# 400 DO f/4 vs 300 f/2.8is with x1.4 vs 400 f/2.8



## pwp (Apr 21, 2012)

As a daily user of APS-H bodies since the original 1D, I'm going to badly miss the reach when I shoot with the 300 f/2.8is on the 1DMk4 when I update to 1DX (when they actually ship!). 300mm x 1.3 = 390mm on APS-H.

I figured a 400 f/2.8 will be an inevitable purchase, but the 400 f/4DO has caught my attention. The 400 f/2.8is is a heavy sucker of a thing...the DO is a featherweight by comparison. The lighter, smaller 400 f/2.8 MkII would be brilliant but I'm reluctant to drop close to $12K on one if I don't really have to.

Canon EF 400mm f/2.8 L IS USM Lens (163 x 349mm) (5,370g)	
Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO IS USM Lens (128 x 233mm) (1,940g)	
Canon EF 400mm f/2.8 L IS II USM Lens	(163 x 343mm) (3,850g)
Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS USM Lens	(128 x 252mm) (2,550g)	

If the DO has the IQ and the AF performance, it could be a great match to the 1DX with its improved iso performance and claimed big advances in AF. The lowest cost alternative would be the drop a x1.4 converter behind my current f/2.8 300is. 

I'm not completely cost driven, I just need to maintain the reach I currently have with APS-H when I move to the FF 1DX in a high performance, sensibly cost effective setup.

Paul Wright


----------



## risc32 (Apr 22, 2012)

I hope you get some user info about this. I'm curious also about the 300mm2.8IS +1.4tele versus 400mmf4DO. I've never really read much positive about the DO lenses other than the size weight advantages, but sometimes that alone might be of very high importance.


----------



## pwp (Apr 23, 2012)

risc32 said:


> I hope you get some user info about this. I'm curious also about the 300mm2.8IS +1.4tele versus 400mmf4DO. I've never really read much positive about the DO lenses other than the size weight advantages, but sometimes that alone might be of very high importance.



Yes, a general web search on this revealed zip. Maybe nobody here at CR has a 400 f/4DO. 

I doubt Canon have sold very many of them. Maybe the solution will be to rent one and do my own DO vs 300 f/2.8is+1.4X.

Paul Wright


----------



## TexPhoto (Apr 23, 2012)

Get a 1/4X extender no matter what. I have a 400 2.8 and love having the 1.4X and 2.0X extenders when I need the extra reach.


----------



## kasperj (Apr 24, 2012)

Hi Paul,
I have been looking for comparisons of the 400 4.0 DO vs 300 2.8 IS mrk I+ 1.4III given that both would be far easier on the back than the 400 IS 2.8 mrk I and the fact that the mrk II is out of my price range. 

As you I have not been able to find much useful information on the net, but did come across this review of the 400 DO on TDP: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-400mm-f-4.0-DO-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx 

One third into the review it is mentioned that it should yield similar sharpness to 300 2.8 + 1.4 combo:
_The apparent sharpness of this lens is not in direct relation to its price. The Canon EF 400mm f/4.0 DO IS USM Lens is reasonably sharp at f/4 and very sharp when stopped down to f/5.6. But it is not as sharp as the Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS Lens (few lenses are). The 300mm f/2.8 L IS with a Canon 1.4x Extender attached (yielding a heavier but less expensive 420mm f/4 IS lens) is similar to the 400 in sharpness. _

This claim is confirmed (as far as I can assess) by the test chart results:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=338&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=249&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=0

My conclusion is to go with the 300 2.8 + 1.4 III combo for the added flexibilty

Cheers 
Kasper


----------



## risc32 (Apr 30, 2012)

http://www.juzaphoto.com/article.php?l=en&article=69

here are some samples of most of the teles at differing stops.


----------

