# Hands-on With the Canon EF 400 f/4 DO IS II



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 17, 2014)

```
<p>Matt Granger has posted a short hands-on video and samples gallery for the new Canon EF 400 f/4 DO IS II. Keep in mind the lighting conditions around the Canon booth are less than stellar and all the sample images were shot at high ISO.</p>
<p>I had a chance to hold the lens and it feels exactly like the previous version, solid, light and well balanced. I am looking forward to shooting with the new 400 DO, as the first version is one of my favourite Canon lenses.</p>
<p><iframe width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/i1dn1CjsuK8?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></p>
<p><a href="http://www.mattgranger.com/400do" target="_blank">Read more and see the samples at MattGranger.com</a></p>
<p><strong>Canon EF 400 f/4 DO IS II $6899: <a style="color: #900000;" href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1081814-REG/canon_8404b002_ef_400mm_f_4_do.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">B&H Photo</a> | <a style="color: #900000;" href="http://www.adorama.com/CA40042U.html?KBID=64393" target="_blank">Adorama</a> | <a style="color: #900000;" href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00NI3C8A6/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00NI3C8A6&linkCode=as2&tag=canorumo-20&linkId=6TNTRNPLCUNXZTHB" target="_blank">Amazon</a> | <a style="color: #900000;" href="http://www.cameracanada.com/enet-cart/product.asp?pid=CanonEF400mm" target="_blank">Camera Canada</a></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## adamfilip (Sep 17, 2014)

Why isnt this a "L" Lens?


----------



## docsmith (Sep 17, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Matt Granger has proved to be nothing more than a tool.



Ah, come on, he is just filling in the "first with the news" niche. This is the equivalent of a "breaking news" banner at the bottom tv screen. Is the first you hear something ever very in depth? No. Will I buy this lens based on what he said? No.

But it was interesting to watch. It was interesting to see some test shots, and I even found the ease at which he moved around with the lens interesting.

So, if he is a tool, he was one that served his role well. Now lets get more in depth analysis from TDP etc and hopefully have a few early adopters pick this lens up and provide some first hand accounts of its performance.

I have to say, I am becoming more interested in this lens all the time.


----------



## Austin (Sep 17, 2014)

He's a swell guy and all, but you'd think Canon Rumors could do a little better.

I've lost a degree of respect for CR at their regurgitation of this Youtube stuff.


----------



## infared (Sep 17, 2014)

I agree with everything you said...Matt gave us preliminary info and better yet...some pics...which look damn good for being shot in a trade show. Damn good. I think he does a great job on camera....better than many.

The output and price on this lens is looking intriguing to a lot of people..it is has sooooooo much better stats than the previous version and basically maintains the same price. Is this a first for Canon!?!?!? LOL!
That should be the BIG news.



docsmith said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Matt Granger has proved to be nothing more than a tool.
> ...


----------



## infared (Sep 17, 2014)

Austin said:


> He's a swell guy and all, but you'd think Canon Rumors could do a little better.
> 
> I've lost a degree of respect for CR at their regurgitation of this Youtube stuff.



You do have a point. ...but welcome to 2014!!!!!! ;D  :


----------



## Austin (Sep 17, 2014)

infared said:


> Austin said:
> 
> 
> > He's a swell guy and all, but you'd think Canon Rumors could do a little better.
> ...



Well, I'll take Matt any day over Jared Polin!


----------



## gerlesion (Sep 17, 2014)

Look much smaller than I thought. Or maybe that guy just has huge hands :


----------



## lycan (Sep 17, 2014)

I like the girl with red hair


----------



## infared (Sep 17, 2014)

Austin said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > Austin said:
> ...



Hey...I like Matt! (please read my other post).
Crack on Dilbert..not me. 8)


----------



## KarstenReis (Sep 17, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Touched "everything?"
> 
> I suppose he is seeking his 15seconds of fame and people seem to be lapping it up.
> 
> Matt Granger has proved to be nothing more than a tool.



I thought it was a nice quick overview of a new lens. Don't know why he's a tool. I'm not familiar with his other work but this seemed just fine to me.


----------



## Khalai (Sep 17, 2014)

adamfilip said:


> Why isnt this a "L" Lens?



It has all the bells and whistles of L series, but the ring is green not red, that's all


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 17, 2014)

Khalai said:


> adamfilip said:
> 
> 
> > Why isnt this a "L" Lens?
> ...



Canon tried painting a red ring over the green one, but it came out black. They tried painting the red ring next to the green one, but decided people might only buy it at Christmas. So they just stuck with the green ring.


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 17, 2014)

Am I the only one that thinks making the tripod foot non-removable almost totally defeats the purpose of this lens, which is to make it very light and easily handholdable? If I were in the market for a lens like this, this one simple thing would be a show-stopper for me. I keep the tripod ring off my 70-200/2.8 and 100-400L unless I'm actually using it on a tripod for exactly this reason - handholding comfort. It even looks really uncomfortable to hold in the video with the foot in his palm.


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 17, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Khalai said:
> 
> 
> > adamfilip said:
> ...



When I was a kid my sisters nail polish would have fixed the ring problem right up.

Besides if it was an L lens it would be $2000 more than it is. "*L*" means "*L*ots of Money" (I am probably wrong on that, however I arrived at that conclusion from experience and I challenge anyone to dispute my findings)


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 17, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Am I the only one that thinks making the tripod foot non-removable almost totally defeats the purpose of this lens, which is to make it very light and easily handholdable? If I were in the market for a lens like this, this one simple thing would be a show-stopper for me. I keep the tripod ring off my 70-200/2.8 and 100-400L unless I'm actually using it on a tripod for exactly this reason - handholding comfort. It even looks really uncomfortable to hold in the video with the foot in his palm.



I would want the foot to attach a plate to so I could use it with my black rapid. I wouldn't want the strap holders on the side. I prefer holding my supertele's by the foot when hand holding.


----------



## candc (Sep 17, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Am I the only one that thinks making the tripod foot non-removable almost totally defeats the purpose of this lens, which is to make it very light and easily handholdable? If I were in the market for a lens like this, this one simple thing would be a show-stopper for me. I keep the tripod ring off my 70-200/2.8 and 100-400L unless I'm actually using it on a tripod for exactly this reason - handholding comfort. It even looks really uncomfortable to hold in the video with the foot in his palm.



i agree that the foot should be removable, are you sure it's not?


----------



## Dylan777 (Sep 17, 2014)

Size looks good. Very promising.


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 17, 2014)

candc said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Am I the only one that thinks making the tripod foot non-removable almost totally defeats the purpose of this lens, which is to make it very light and easily handholdable? If I were in the market for a lens like this, this one simple thing would be a show-stopper for me. I keep the tripod ring off my 70-200/2.8 and 100-400L unless I'm actually using it on a tripod for exactly this reason - handholding comfort. It even looks really uncomfortable to hold in the video with the foot in his palm.
> ...



I guess I'm not totally sure, but it doesn't look removable, and I don't see any evidence that it is.


----------



## tron (Sep 17, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Khalai said:
> 
> 
> > adamfilip said:
> ...


Plus, green means go on contrary to red which means stop. OK, this is how a blond related joke ends.
I'd rather not say it complete though


----------



## candc (Sep 17, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



looking at the product photo i see it has slots in the ring like its supposed to slide off the studs.


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 17, 2014)

candc said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > candc said:
> ...



Well, if it is removable, then that's good.


----------



## ScottyP (Sep 17, 2014)

How did they let "That Nikon Guy" play with the merchandise? He should be on a no-try list somewhere at Canon.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 17, 2014)

candc said:


> looking at the product photo i see it has slots in the ring like its supposed to slide off the studs.



I don't see how the tripod ring would slide off over the switches and the drop-in filter holder. 

But as for it being uncomfortable holding the foot, just rotate it to the top of the lens...


----------



## Khalai (Sep 17, 2014)

takesome1 said:


> Besides if it was an L lens it would be $2000 more than it is. "*L*" means "*L*ots of Money" (I am probably wrong on that, however I arrived at that conclusion from experience and I challenge anyone to dispute my findings)



I can think of some relatively cheap L lenses. 17-40L, 24-105L or 70-200/4L (non IS) comes to mind. 100L is also quite reasonable, especially considering its performance. But in general, you are quite correct, my L lens setup is more expensive than car


----------



## infared (Sep 17, 2014)

takesome1 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Khalai said:
> ...




http://www.findtape.com/product554/3M-Scotchcal-Striping-Tape.aspx?bc=F&vid=6370&gclid=CM_9xaO76MACFSMV7Aodz3UALQ

I have red pin-striping tape for all of my lenses..even my Zeiss and Sigma......


----------



## iMagic (Sep 17, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Touched "everything?"
> 
> I suppose he is seeking his 15seconds of fame and people seem to be lapping it up.
> 
> Matt Granger has proved to be nothing more than a tool.



Thank you for your valued opinion. Sharing Your expertise in this matter is greatly appreciated.


----------



## infared (Sep 17, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Am I the only one that thinks making the tripod foot non-removable almost totally defeats the purpose of this lens, which is to make it very light and easily handholdable? If I were in the market for a lens like this, this one simple thing would be a show-stopper for me. I keep the tripod ring off my 70-200/2.8 and 100-400L unless I'm actually using it on a tripod for exactly this reason - handholding comfort. It even looks really uncomfortable to hold in the video with the foot in his palm.



Hmm...good call Lee Jay...I didn't notice that either...yeah...the ring looks like it is part of the lens... So maybe it will not remove like the tripod support ring on my 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II. ....but I attached a photo...it looks like the foot is removable ...but I do not know if that is a part of the design for actual use. What about the old one...how is that set up???? 

...but the Ring may just loosen and slide off the back of the lens...


----------



## Khalai (Sep 17, 2014)

infared said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Am I the only one that thinks making the tripod foot non-removable almost totally defeats the purpose of this lens, which is to make it very light and easily handholdable? If I were in the market for a lens like this, this one simple thing would be a show-stopper for me. I keep the tripod ring off my 70-200/2.8 and 100-400L unless I'm actually using it on a tripod for exactly this reason - handholding comfort. It even looks really uncomfortable to hold in the video with the foot in his palm.
> ...



You can always turn the foot sideways, maybe even upwards (IDK about prism/foot conflict). With my 70-200/2.8, I always keep the foot upside down, so I can support the lens with my hand as well as use it as a handle  By the way, this lens is just as heavy (or light) as 70-200/2.8, that's quite manageable actually!


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 17, 2014)

Khalai said:


> By the way, this lens is just as heavy (or light) as 70-200/2.8, that's quite manageable actually!



I don't know where you got that idea, but the 70-200/2.8L IS II is 1,490g, and the 400/4DO II is 2,100g.


----------



## Old Sarge (Sep 17, 2014)

Khalai said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



Looking at the MK I, and reading the manual, the foot is removable. Looking at the MK II I am doubtful if it is removable. I came to this conclusion after seeing that the Canon badge (medal plate with information about the model lens, etc.) would come off with the foot if it was removed. It also doesn't have the release screw/knob in the foot area as the MK I does. Also the Canon badge, on the MK I, is just ahead of the foot and doesn't come off with it. I could be wrong but I don't believe you can remove this foot completely.


----------



## Bennie_CanonShooter (Sep 17, 2014)

the tripod ring can be removed - but requires extra steps.

the tripod foot is removable by unscrewing 4 hex/allen screws.

see attached photo (EF 200 2.0 is)

~ unless Canon decided to make the 400 DO different.

as for the tripod ring/foot - I find it useful to have as it provide a balance point for my hands (I use AF all the time. So, there's no need for me to touch the focus ring at all)

if I need to get it our of my way, I rotate it 90 degree to the left which serves as a nice reference point for my hands when I need to do portrait orientation shoots.


----------



## wtlloyd (Sep 17, 2014)

Just rotate it up, no big deal. I prefer it down, I don't want my hand on the focus ring when I'm using AF.
The foot in place is essential when using a beanbag, for the same reason.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 17, 2014)

infared said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Am I the only one that thinks making the tripod foot non-removable almost totally defeats the purpose of this lens, which is to make it very light and easily handholdable? If I were in the market for a lens like this, this one simple thing would be a show-stopper for me. I keep the tripod ring off my 70-200/2.8 and 100-400L unless I'm actually using it on a tripod for exactly this reason - handholding comfort. It even looks really uncomfortable to hold in the video with the foot in his palm.
> ...



Yes, the bottom part of the foot assembly can be removed with 4 hex-key bolts. On some lenses, Canon provides a shorter monopod foot, that's how you swap them (or in my case, how you install the RRS replacement foot).


----------



## applecider (Sep 17, 2014)

Can we assume from the mtf curves that the new 400 is going to do real well with extenders ?

It looks like the center is going to be good in sharpness but can anything be said about boka flair , ca or saturation from the curves?

This might make a kick ass hiking wildlife lens.


----------



## Viggo (Sep 17, 2014)

+1 for the RRS-plate, it has a much lower profile so it's great for support, and at least for me, is way more comfortable than holding with no foot.


----------



## infared (Sep 17, 2014)

Viggo said:


> +1 for the RRS-plate, it has a much lower profile so it's great for support, and at least for me, is way more comfortable than holding with no foot.



Thank!s...did not know that RRS made a replacement for the foot. Link?
....but will it fit the new lens?


----------



## Viggo (Sep 17, 2014)

infared said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > +1 for the RRS-plate, it has a much lower profile so it's great for support, and at least for me, is way more comfortable than holding with no foot.
> ...



Afaik there all the same four screws.

Here's a link :
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1259208/0


----------



## Besisika (Sep 17, 2014)

ScottyP said:


> How did they let "That Nikon Guy" play with the merchandise? He should be on a no-try list somewhere at Canon.


If I am not mistaken he had done some review of canon stuff on youtube, this is not his first time. I am a Canon shooter but I value what he has to say. Given the time frame, I appreciate this video.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 17, 2014)

infared said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > +1 for the RRS-plate, it has a much lower profile so it's great for support, and at least for me, is way more comfortable than holding with no foot.
> ...



No foot yet. But there wasn't one for the 300/2.8 IS MkI (also had a removable foot). The 300/2.8 II has a foot, should fit the 400 DO II; RRS will no doubt test it once they get the new lens in their hands. 

http://www.reallyrightstuff.com/s.nl/it.A/id.3230/.f?sc=26&category=3565


----------



## Khalai (Sep 17, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Khalai said:
> 
> 
> > By the way, this lens is just as heavy (or light) as 70-200/2.8, that's quite manageable actually!
> ...



My bad, I was under the impression that 70-200/2.8L IS II is around 1800g and this is just under 2000g. Still, nice weight, nothing terrible to handhold.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Sep 17, 2014)

I really like the new 400 DO but i was wondering how small(or big) would be a conventional
400mm F4 lens?
I used to have the Canon 400mm 5.6, which is an amazing lens but it's around the same length and
almost half the weight of the new DO.


----------



## Viggo (Sep 17, 2014)

Khalai said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Khalai said:
> ...



In use weight is 1700g with the 70-200, but it remains to see what the "in use" weight of the 400 DO is.


----------

