# Quick Comparison: Canon's new 400mm Options



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 19, 2014)

```
<p>Roger at LensRentals.com has done a quick comparison of the EF 400 f/4 DO IS and <a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon/lenses/supertelephoto/canon-400mm-f4l-do-is-ii" target="_blank">EF 400 f/4 DO IS II</a> as well as the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS and <a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon/lenses/telephoto/canon-100-400mm-f4.5-5.6l-is-ii" target="_blank">EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II</a>.</p>
<p><strong>From LensRentals.com on the EF 400 f/4 DO IS II
</strong></p>
<table id="wp-table-reloaded-id-104-no-1" class="wp-table-reloaded wp-table-reloaded-id-104">
<thead>
<tr class="row-1">
<th class="column-1"></th>
<th class="column-2"><b>400mm DO mtf50</b></th>
<th class="column-3"><b>400mm DO II mtf50</b></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="row-2">
<td class="column-1"><b>Center</b></td>
<td class="column-2">1190</td>
<td class="column-3">1490</td>
</tr>
<tr class="row-3">
<td class="column-1"><b>Weighted Avg.</b></td>
<td class="column-2">970</td>
<td class="column-3">1350</td>
</tr>
<tr class="row-4">
<td class="column-1"><b>Corner Avg.</b></td>
<td class="column-2">740</td>
<td class="column-3">1100</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p><em>“The difference in Canon’s computer-generated MTF charts for the 400mm DO and 400mm DO II is pretty striking, and I think our results confirm that difference shows up in actual optical testing as well as in the computer ray tracing.  Canon also says the new design has much greater contrast, and I tend to believe that too, although we’ll all want to see images in a variety of lighting conditions.”</em><strong>
</strong></p>
<p><strong>From LensRentals.com on the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II</strong></p>
<table id="wp-table-reloaded-id-105-no-1" class="wp-table-reloaded wp-table-reloaded-id-105">
<thead>
<tr class="row-1">
<th class="column-1"></th>
<th class="column-2"><b>100-400mm mtf50</b></th>
<th class="column-3"><b>100-400 II mtf50</b></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="row-2">
<td class="column-1"><b>Center</b></td>
<td class="column-2">1300</td>
<td class="column-3">1380</td>
</tr>
<tr class="row-3">
<td class="column-1"><b>Weighted Avg.</b></td>
<td class="column-2">980</td>
<td class="column-3">1020</td>
</tr>
<tr class="row-4">
<td class="column-1"><b>Corner Avg.</b></td>
<td class="column-2">680</td>
<td class="column-3">760</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p><em>“The Canon computer-generated MTF charts suggest that the center of the image should be similar in both the old and new versions, but that the Mk II should be noticeably better off-axis and particularly in the corners. We do see that difference in the resolution tests, but I had expected the difference to be a bit larger. It’s certainly not nearly as dramatic as the DO difference.”</em><strong>

</strong></p>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/12/a-brief-400mm-comparison" target="_blank">Read the full comparison at LensRentals.com</a></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## JoeDavid (Dec 19, 2014)

He must have picked an excellent copy of the original 100-400 for his comparison. I'd say my version 1 lens is average but the version II lens is excellent. My copy of the new one is much sharper wide open plus the much improved IS and twist zoom is a "must upgrade" if you use this lens a lot.


----------



## Plainsman (Dec 19, 2014)

Wow! LR confirms that the 400DO centre is sharper than the new 100-400II by as much as the 100-400II is sharper than the 100-400I. Take that which way you want!

I've always known that my 100-400I was sharp and Roger Cicala's test proves just that. So doubtful whether I will sell it for the newer one now as I never crop at the corners!

BTW this is the first time I have seen quantitative MTF measurements for the old DO - thanks Roger.


----------



## kenny (Dec 19, 2014)

JoeDavid said:


> He must have picked an excellent copy of the original 100-400 for his comparison. I'd say my version 1 lens is average but the version II lens is excellent. My copy of the new one is much sharper wide open plus the much improved IS and twist zoom is a "must upgrade" if you use this lens a lot.



They tested four copies of each generation 100-400, and averaged the numbers.


----------



## Chaitanya (Dec 19, 2014)

Photozone has also posted their review: http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/896-canon100400f4556is2


----------



## sleepnever (Dec 19, 2014)

I know the LR guys say wait to see more copies tested, but those initial numbers are a bit disappointing. Nothing like, as they say, the 400mm DO comparison or the years between the mk1 and mk2 24-70L.

I rented it from LR for next week and I've used the mk1 in the past. We'll see how it goes, especially with the new IS and non-pump design.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 19, 2014)

Chaitanya said:


> Photozone has also posted their review: http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/896-canon100400f4556is2



Photozone's data and LR's data are not similar. PZ's Mark II (At least in resolution) was a marked improvement over the Mark I. 

- A


----------



## raptor3x (Dec 19, 2014)

kenny said:


> JoeDavid said:
> 
> 
> > He must have picked an excellent copy of the original 100-400 for his comparison. I'd say my version 1 lens is average but the version II lens is excellent. My copy of the new one is much sharper wide open plus the much improved IS and twist zoom is a "must upgrade" if you use this lens a lot.
> ...



Yeah but all four of those copies had been tuned on their optical bench so it's not like he picked fours copies at random from out in the wild.

[quote author=RCicala]
One thing I'll just throw out for discussion regarding 100-400 comparisons. It's a lens we find we have to optically adjust fairly frequently over time (maybe 10% of copies) and the problems are always at 400mm only. The 4 copies I tested had all been optically tested and screened on a bench prior to this measurement. [/quote]


----------



## ScottyP (Dec 19, 2014)

So.... Am I oversimplifying this analysis if my take away here is that because the center number of the DO lens is now higher than that of the 100-400, the DO lens has leapfrogged the 100–400 and is now a better lens? If so, in what exactly, sharpness?


----------



## BeenThere (Dec 19, 2014)

ScottyP said:


> So.... Am I oversimplifying this analysis if my take away here is that because the center number of the DO lens is now higher than that of the 100-400, the DO lens has leapfrogged the 100–400 and is now a better lens? If so, in what exactly, sharpness?



Based on the quick comparison at LR, you could conclude that the old DO was not as sharp as the old 100-400 AND that the new DO is sharper than the new 100-400. That's an interesting conclusion.


----------



## Khufu (Dec 19, 2014)

Numbers! I'm safe to assume bigger numbers mean better, er, awesomeness, right? 

Looks like they forgot to throw the 400mm f/5.6L prime in the mix 

Really though, I think there are plenty of us wondering how our trusty primes measures up and if it's finally time to grab something a little more "new-school"... But judging by people's responses to the improvement, giving me the impression it's marginal regarding the non-DO, I'm inclined to ask if hopping over is a bad idea if IS and de-zooming is of little interest unless stepping up to throwing cash at a DO purchase. Thoughts, anyone?

I don't really know all this chart stuff inside or at the moment but I'll have a nose around these sites, see if there's any data on the prime that makes sense to me


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 19, 2014)

BeenThere said:


> ScottyP said:
> 
> 
> > So.... Am I oversimplifying this analysis if my take away here is that because the center number of the DO lens is now higher than that of the 100-400, the DO lens has leapfrogged the 100–400 and is now a better lens? If so, in what exactly, sharpness?
> ...



Shouldn't we expect that? The DO lens is a slightly faster prime that costs 3-4x as much. It ought to be sharper. 

- A


----------



## Khufu (Dec 19, 2014)

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=18496.45

Google brought me back around to the CR forum where some of you guys were comparing various 400mm Canon lenses around this time last year - interesting stuff! I'm not really sure how to compare these figures with this thread's figures though - but as was always the case, the prime wasn't looking too bad at all in December 2013...


----------



## Canon1 (Dec 19, 2014)

For the wildlife photographer the real benefit of the mark ii 100-400 will not be a huge iq boost (which does not appear to exist). The real news here is the improved IS, the much faster and more accurate AF, and hopefully an improved IQ/ performance when paired with a 1.4x.


----------



## Plainsman (Dec 19, 2014)

kenny said:


> JoeDavid said:
> 
> 
> > He must have picked an excellent copy of the original 100-400 for his comparison. I'd say my version 1 lens is average but the version II lens is excellent. My copy of the new one is much sharper wide open plus the much improved IS and twist zoom is a "must upgrade" if you use this lens a lot.
> ...



....that's why LR results are more reliable than other reviews where probably only one unit is tested.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 19, 2014)

Rogers tests confirm my observations. My MK 1 was very sharp in the center, and my new MK II is similar. It is noticeably sharper looking due to no CA, better edges, and better contrast. The reason I bought it was for the new IS and fast AF speed. The push-pull was ok for me, so the new twist to zoom is not a big deal either way. From what I've seen, its also better with a 1.4TC than the Tamron 150-600 at f/8. The same in the center, but mid and outer areas are significantly better. Its also twice the price, so the Tamron's a good deal, I'm not knocking it.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 19, 2014)

Canon1 said:


> For the wildlife photographer the real benefit of the mark ii 100-400 will not be a huge iq boost (which does not appear to exist). The real news here is the improved IS, the much faster and more accurate AF, and hopefully an improved IQ/ performance when paired with a 1.4x.



So help me understand as I don't shoot long glass (I am happy topping out at 200 and don't shoot sports or wildlife)

100-400 f/4.5-5.6 zoom + 1.4x TC III --> 560mm f/8 for $2,648

200-400 + 1.4 integral TC ---> 560 f/5.6 for $11,799

That seems like a huge jump in price (and quality). Wouldn't that inform Canon that there should be a 'nicer' equivalent 500-600mm option for a mid-level price point? Perhaps a native 200-600 f/6.3 lens that didn't need a T/C?

I ask because Sigma's Sport 150-600 very well might be that lens -- $2k for a 600mm f/6.3 without T/C drawbacks. Would prospective White Unicorn buyers opt for this lens instead?

- A


----------



## Canon1 (Dec 19, 2014)

Perhaps canon could do well with a mid price f6.3 lens that covers the 400-600 range, but to date canon has not delved into the smaller aperture (than f5.6) lenses. 

In my experience, using a lens naked (without tc's) and cropping in post yields better results, with the exception of a few combinations (primarily the v2 superteles with v3 tc's)

Also, in my experience the performance improvement of f4 and f5.6 AF lenses yield more keepers due to more accurate AF, faster AF and lower ISO. I personally would not be interested in an f6.3 lens at any focal length for this reason, and I'm a wildlife photographer. I'd rather crop.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 19, 2014)

Plainsman said:


> kenny said:
> 
> 
> > JoeDavid said:
> ...



Sure, but LR is sadly not a testing house. They have world class equipment and a very bright soul to publish and interpret the results, but they are not in the business of comparing hamburger A to hamburger B. Every time Roger publishes his data, he leaves out one lens we really want to compare against or an aperture other than wide open, etc.

To him, this is a curiosity that he dabbles in, but ultimately he's running a business. So I have to use PhotoZone and LensTip to compare numbers and TDP to see IQ with my own eyes.

- A


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 19, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> > kenny said:
> ...


 
Yes, I read them all. Each site has their strengths. Rogers equipment is the best at what it does, while the other sites give lots of good information.

I've read the 100-400mm MK II reviews on those sites, as well as Alan F's on CR, and all generally agree that its very good. My copy is up to my expectations as well. 

Its great that we have web sites looking at lenses from different points of view, we get a more rounded picture of things that way.


----------



## DanN (Dec 19, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> BeenThere said:
> 
> 
> > ScottyP said:
> ...



We *should* expect that the DO lens is sharper. But according to these tests, the old one wasn't. That's the surprising bit.


----------



## DominoDude (Dec 19, 2014)

I must admit I've been a tad sceptic to the DO design and what it might deliver, but this new one have me salivating...
Too bad the price right now is too high on this side of the pond. (I could almost buy a round-trip flight over to NY and get it cheaper than here.)


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 19, 2014)

Check out photozone.de results! The new 100-400 II is killer! It actually handily beats the 70-300L and 70-200 2.8 IS II at 200mm!! And it's crazy good at 300mm too. And the 400mm is fine and big jump from the old version and, other than for edges, old slow prime!

For whatever reason, I find that photozone.de results have most often matched what I've personally seen.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 20, 2014)

Khufu said:


> http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=18496.45
> 
> Google brought me back around to the CR forum where some of you guys were comparing various 400mm Canon lenses around this time last year - interesting stuff! I'm not really sure how to compare these figures with this thread's figures though - but as was always the case, the prime wasn't looking too bad at all in December 2013...



Photozone seems much more enthusiastic.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 20, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Check out photozone.de results! The new 100-400 II is killer! It actually handily beats the 70-300L and 70-200 2.8 IS II at 200mm!! And it's crazy good at 300mm too. And the 400mm is fine and big jump from the old version and, other than for edges, old slow prime!
> 
> For whatever reason, I find that photozone.de results have most often matched what I've personally seen.



As usual, PZ gets the numbers all wrong.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=972&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0

Here's an interesting one. This is the 70-200/2.8L IS II + 2x TC III versus the new 100-400L IS II + 1.4x TC III both 1/3 of a stop down. The 70-200+2x is sharper in the middle but softer on the edges.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=3&LensComp=972&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=3


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 20, 2014)

This one seems to focus more accurately and faster, have lower CA and flare, retain nearly full sharpness when the IS elements are not centered, have better handling, and have dramatically better IS.

Those are all solutions to the exact problems I had with the original (which I own at work). The original has pretty good optical performance under ideal conditions. This one is taken with the original with stacked 1.4x TCs on a Rebel T2i.







The new one will give people the ability to get slightly better resolution with lower CA and flare, and to get that performance far more often in the real world. It also seems to take almost no hit at all from a 1.4x, which is pretty amazing.

I asked for it many times before, and now Canon has delivered the ultimate handheld reach system - the 7DII + 100-400L II + 1.4x TC III.


----------



## NancyP (Dec 20, 2014)

I really want to see the in-field performance of the 400 f/4 DO II under different lighting conditions. If Canon has solved the DO weakness of poor contrast and flaring, and knows how to make super-sharp DO lenses, then we should expect to see a 500 or 600 f/4 DO someday - maybe 5.5 to 6 pounds, rather than the 7.0 and 8.5 pounds the version II conventional 500 and 600 f/4 weigh. Yeah, I know - unicorns.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 20, 2014)

NancyP said:


> I really want to see the in-field performance of the 400 f/4 DO II under different lighting conditions. If Canon has solved the DO weakness of poor contrast and flaring, and knows how to make super-sharp DO lenses, then we should expect to see a 500 or 600 f/4 DO someday - maybe 5.5 to 6 pounds, rather than the 7.0 and 8.5 pounds the version II conventional 500 and 600 f/4 weigh. Yeah, I know - unicorns.


 
I'm sure its possible, it depends on marketing. Are there enough buyers in the market to go for a 500mm, a 600mm or a 800mm DO? A lot of people recently invested a big chunk of money in the new 500mm and 600mm lenses, and are not likely to change to a DO version, so maybe the 800mm is the next DO lens??


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 20, 2014)

It's late, and I'm tired, so I don't entirely trust my results here. However, if I'm right, this will explain these results.

The theoretical maximums, simply caused by diffraction, are 1555 lp/ph for f/5.6 and 2199 lp/ph for f/4.

So, the reason the 100-400L improved less is that there's less room to improve between the old one and the diffraction limit than there was for the old 400/4DO which has a higher diffraction limit due to its faster f-stop.

In fact, the result for the 100-400L II is just 1% less than what I'd calculate from a perfect f/5.6 lens behind an AA filter. And that 1% number is based on a rule-of-thumb for the AA filter that itself is less accurate than 1%.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 20, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> It's late, and I'm tired, so I don't entirely trust my results here. However, if I'm right, this will explain these results.
> 
> The theoretical maximums, simply caused by diffraction, are 1555 lp/ph for f/5.6 and 2199 lp/ph for f/4.
> 
> ...


 
We probably will see a bigger difference on high MP bodies where the lens will have a bigger impact. I'm not about to fool with calculations.


----------



## 9VIII (Dec 20, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> NancyP said:
> 
> 
> > I really want to see the in-field performance of the 400 f/4 DO II under different lighting conditions. If Canon has solved the DO weakness of poor contrast and flaring, and knows how to make super-sharp DO lenses, then we should expect to see a 500 or 600 f/4 DO someday - maybe 5.5 to 6 pounds, rather than the 7.0 and 8.5 pounds the version II conventional 500 and 600 f/4 weigh. Yeah, I know - unicorns.
> ...



I'm surprised you're so sceptical about DO with how much people raved about the weight difference between the Mk1 and Mk2 Big Whites.

My bet is all Mk3 Supertelephoto lenses will be DO, there really isn't much else they can improve otherwise.


----------



## Bennymiata (Dec 20, 2014)

The new 400DO 2 has me excited too.
I have the old 100-400 and I find it an excellent lens, but it's either keeping it and getting the new 400DO, or selling the 100-400 and just buy the new version.

I like birds and bugs and some landscapes, so would the new 400DO really be that much better, including things like af, than my old 100-400?


----------



## 9VIII (Dec 20, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Check out photozone.de results! The new 100-400 II is killer! It actually handily beats the 70-300L and 70-200 2.8 IS II at 200mm!! And it's crazy good at 300mm too. And the 400mm is fine and big jump from the old version and, other than for edges, old slow prime!
> ...



It's funny, after looking at the Photozone and TDP tests, the 400f5.6 is still very competitive in terms of overall sharpness, especially considering price.
That said, the 100-400MKII is now almost perfected in every other way, It really seems like they were trying hard to think of ways to make this lens better without encroaching on Big White territory.
I guess that leaves plenty for them to improve upon when they release the 100-400 MkIII in 2030.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 20, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Check out photozone.de results! The new 100-400 II is killer! It actually handily beats the 70-300L and 70-200 2.8 IS II at 200mm!! And it's crazy good at 300mm too. And the 400mm is fine and big jump from the old version and, other than for edges, old slow prime!
> ...



No, if anything, TDP gets it all wrong. Every Tamron they test looks like it was dropped. Their 70-300L does horribly compared to how mine did vs various 70-200 lenses and compared to what PZ and about 85% of blogs say. How come they have the 70-200 f/4 IS + 1.4x TC better than the bare 70-300L???

And how come TDP shows the 100-400 II + 1.4x TC III MUCH sharper than the 100-400 + 1.4x TC wide open and near wide open and yet the same or even blurrier without the TC???

How come for some lenses the results get blurry a couple steps down from wide open and then get sharper again and then get blurrier again?


----------



## Ryan85 (Dec 20, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Rogers tests confirm my observations. My MK 1 was very sharp in the center, and my new MK II is similar. It is noticeably sharper looking due to no CA, better edges, and better contrast. The reason I bought it was for the new IS and fast AF speed. The push-pull was ok for me, so the new twist to zoom is not a big deal either way. From what I've seen, its also better with a 1.4TC than the Tamron 150-600 at f/8. The same in the center, but mid and outer areas are significantly better. Its also twice the price, so the Tamron's a good deal, I'm not knocking it.



Are you talking about your 100-400 v1 with 1.4TC is a little sharper than the Tamron or your new Version 2? How did you like the V1 with the 1.4TC?


----------



## dufflover (Dec 21, 2014)

I have to Photozone overall has the most consistent results that match what I see in my lenses and others online. I find TDP to be the most inconsistent, at least in-terms of what I see in the "Lens Image Quality" tool. All resources are useful though; in the end the more results the better whether it be reviews, testing houses and forum feedback to get a good average.

I don't find anything too special with this particular topic though. A bit like the 7D2 sensor topics, this is the sort of improvement that is basically EXPECTED given the price and time differences.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 21, 2014)

dufflover said:


> I have to Photozone overall has the most consistent results that match what I see in my lenses and others online. I find TDP to be the most inconsistent, at least in-terms of what I see in the "Lens Image Quality" tool. All resources are useful though; in the end the more results the better whether it be reviews, testing houses and forum feedback to get a good average.



+1


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 22, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



Your statements seem to suggest TDP, despite what would appear to be the most transparent, simple demonstrations available, is either misleading with his shots of charts, or incompetent in execution, or frequently stuck with bad copies.

Where, in your opinion is he going wrong?


----------



## AlanF (Dec 22, 2014)

Roger of lensrentals is by far the most reliable person when it comes to testing lenses. He understands lenses, takes them apart, puts them back together and importantly handles thousands of them and understands statistical variation. He tested four copies of each for the 100-400, and won't give his final opinion until he tested 30. The other sites usually do only one of each, which why many of us like trawling through as many sites as possible to find the common factors and not rely on one report.

TDP is an excellent site. However, his report of the Tamron 150-600mm at f/8 having abysmal corner resolution doesn't square with my own experience of the lens or the actual measured mtfs by ePhotozine. Maybe ePhotozone and I lucked out with our copies.

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/tamron-sp-150-600mm-f-5-6-3-di-vc-usd-lens-review-23866

I put it down to sample variation. Conversely, my copy of the old 100-400 mm much softer than TDP charts suggested, and measured by lensrentals on many of their copies.


----------



## Plainsman (Dec 22, 2014)

9VIII said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > NancyP said:
> ...



I think by 2020 the 500 and 600 dinosaur primes could be replaced by a single 400 - 600/4 DO zoom unit.

Canon are getting the hang of DO now so this would be a natural developement - two for one! Primes are going to be replaced by zooms.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 22, 2014)

TDP has a second copy analysed on its website
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=14148
Slight differences in the corners. It's a pity the measurements are not quantitative as you can't tell improvements from looking at images above a certain level.


----------



## hoodlum (Jan 6, 2015)

Now that Nikon has announced their first DO equivalent lens, I think we see more competitive pricing for this technology. It doesn't have to be that more expensive than non-DO lenses.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Jan 6, 2015)

Plainsman said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > Mt Spokane Photography said:
> ...



Primes will always beat zooms in light transmission due to fewer optics. There is an advantage to primes that most people don't realize.


----------



## hoodlum (Jan 6, 2015)

East Wind Photography said:


> Primes will always beat zooms in light transmission due to fewer optics. There is an advantage to primes that most people don't realize.



I find primes have about a 1/2 stop advantage over zooms of similar apertures.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Jan 6, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> <p>Roger at LensRentals.com has done a quick comparison of the EF 400 f/4 DO IS and <a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon/lenses/supertelephoto/canon-400mm-f4l-do-is-ii" target="_blank">EF 400 f/4 DO IS II</a> as well as the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS and <a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon/lenses/telephoto/canon-100-400mm-f4.5-5.6l-is-ii" target="_blank">EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II</a>.</p>
> <p><strong>From LensRentals.com on the EF 400 f/4 DO IS II
> </strong></p>
> <table id="wp-table-reloaded-id-104-no-1" class="wp-table-reloaded wp-table-reloaded-id-104">
> ...


I wish they had included the 400mm f5.6L in the comparison. This budget telephoto lens is really good, only missing the latest IS technology.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Jan 6, 2015)

hoodlum said:


> East Wind Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Primes will always beat zooms in light transmission due to fewer optics. There is an advantage to primes that most people don't realize.
> ...



Yep and for most who require big teles for wildlife also require better low light capability and 1/2 stop can make a difference in the morning or late evening or when adding an extender to the mix.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jan 6, 2015)

East Wind Photography said:


> hoodlum said:
> 
> 
> > East Wind Photography said:
> ...



The actual difference is more like 1/6th of a stop.
Example: 70-200/2.8L IS II T-stop=3.6, 200/2.8L II T-stop=3.3.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Jan 6, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> East Wind Photography said:
> 
> 
> > hoodlum said:
> ...



depends on the number of optics. For that lens 1/6 may be correct.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jan 6, 2015)

East Wind Photography said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > East Wind Photography said:
> ...



What other pairs can be checked? As far as I can think of, the only other one is the 100-400L and 400/5.6L where the f-stops and focal lengths are the same between prime and zoom. The 400/5.6L hasn't been tested.


----------



## dufflover (Jan 11, 2015)

Keeping in mind the whole premise of a zoom is flexibility over IQ (of which isn't really an issue anymore either) the difference in transmission I doubt will influence the majority of buyers.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Jan 13, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> East Wind Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



You could also compare the 70-200 2.8L II to the 100 F2.8L Macro and a host of others. Logically one would compare the lenses wide open when possible. You can compare other lenses if you stop down the prime. For example compare a 70-300 to a 300 2.8 stopped down to F5.6.

The light transmission benefit also holds true at similar F-stop settings.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Jan 13, 2015)

dufflover said:


> Keeping in mind the whole premise of a zoom is flexibility over IQ (of which isn't really an issue anymore either) the difference in transmission I doubt will influence the majority of buyers.



It really depends on what you shoot...and how deep your pockets will let you go. A zoom is ALL about flexibility and in very few instances do they equate to the same IQ as a prime of the same FL. The only one that comes to mind is the 200-400.

I shoot wildlife with my primes. Sold all of my zooms (except the 70-200 2.8L IS II) and would not buy any of the latest except the 200-400 but my pockets aren't big enough ..yet.


----------



## hoodlum (Jan 28, 2015)

Roger has posted additional information.

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/01/more-canon-400m-do-ii-comparisons


----------

