# Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II USM Lens Review



## AlanF (Jan 13, 2015)

The first review of the EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II has just appeared in ePhotozine
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/canon-ef-400mm-f-4-do-is-ii-usm-lens-review-26785

The sharpness at f/4 is phenomenal. The sharpness falls off with increasing f number, and rapidly above f/11. From the Canon MTFs, at 560mm with the 1.4xTC it is probably sharper than the 300mm f/2.8 II at 600mm with the 2xTC and slightly lighter. It is a superb lens - pity it is so expensive.


----------



## BeenThere (Jan 13, 2015)

No dealers in the U.S. Seem to have them in stock.


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 14, 2015)

AlanF said:


> The first review of the EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II has just appeared in ePhotozine
> http://www.ephotozine.com/article/canon-ef-400mm-f-4-do-is-ii-usm-lens-review-26785
> 
> The sharpness at f/4 is phenomenal. The sharpness falls off with increasing f number, and rapidly above f/11. From the Canon MTFs, at 560mm with the 1.4xTC it is probably sharper than the 300mm f/2.8 II at 600mm with the 2xTC and slightly lighter. It is a superb lens - pity it is so expensive.


Thanks Alan, and dammit, I was afraid that it might be an exceptional lens! I wish they had tested flare and bokeh, but at least it's a good review otherwise. I'd kill for a 600mm DO lens.



BeenThere said:


> No dealers in the U.S. Seem to have them in stock.


Amazon had one just the other day. They seem to coming into the US, just slowly.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Jan 14, 2015)

It is beginning to look like they got it right with the new DO - I am really fancying one, pity about the price!
Given the weight and size savings I think Mackguyver is right 600 F4 DO would be a wonderful option. It makes me ponder if an 800 F4 DO might be practical? I could never afford one (if it were made) but I can dream......


----------



## NancyP (Jan 16, 2015)

I would dream about a 600 f/4 DO that handles like my current beloved but S-L-O-W lens the 400 f/5.6L. One of these days I have to woman up and rent the 500 or 600 f/4 for a week. What's an extra 5 or 6 pounds when shooting hand-held?


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 16, 2015)

NancyP said:


> I would dream about a 600 f/4 DO that handles like my current beloved but S-L-O-W lens the 400 f/5.6L. One of these days I have to woman up and rent the 500 or 600 f/4 for a week. What's an extra 5 or 6 pounds when shooting hand-held?


Beware the dark side, for once you start down it's path, forever will it consume your destiny


----------



## Maiaibing (Jan 17, 2015)

AlanF said:


> The first review of the EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II has just appeared in ePhotozine
> http://www.ephotozine.com/article/canon-ef-400mm-f-4-do-is-ii-usm-lens-review-26785
> 
> The sharpness at f/4 is phenomenal. The sharpness falls off with increasing f number, and rapidly above f/11. From the Canon MTFs, at 560mm with the 1.4xTC it is probably sharper than the 300mm f/2.8 II at 600mm with the 2xTC and slightly lighter. It is a superb lens - pity it is so expensive.



Sounds like we should be praying for a 300mm f/4 IS DO like Nikon just delivered! However, still want to see how it handles difficult light situations, back lit, flare etc.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 17, 2015)

Maiaibing said:


> Sounds like we should be praying for a 300mm f/4 IS DO like Nikon just delivered!



You can pray for a lens with last-generation, outdated DO technology and a 'black box' warning about flare if you like. I'd prefer something better.


----------



## miah (Jan 17, 2015)

AlanF said:


> It is a superb lens - pity it is so expensive.



AlanF, just curious, I know you own the 300 f/2.8. Since the new 400 DO II is only $300 more expensive, do you feel the 300mm is "so expensive," as well? In other words, how do you rate the relative value of these two lenses, given their fairly large differences in focal length, aperture and weight--but relatively small difference in cost?

I'm looking to step up from the 400L f/5.6 primarily because I want IS, and I'd certainly appreciate that extra stop. I could get the new 100-400L II, but since my lighter and more compact 70-300L is my go-to travel lens, I think the 100-400 would remain parked at 400. For these reasons, price aside, the new 400DO II is awfully appealing.

Finally, CR claimed the 400 DO's were going to start shipping on Dec 18th, but I've yet to see one show up anywhere online for sale. B&H shows two "user reviews," but Adorama and Amazon show none. LensRentals says you can pre-reserve one, so they don't have one yet, either. When Canon originally announced the lens, it was supposed to start shipping in Nov 2014, but thus far seems like vaporware. Has anyone heard anything about Canon's actual ship date?


----------



## geonix (Jan 17, 2015)

Hello all.

I really look forward to this lens and have started saving for it since it has been annouced at Photokina. 
When you look at this Canon video on EF Lenses:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkBOsTVfpdA

they mention that the optical element of the 400mm DO has been moved deeper into the lens to reduce flare and "unnecessary light". So I wonder if such a huge lens hood as schown in the review is still necessary?


----------



## BeenThere (Jan 17, 2015)

Like you, I don't see any currently available in U.S. A few user reviewed are showing up on the web, and all have been very positive. I think only a few are trickling into retail channels. My guess is that Canon doesn't expect a ton of long term demand for this lens because of the price point, so has set up a very limited production capacity. The new 100-400mm lens has had a lot more units sold, but is also currently in short supply.


----------



## miah (Jan 17, 2015)

Wow, the 400 f/2.8 seems to sell for a LOT less in Great Britain. The review's author states that the 400 f/2.8 is "slightly more expensive" than the 400 DO II, or $1164 US dollars more. But here in the US, the 400 f/2.8 is $3600 more than the 400 DO II, $10,499 vs $6899.


----------



## K-amps (Jan 17, 2015)

Perhaps they are referring to the ver i of the 400 f2.8 and not the ii. Is that still available?


----------



## sulla (Jan 17, 2015)

> he sharpness at f/4 is phenomenal. The sharpness falls off with increasing f number, and rapidly above f/11.



Hm. I am thinking about a reason why the lens is sharpest at f/4 and falls off right after this.

Hmmmmmmmmm. Still no clue. Might it be that diffraction of the apertures smaller than 4 and the diffraction of the DO-element somehow amplify each other?? I don't think this lens is diffraction-limited already at 5.6, or is it??


----------



## Maiaibing (Jan 17, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> You can pray for a lens with last-generation, outdated DO technology and a 'black box' warning about flare if you like. I'd prefer something better.



Since Canon claims to have upgraded their DO lens tech I would expect better. We'll see how the 400mm handles flare soon.


----------



## JPAZ (Jan 17, 2015)

Seems like they are finally getting the DO technology right. I do know some folks who get excellent stuff from the Mk 1 but the lighting needs to be just right. But, my 300 f/2.8 ii with a 1.4 is my option for this focal length (weighs a bit more but already spent that $ so won't be spending more).

Given the weight savings, do want to see a 500 / 600 / 800 DO down the road.


----------



## BeenThere (Jan 17, 2015)

sulla said:


> > he sharpness at f/4 is phenomenal. The sharpness falls off with increasing f number, and rapidly above f/11.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes it could be so good as to be diffraction limited at f/4.


----------



## Plainsman (Jan 17, 2015)

...beautiful short fat lens that would look even better in black!


----------



## geonix (Jan 17, 2015)

BeenThere said:


> sulla said:
> 
> 
> > > he sharpness at f/4 is phenomenal. The sharpness falls off with increasing f number, and rapidly above f/11.
> ...




The MTF Chart in this review indicates that the lens ist still "excellent" at f8 and f11 but I still find that odd. Often people stop down to f8 or f11 to increase depth of field so if sharpness decreases after f5.6 ...
Also I don't know what the [email protected] beneath the chart is about. ???


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 18, 2015)

It does seem like the 800mm f/5.6 is pretty pointless now, and a Mark II of it would have to be miraculously better to beat the 600mm II + TC... Unless they do a DO job to the 800. It's the only thing I can think of that would make the 800 focal length attractive. It could be 7 pounds, the weight of the 500mm F/4 II.

In retrospect, it seems odd that the 400mm focal length has been the test bed, as working on the longer lenses would be a better value proposition. Price cannibalization doesn't seem like the concern, as - it being Canon - they could just charge $18k for a 800 DO and make even more of a margin with it.


----------



## BeenThere (Jan 18, 2015)

geonix said:


> BeenThere said:
> 
> 
> > sulla said:
> ...


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 18, 2015)

Time to workout, save up, and just go for the 2.8.


----------



## Scythels (Jan 18, 2015)

The new 400mm, like most of canon's telephoto primes, is approximately diffraction limited at maximum aperture. Aberrations with rho dependency are decreased in magnitude as the lens is stopped down, as rho-max is decreased. The diffraction limit decreases as rho is decreased as well. This does not produce a 'fight' as the diffraction limit is more of a max than a contribution to the resolution of the lens.

Fresnel lenses are no more affected by diffraction than other lenses. 

If the lens' MTF is > 50% at the nyquist of the sensor, which it is in this case, MTF50 testing can show equal resolution across the frame even if the lens does not strictly have that behavior. 

Theoretical MTF charts are also only valid at infinity, test charts are not at infinity.


----------



## pwp (Jan 18, 2015)

sulla said:


> > he sharpness at f/4 is phenomenal. The sharpness falls off with increasing f number, and rapidly above f/11.
> 
> 
> Hm. I am thinking about a reason why the lens is sharpest at f/4 and falls off right after this.


Wide open is precisely where I would expect the 400 f/4 DO II to be at it's sharpest. 
My big whites very rarely get moved from f/2.8 and I doubt if they've ever been past f/4.

-pw


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Jan 18, 2015)

AlanF said:


> The first review of the EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II has just appeared in ePhotozine
> http://www.ephotozine.com/article/canon-ef-400mm-f-4-do-is-ii-usm-lens-review-26785
> 
> The sharpness at f/4 is phenomenal. The sharpness falls off with increasing f number, and rapidly above f/11. From the Canon MTFs, at 560mm with the 1.4xTC it is probably sharper than the 300mm f/2.8 II at 600mm with the 2xTC and slightly lighter. It is a superb lens - pity it is so expensive.


Right now in my wish list. Just wait the prices settle down.


----------



## sdfreeland (Jan 18, 2015)

I wonder why nobody has posted samples at 800mm. The exciting news was that the MFT charts showed almost no drop in sharpness with a 2x iii.


----------



## e17paul (Jan 18, 2015)

miah said:


> Wow, the 400 f/2.8 seems to sell for a LOT less in Great Britain. The review's author states that the 400 f/2.8 is "slightly more expensive" than the 400 DO II, or $1164 US dollars more. But here in the US, the 400 f/2.8 is $3600 more than the 400 DO II, $10,499 vs $6899.



Photozone is based in Australia so far as I know, despite the German web domain.


----------



## Meatcurry (Jan 18, 2015)

You're not wrong Photozone.de does appear to be based in Oz, but the I think the comment about prices was referring to the review in ePhotozine which looks to be UK based.


----------



## mustafa (Jan 18, 2015)

Why would anyone want to use this lens at f11 or smaller? F4 and 5.6 should be where the action is.


----------



## Bennymiata (Jan 18, 2015)

As far as I know, there are some in stock in Australia.


----------



## geonix (Jan 18, 2015)

mustafa said:


> Why would anyone want to use this lens at f11 or smaller? F4 and 5.6 should be where the action is.



Because there are plenty of situations in wildlife- or sports- or actionphotography were f5.6 would result into a too shallow depth of field, so that areas of the subject that are intended to be sharp would be out of focus.
F8-11 are often essential, especially if you use a full-frame body.


----------



## dtaylor (Jan 18, 2015)

geonix said:


> The MTF Chart in this review indicates that the lens ist still "excellent" at f8 and f11 but I still find that odd. Often people stop down to f8 or f11 to increase depth of field so if sharpness decreases after f5.6 ...



If the lens is diffraction limited then the sharpness at those apertures would be no worse then any other lens, and quite likely better. 

A lens that improves as it's stopped down a bit is fighting diffraction *and* lens aberrations. The best it can do is hit an aperture setting where the aberrations become insignificant and the sharpness/resolution is bound by diffraction...like the 400 DO II appears to be at any aperture.

Put another way you're not losing anything at f/8 or f/11...you are gaining something at f/4.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jan 18, 2015)

Loosing sharpness when stopping down? That kills it as a motorsports lens for me then ;D ;D ;D

Oh well I guess I will just have to upgrade my version of the 100-400L :

Just imagine all the money not spent, whatever the excuse.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 18, 2015)

miah said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > It is a superb lens - pity it is so expensive.
> ...



Sorry, I missed this post and apologise for the delay in answering. The price for the 400 DO II at Wex in the UK is £6999, that for the 300mm/2.8 II is discounted to £4899. So, there is a huge price differential here.

Even if the price were the same, it would be a difficult choice. Firstly, the weights are pretty close, 2350g vs 2100g, and they are both amazingly sharp. Secondly, you have to balance how much you would like 300mm at f/2.8 vs 400mm at f/4. Thirdly, I would guess that my most used combination would be either the 400+1.4xTC or the 300+2xTC, with little too choose between them. However, I have been playing around with the 100-400 II plus 2xTC using live view at f/11 on the 7DII, and am very impressed with 800mm!

Having the 100-400 II does confuse the issue even more. I would dearly like to have the DO as well, but it would be difficult to justify for a second-rate amateur like me.


----------



## paul110590 (Jan 18, 2015)

miah said:


> Wow, the 400 f/2.8 seems to sell for a LOT less in Great Britain. The review's author states that the 400 f/2.8 is "slightly more expensive" than the 400 DO II, or $1164 US dollars more. But here in the US, the 400 f/2.8 is $3600 more than the 400 DO II, $10,499 vs $6899.



It sells for more - £7,799 or about $11,811 at Wex Photographic (one of the biggest photographic suppliers in the UK). The reason why it is only slightly more expensive than the 400 DO II is because for some reason the 400 DO II sells for a LOT more in the UK - £6,999 or about $10,600 at Wex Photographic.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Jan 18, 2015)

[email protected] said:


> It does seem like the 800mm f/5.6 is pretty pointless now, and a Mark II of it would have to be miraculously better to beat the 600mm II + TC... Unless they do a DO job to the 800. It's the only thing I can think of that would make the 800 focal length attractive. It could be 7 pounds, the weight of the 500mm F/4 II.
> 
> In retrospect, it seems odd that the 400mm focal length has been the test bed, as working on the longer lenses would be a better value proposition. Price cannibalization doesn't seem like the concern, as - it being Canon - they could just charge $18k for a 800 DO and make even more of a margin with it.



Try a Canon 800 and you may change your mind! Also, if you are buying used, they are much cheaper than the 600 Mk2 here in the UK. When I bought my Canon 800 there were no used 600 Mk2's on the market but my young mint-ish 800 was half the price of a new 600 Mk2 at the time. As to being pointless well it is, by far, my most used lens and I am delighted with it - far superior the the 600 IS Mk1 that I sold to help pay for it!


----------



## miah (Jan 18, 2015)

AlanF said:


> miah said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...



Thanks, AlanF. There's a lot of confusion when talking about the relative prices of these lenses in this thread, because forum members live in so many different countries and are offered these same lenses at disparate prices. Here in the USA, the 300 f/2.8 is $6599 and the 400 DO II is $6899. With only a $300 difference between the two of them, I had to ask if you feel they're both "so expensive." I appreciate your clarification.

I am really liking the looks of this new lens, and feel that it would be a better fit for me, given I'd typically use the 100-400 II racked out to 400 for wildlife. The extra stop is to die for when the light gets low. And the squat size and shape simply appear like it would be easier to hand-hold for longer periods of time. Now, if we can only get to see some in stock, somewhere!


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 19, 2015)

johnf3f said:


> [email protected] said:
> 
> 
> > It does seem like the 800mm f/5.6 is pretty pointless now, and a Mark II of it would have to be miraculously better to beat the 600mm II + TC... Unless they do a DO job to the 800. It's the only thing I can think of that would make the 800 focal length attractive. It could be 7 pounds, the weight of the 500mm F/4 II.
> ...



That makes sense to me in those circumstances. You actually made me go check out eBay for current 800mm used prices. As it seems now, the best retail price is $13k (gray market), and the best, and rather common, used price is $10k. For the used price to stay up that high, people must like the lens a lot. But I can get a 600mm II for close to that. Perhaps the price differentials are different in UK/elsewhere. 

In any case, I have my fingers crossed that there is an 800 II in the works.


----------



## riker (Jan 19, 2015)

I really don't understand the whole concept of 400/4 DO II and why anyone would actualy buy it. It's probably my fault.
But let's go back for a second in time when the first generation of 400/4 DO was introduced.

400/4 DO IS - 1940g
300/2.8L IS - 2550g
400/2.8L IS - 5370g

The whole point of the 400/4 DO and the DO technology itself was beeing LIGHT! Much lighter than other lenses. Canon has sacrificed image quality to make a LIGHT lens. It was a welcomed innovation by many. You could choose to have an L lens with superb image quality or a very light (also smaller), "mobile" DO lens. Whichever you needed.
600g difference between 400/4 and 300/2.8 (which is a 420/4 with 1.4X) was significant.

And now...

400/4 DO IS II - 2100g
300/2.8L IS II - 2350g
400/2.8L IS II - 3850g

300/2.8 has improved. A LOT. It's lighter, (all II gen lenses got lighter) it's even better optically than before and also has a shorter minimum focusing distance (2m from previous 2.5m). THAT is improvement.
Meanwhile 400/4 DO got heavier. The previous 600g difference is now only 250g. Minimum focusing distance is 3.3m. Yes, it got better, much better optically. But we already had superb lenses. What we don't have is light lenses. The primary goal of DO should be to reduce weight and size. Image quality only comes second, no matter how strange that could sound to you. The first generation wasn't sold for it's image quality either.
Or maybe is it cheap? It's not.

In my opinion, the 400 DO beeing 2100g is a big FAIL. It does not stand up to the 300/2.8 (+1.4X) at all.


----------



## hoodlum (Jan 19, 2015)

Riker, although I don't necessarily agree with your last comment on the 300mm f2.8 + TC, I do believe Canon has lost its way with the DO lens. The 1st gen lens could barely be handheld for long periods but now I think the 2nd gen lens has passed that threshold. Even Canon seems to agree as the tripod collar is no longer removable like on the 1st gen.

I think Nikon did the right thing with their new 300mm f4 "DO" by allowing it to be handheld all day if needed. Initial field reports from production lenses seem to suggest the compromise in IQ was minimal to get to the reduced size. Maybe Canon will do a 400mm f5.6 DO lens that is sharpest wide open. It would be a lot lighter and likely half the price of the F4 DO lens.

Hopefully Canon has a lighter DO lens planned as a light handheld telephoto prime would be nice to see. Dropping an additional 1kg with a 600mm DO lens will still require a tripod so the benefits wouldn't be as noticeable.


----------



## weixing (Jan 19, 2015)

riker said:


> I really don't understand the whole concept of 400/4 DO II and why anyone would actualy buy it. It's probably my fault.
> But let's go back for a second in time when the first generation of 400/4 DO was introduced.
> 
> 400/4 DO IS - 1940g
> ...


Hi,
Why big fail?? EF 400mm F4 DO IS II is still smaller, lighter and sharper than EF 300mm F2.8L IS II... basically, the EF 400mm F4 DO IS II is for those who need the smallest, lightest and sharpest 400mm lens out there.

Have a nice day.


----------



## geonix (Jan 19, 2015)

weixing said:


> riker said:
> 
> 
> > I really don't understand the whole concept of 400/4 DO II and why anyone would actualy buy it. It's probably my fault.
> ...



I agree with weixing and very much disagree with riker. The new 400 DO lens may be only 250g lighter than the 300 II but if 250g isn't much for you, the weight difference between the older 400 DO and the new is only 160 g. 
For me the size is actually more important than the weight (which is light enough for me). The new 400 DO is really small compared to most L Tele Primes and thats whats so interesting about this lens.


----------



## Vikmnilu (Jan 19, 2015)

Interesting review, thanks!!

Another review by spanish nature photographer Oriol Alamany was posted here
http://blog.alamany.com/2015/01/canon-ef-400mm-f4-do-is-ii-review.html.

I think it is a quite interesting lens, unfortunately I won't be even thinking about purchase, if I ever get to buy a big white it will be the 200-400 1.4x because its versatility.

Cheers!!

Victor


----------



## Lurker (Jan 19, 2015)

> In retrospect, it seems odd that the 400mm focal length has been the test bed, as working on the longer lenses would be a better value proposition. Price cannibalization doesn't seem like the concern, as - it being Canon - they could just charge $18k for a 800 DO and make even more of a margin with it.



The number of people looking for a 400 vs 800 is huge. 400 users have tons of options each with advantages but huge disadvantages too. We've long been asking for a mash-up of these to get an affordable, lighter, faster, IS 400mm. The 400 DO II seems to be the Canon reply.

Riker, kind of all over the place in your comparison. The 300 II did get .5m (~1.5 ft) better mfd but the 400 DO II got better too ~ 1 foot better. The 300 was already about 1 meter better so it has a 4.2 ft advantage. For some this is a real advantage for others not so much. 

If you need the 300mm that is an advantage but if you want 800mm sorry, the 400mm wins on that end. Personally, if other options were available, I would not buy a lens with the intention to always use it with the 1.4x or 2x attached. I prefer to use a lens at it's native focal length. 

You compare the 400 to the 300+1.4x but when comparing weight you didn't add the 225g of the 1.4x. 

The 400 DO II sounds like a really nice combination of IQ on par with the other supertele-primes, IS, light weight, faster than the 5.6, and lower price. Certainly not cheap, I hope the price will drop some, but it is better than the 10,000-12,000 of the STPs.

Again, to me this sounds like a great reply to what people like me have been asking for. If you already have the 300mm+1.4x you have a great rig and, if you're happy, no reason to think about the 400 DO II. I'll take the 400 DO II because I feel focal length challenged and the odds of my wife saying ok to a $7000 lens are much greater than a 10,000-12,000 lens.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 19, 2015)

geonix said:


> weixing said:
> 
> 
> > riker said:
> ...



The spoiler is the 100-400 "for those who need the smallest, lightest and sharpest 400mm lens". It is just so much smaller and lighter - you have to use the big lens hood on the 400 DO or the 300mm/2.8 to protect the front lens, and it adds size and weight just where you don't want it. The 100-400 has only a small, light hood, and I haven't yet used it, preferring to have a clear filter for protection (the filter has no effect on IQ). And it is so sharp, although not as much as the DO, but good enough. Having said that, I have no difficulty hand holding the 300/2.8 for long periods but it so large for packing to take on trips.


----------



## candyman (Jan 19, 2015)

Vikmnilu said:


> Interesting review, thanks!!
> 
> Another review by spanish nature photographer Oriol Alamany was posted here
> http://blog.alamany.com/2015/01/canon-ef-400mm-f4-do-is-ii-review.html.
> ...




Thanks for the link.
Interesting photos


----------



## raptor3x (Jan 19, 2015)

riker said:


> I really don't understand the whole concept of 400/4 DO II and why anyone would actualy buy it. It's probably my fault.
> But let's go back for a second in time when the first generation of 400/4 DO was introduced.
> 
> 400/4 DO IS - 1940g
> ...



The increase in weight compared to the older lens is coming from the built in tripod collar whereas the older lens weight is with the collar removed. In addition, the 400 DO IS II compared to the 300 IS II + 1.4x III is:

~500g lighter
Faster focusing
Sharper wide open


----------



## JimS (Jan 19, 2015)

* Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO durability?*

I had a version 1 of the 400mm DO and twice on international trips, the front and rear barrel assemblies on the lens became loose, then completely broke apart -- the first time causing the distal 60% of the lens to crash onto the pavement. I had the lens hood on, so the glass was not damaged. Canon charged me $370 for the repair.

These two barrel assemblies are held together by internal bolts that are not accessible to the average user. I have heard other stories from friends of similar behavior with this lens. 

I found it completely unacceptable to have a $6,000+ lens break into two separate pieces during normal usage far from anyplace I can get it repaired. Luckily, the second time, the break occurred on the last day of my trip.

No one else ever seems to mention this issue. Hopefully, they have fixed this problem in version II.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Jan 19, 2015)

[email protected] said:


> johnf3f said:
> 
> 
> > [email protected] said:
> ...



At those prices the 600 looks the better bet, so long as you don't mind using extenders. Whist the latest Canon cameras (I use the 1DX) and Mk3 extenders improve AF and, in the case of the 2 x Mk3, IQ I am not certain that I would be totally happy with the 600 Mk2 + a 1.4 extender to equal the 800mm - though I could well be wrong!
Over here (UK) people have been struggling to sell their 800's for decent money. I picked up mine in Jan 2013 for $8600 (in your money at the exchange rates back then), not too bad for an almost mint example in Ripoff Britain! A new 600 Mk2 was the equivalent of over $15000 here at that time.
I would probably prefer to have a 600Mk2 to my 800 but, to me, it is not worth a huge amount more. The larger aperture would be nice but I would be using extenders much more. The improved IS? I am not using the 4 stop IS that I already have so it's irrelevant. The better IQ as a bare lens, weight loss and the minimum focus distance are the attractions to me!


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Jan 19, 2015)

Vikmnilu said:


> Interesting review, thanks!!
> 
> Another review by spanish nature photographer Oriol Alamany was posted here
> http://blog.alamany.com/2015/01/canon-ef-400mm-f4-do-is-ii-review.html.
> ...


----------



## hoodlum (Jan 20, 2015)

SLRGear just posted their review.

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=1747


----------



## AlanF (Jan 20, 2015)

hoodlum said:


> SLRGear just posted their review.
> 
> http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=1747



Thanks for the heads up. It is very interesting that the actual tests of the sharpness differ from what you would expect from Canon's MTF charts: both the 400/2.8 II and the 300/2.8 II are sharper in the "blur tests". On the other hand, ePhotozine has MTF charts with the 400mm DO much sharper than the 300mm f/2.8 II.


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 20, 2015)

AlanF said:


> hoodlum said:
> 
> 
> > SLRGear just posted their review.
> ...


Personally I trust the SLRGear reviews the most - read how they test sharpness/focus:
http://www.slrgear.com/articles/focus/focus.htm


----------



## AlanF (Jan 20, 2015)

That is what I call scientific testing! Note they use DxO analyser. SLRgear was my first go-to site and, as you say, still the most reliable.


----------



## hoodlum (Jan 20, 2015)

SLRGear used the same bodies for the 300mm and 400mm prime tests. ePhotozine used the 5Dii with the 300mm f2.8 ii and then used the 5Diii with the 400mm f4 DO ii. The SLRGear tests would be more reliable for comparing.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 20, 2015)

hoodlum said:


> SLRGear used the same bodies for the 300mm and 400mm prime tests. ePhotozine used the 5Dii with the 300mm f2.8 ii and then used the 5Diii with the 400mm f4 DO ii. The SLRGear tests would be more reliable for comparing.



I am not sure that using different cameras is the cause. At f/5.6, according to ePhotozine, both the 400 DO and the 300/2.8 are close to identical and the centres knocking the top of the chart, but the 300 is distinctly lower at f/2.8 than the DO at f/4.
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/canon-ef-300mm-f-2-8l-is-ii-usm-lens-review-19868
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/canon-ef-400mm-f-4-do-is-ii-usm-lens-review-26785

Seeing how they test, it looks like SLRgear should be the most reliable.


----------

