in dusty environments.

I see that Canon recently filed a patent for a 600 DO...now that would be one beast of a lens..and perhaps I could lift it!!

George.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Feb 26, 2014)

tron said:


> I believe the difference in weight is not negligible as you seem to mean: 2.35 kg for the 300mm II + 225g for the 1.4X III = 2.575Kg versus the 1.94Kg for the 400mm DO a difference of 635g.
> 
> If you have tried both combinations (with the same camera body) and you still think so I give up. I haven't - I do have tried 5DMkIII with a 500 f/4 IS II though - but I believe that in this category every weight saving counts.
> 
> In fact the change from a Manfrotto 055Prob + 410 Gear Head = 3.7Kg versus a Gitzo Systematic 3541LS + Markins M20 head = 2.3 Kg has made quite the difference for me (OK it's 1.4Kg less but you see the point... when walking everything counts)



Lol...it's all relative and a personal choice at the end of the day. I regularly use a 400mm f2.8 L IS and chose a 3541LS for it's stability and not it's weight saving. I choose the f2.8 because it's one of the most stunning optics I've ever used, certainly one of Canon's finest ever. So for me, lugging that great lump about is worthwhile and I like the photographs I get from it. A 600g weight saving for me is quite minor but your mileage might vary. sure, I'd like a mkII and a serious weight reduction...maybe next year.


----------



## tron (Feb 26, 2014)

GMCPhotographics said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > I believe the difference in weight is not negligible as you seem to mean: 2.35 kg for the 300mm II + 225g for the 1.4X III = 2.575Kg versus the 1.94Kg for the 400mm DO a difference of 635g.
> ...


Whatever suits anyone. A 400 2.8 IS II though is much lighter than its predecessor so I wish you to replace it as soon as possible. I was speaking theoretically for 400 DO vs 300 + 1/4 (I have mentioned before that I do not own them). Maybe if I tested both combinations I would not find them a lot different in weight.

Now, I chose 500 4 IS II because I had 300 f/4L (the non IS version) and 100-400L and I wanted something longer and as light - OK do not laugh I meant not extremely heavy- as possible. 

Although light by comparison in one case I had to carry it (I had a Bataflae 26L, the 500 occupied half the bag but the other half was not completely filled to save weight) it was heavy! I'd rather carry as less as possible gear with my 500.


----------



## LShooter (Mar 27, 2014)

I have the 400 5.6 and it's Canon's best kept secret. It is sharp and fast to focus. In the day of great ISO cameras like the 5k Mk III, IS is not needed if the shooter does their job. Kind of like the 24-70. No IS, but amazing images. Too many folks rely on IS which does help, don't get me wrong; but if you use the right ISO and shutter speed you'll have tack sharp photos.


----------

