# 400mm DO II



## luckydude (Dec 17, 2014)

So Bryan has reviewed a preproduction version and he claims that it will be better with a 2x TC than the original was without a converter. The charts back him up.

That said, I'm a happy owner of the mark I version of this lens. I just got today the 7DII and was out playing and got this pic w/ the 400 and a 1.4x:

http://www.mcvoy.com/lm/wren.jpg

If it's really true that the 400 II is sharper with a 2x (2x!!!) than the 400 I, yeah, I'm buying that lens. 

Anyone have some real data or are we just waiting?


----------



## takesome1 (Dec 17, 2014)

Most are waiting.

I wouldn't call what Bryan did a review of the preproduction version, he starts out giving you his expectations.
He also said he had a very short time with the lens.

Most lenses Bryan will post the basics and specs of the review before the lens arrives then updates it once he receives it.
At the bottom of the page he says" Can't wait for this lens to arrive!"
I am waiting to see his review once he receives it.
It looks like it will be a really good lens.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 17, 2014)

Agreed - he had a couple of hands-on minutes with the lens at a trade show, I wouldn't say he 'reviewed a preproduction copy'. Actually, the fact that he _doesn't_ (get to) review prerelease Canon gear, but rather buys it retail, adds to his credibility.


----------



## wtlloyd (Dec 17, 2014)

Best reviewer on the web. I donate when I can.


----------



## Ryan85 (Dec 17, 2014)

What exactly the the DO focus for?


----------



## lintoni (Dec 17, 2014)

Ryan85 said:


> What exactly the the DO focus for?


Diffractive Optical/Optic

http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/infobank/lenses/multi_layer_diffractive_optical_element.do


----------



## BeenThere (Dec 17, 2014)

I am on a pre-order list for this lens since the end of October. Did not get one from the first release last Friday. When I can get my hands on the 400 DO II, plan to field test on BIF which seems like a perfect application for this lens. I don't have the 2X, but do have the 1.4 III and will use that some. I'll try using the lens on both 5D III and 7D II bodies. Anxiously awaiting!


----------



## luckydude (Dec 17, 2014)

BeenThere said:


> I am on a pre-order list for this lens since the end of October. Did not get one from the first release last Friday. When I can get my hands on the 400 DO II, plan to field test on BIF which seems like a perfect application for this lens. I don't have the 2X, but do have the 1.4 III and will use that some. I'll try using the lens on both 5D III and 7D II bodies. Anxiously awaiting!



I'll be really interested in what you think because I have the same bodies. I've got the 600mm as well but it is nowhere near as pleasant to use as the 400mm + a 1.4. If that is sharp and it is decent with the 2x I might sell the 600mm, it just doesn't get used much.


----------



## BeenThere (Dec 17, 2014)

I have an old 600 that now has dead autofocus. It never worked very well (when AF was working) for me on BIF shots. Used the Wimberly Head with it to follow birds, but very limited in angles and having to swing my whole body around tripod to track the movement. Up to now, I've found the 400mm f5.6 my best option for following birds flying. I really like the freedom of handholding. 400mm works for a lot the images on FF, but a little more reach is needed about half the time. I expect the 400 DO II to be sharper, but proof is in the results.


----------



## tat3406 (Dec 19, 2014)

I have a stupid question. Why/ how Diffractive optic make a Lens shorter and smaller compare to other supersede element? I read from Canon technical page but not understand how the Diffractive optic element can help the lens design smaller/shorter to alternative.


----------



## Khalai (Dec 19, 2014)

tat3406 said:


> I have a stupid question. Why/ how Diffractive optic make a Lens shorter and smaller compare to other supersede element? I read from Canon technical page but not understand how the Diffractive optic element can help the lens design smaller/shorter to alternative.



They bend the light more than convetional optics would. Thus shorter distance between elements and shorter/lighter lens. At least I hope I got that correctly


----------



## docsmith (Dec 19, 2014)

Huge improvement over Mk 1. The fact that Roger is using new test charts makes it impossible to really compare it to other lenses, but, still, it is significantly better than the 100-400 II and 400 DO I.

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/12/a-brief-400mm-comparison


----------



## Plainsman (Dec 19, 2014)

docsmith said:


> Huge improvement over Mk 1. The fact that Roger is using new test charts makes it impossible to really compare it to other lenses, but, still, it is significantly better than the 100-400 II and 400 DO I.
> 
> http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/12/a-brief-400mm-comparison



I would expect that with Canon's perseverance with DO that this will be a hugely improved ens - I mean a really sharp relatively lightweight 400.


----------



## tat3406 (Dec 19, 2014)

Plainsman said:


> docsmith said:
> 
> 
> > Huge improvement over Mk 1. The fact that Roger is using new test charts makes it impossible to really compare it to other lenses, but, still, it is significantly better than the 100-400 II and 400 DO I.
> ...



If this sale good, more DO lens will coming shortly,I hope 70-300 DOII that have similar IQ as 100-400LII


----------



## 9VIII (Dec 19, 2014)

I'm more curious about the possibility of a 600mm DO, and if the technology becomes standard I have to wonder if they'll stop using the green ring?


----------



## DanN (Dec 19, 2014)

tat3406 said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> > docsmith said:
> ...



The 400mm range is really crowded in Canon's line.
I think the only way this lens is going to sell really well is if it proves to be essentially a 400mm version of the 300mm 2.8 II; that is, a lens with just legendary sharpness. Otherwise, I don't know how you justify the almost $5000.00 difference between it and the new 100-400. So far, it's looking as though it's more than somewhat better than the 100-400 in the center and phenomenally better at the edges. But until we see some shots from the field, it's hard to say how that translates in actual use.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 19, 2014)

DanN said:


> I think the only way this lens is going to sell really well is if it proves to be essentially a 400mm version of the 300mm 2.8 II; that is, a lens with just legendary sharpness. Otherwise, I don't know how you justify the almost $5000.00 difference between it and the new 100-400.



How do you justify the 200/2L IS, when there's the excellent 70-200/2.8L IS II and the relatively inexpensive but still excellent 200/2.8L II? Twice as much light.


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 20, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> DanN said:
> 
> 
> > I think the only way this lens is going to sell really well is if it proves to be essentially a 400mm version of the 300mm 2.8 II; that is, a lens with just legendary sharpness. Otherwise, I don't know how you justify the almost $5000.00 difference between it and the new 100-400.
> ...


You can't go wrong with this lens, especially, when pairs up with 1DX


----------



## 9VIII (Dec 20, 2014)

DanN said:


> The 400mm range is really crowded in Canon's line.



Don't say that!

We still need a 400f5.6IS.
The 400f5.6 is 21 years old now, and the 100-400MkI was 16 years old. They can at least put out a new consumer grade 400mm lens every five years or so (instead of 16 to "maybe never").


----------



## DanN (Dec 20, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> DanN said:
> 
> 
> > I think the only way this lens is going to sell really well is if it proves to be essentially a 400mm version of the 300mm 2.8 II; that is, a lens with just legendary sharpness. Otherwise, I don't know how you justify the almost $5000.00 difference between it and the new 100-400.
> ...



Well, I personally don't justify it, because never, not once, have I ever contemplated paying $6,000 for a 200mm F2.0 lens. It just isn't the kind of photography I do. But the 200 2.0 apparently does possess the kind of sharpness I was talking about, where it's noticeably better than the less expensive lenses.


----------

