# The New Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 11, 2014)

```
<p><strong>EF400mm F4 DO IS USM II Specifications</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Total length 232.7mm</li>
<li>Weight is 2100 grams</li>
<li>Third generation DO lens</li>
<li>One large-diameter UD lens</li>
<li>One large-diameter aspherical lens grinding</li>
<li>Camera shake compensation effect of the four stages</li>
<li>SWC special coating</li>
<li>Dust and water resistant</li>
</ul>
<p>Source: [<a href="http://digicame-info.com/2014/09/ef24-405mm-f35-56-is-stm-ef400.html" target="_blank">DCI</a>] via [<a href="http://www.cameraegg.org/ef-24-105mm-f3-5-5-6-is-stm-lens-ef-400mm-f4-do-is-ii-usm-lens-images-specs-leaked/" target="_blank">CE</a>]</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## wtlloyd (Sep 11, 2014)

Show me the money!

How much?

Edit: Oh, is this another spec rumor?


----------



## dolina (Sep 11, 2014)

EF 400mm f/4 DO IS USM

Focal Length & Maximum Aperture	400mm 1:4
Lens Construction	17 elements in 13 groups
Diagonal Angle of View	6° 10'
Focus Adjustment	Inner focusing system with USM
Closest Focusing Distance	3.5m / 11.5 ft.
Filter Size	52mm Drop-In
Max. Diameter x Length, Weight	5.0" x 9.2", 4.3 lbs. / 128.0 x 232.7mm, 1940g






Same length but 160g heavier.

I wonder how more you'll need to pay for one?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 11, 2014)

Show me the contrast!

How good?

Show me the bokeh!

How funky?


----------



## tiger82 (Sep 11, 2014)

Now I can afford the Mark I version!!!!


----------



## Antono Refa (Sep 11, 2014)

What does "camera shake compensation effect of the four stages" mean? Poor translation of something that means 4 stops IS?


----------



## Zv (Sep 11, 2014)

Antono Refa said:


> What does "camera shake compensation effect of the four stages" mean? Poor translation of something that means 4 stops IS?



Yes. The same info is written regarding the 24-105 IS STM so I'd imagine they're talking about 4 stops of IS.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 11, 2014)

tiger82 said:


> Now I can afford the Mark I version!!!!



Hope that works out for you.  Prices on used MkI versions of the other superteles went *up* by ~$1K due to the uber-high announced MkII pricing.


----------



## tiger82 (Sep 11, 2014)

The 300/2.8 IS I and the 400/2.8 have gone way down after the initial bump. I think Canon prices the IIs higher to move out the I inventory.


----------



## vlim (Sep 11, 2014)

7500 € ?


----------



## ULFULFSEN (Sep 11, 2014)

> 7500 € ?



4800-5800 euro and im in. 

but the current is 6000 euro already.


----------



## Woody (Sep 11, 2014)

dolina said:


> Same length but 160g heavier.



Ya, first thing I checked too. Hmmm... I wonder if that's an error in the leak.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 11, 2014)

tiger82 said:


> The 300/2.8 IS I and the 400/2.8 have gone way down after the initial bump. I think Canon prices the IIs higher to move out the I inventory.



As long as you're willing to wait....


----------



## noncho (Sep 11, 2014)

The weight is too close to the 300 2.8L IS II which is more versatile...


----------



## liv_img (Sep 11, 2014)

Weight of version I was without tripod mount (that was removable). Weight of version II is with tripod mount (That now is fixed).


----------



## lescrane (Sep 11, 2014)

my guess is "4 Stage IS" is not 4 stops, but 4 levels of sensitivity or algorithms. eg, Tripod mode, panning mode, etc etc. Probably will also be 4 stops...


----------



## Besisika (Sep 11, 2014)

ULFULFSEN said:


> > 7500 € ?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Finally a big white lens, you are saying!
I will think about it.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 11, 2014)

I'm more than a little confused with this new lens...it's actually heavier than the outgoing model? Surely the whole point of a DO lens is that it's uber small and light. And Canon have made a heavier versions? Whaaaaat?


----------



## mackguyver (Sep 11, 2014)

GMCPhotographics said:


> I'm more than a little confused with this new lens...it's actually heavier than the outgoing model? Surely the whole point of a DO lens is that it's uber small and light. And Canon have made a heavier versions? Whaaaaat?


If you look at the 70-300 DO, the focus on small seemed to greatly trump any focus on light.


----------



## Tom W (Sep 11, 2014)

If the IQ is very good, this could be an interesting lens. 400/4, 560/5.6, 800/8 with teleconverters. A fairly lightweight lens too.


----------



## Harv (Sep 11, 2014)

My guess is that it will hit the market at somewhere north of $8,000..... perhaps north of $9,000. It's been Canon's pattern with Mk.II versions of the big whites.


----------



## jrista (Sep 11, 2014)

I'm very interested to see how the IQ turns out. The old one wasn't bad...it just had some funky aberrations in a very few occasions. If Canon has improved how they perform the diffraction bending, this could be one hell of a lens.


----------



## DanN (Sep 11, 2014)

noncho said:


> The weight is too close to the 300 2.8L IS II which is more versatile...



Maybe, although my experience with the 300 that I rented was that the first thing you do is slap on a 1.4X extender so that you can close enough to the wildlife. So that effectively makes it a slightly heavier version of the 400 f/4. So it's going to come down to the image quality of the lens -- if it's in the same ballpark as the 300 2.8 and can handle extenders well, this could be an excellent wildlife lens.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 11, 2014)

I'm wondering if Canon is incorporating their new radial diffraction technology using particles embedded in resin. Its very difficult to do, but the results are claimed to be much better. I expect the lens will be very pricey, since the yield of the diffraction elements will be very low. Getting the particles to disperse evenly in the gel was one of the big hurdles to overcome. If they are not just right, the different colors will not diffract evenly or the correct amount.


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Sep 11, 2014)

noncho said:


> The weight is too close to the 300 2.8L IS II



Hmmm not really. It replaces the 300/2.8L II plus 1.4x III, which together weigh 2625 g. If the rumoured 2100 g is correct that's 20% lighter. And as a bare lens it should focus faster.

If it wasn't for the likely huge price, I'd consider replacing my 300. You're right that the 300 combo is more versatile in theory, but I so rarely use it without one or other Extender that I think I'd be willing to trade that for the size/weight saving and AF performance. The image quality would have to be impeccable though...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 11, 2014)

Steve Balcombe said:


> The image quality would have to be impeccable though...



Something the two DO lenses released to date aren't known for. 

Personally, I'm not really interested in a 400mm f/4 lens...I'd rather have the 300/2.8 for the faster aperture when needed.


----------



## Jim Saunders (Sep 11, 2014)

Seems I'm not the only one to look at this lens and wonder, _why?_

Jim


----------



## joejohnbear (Sep 11, 2014)

I agree. Unless this DO is much lower in price, which I doubt it will be judging from the first DO's price, I really don't see its purpose other for paratrooper military photojournalists, supertelephoto landscape photographers, or some other form of super-niche customer. If they solved their bokeh problems, perhaps the lens would have more appeal, but I think that bokeh is a problem inherent in the DO design?



neuroanatomist said:


> Steve Balcombe said:
> 
> 
> > The image quality would have to be impeccable though...
> ...


----------



## nostrovia (Sep 11, 2014)

Could very well be the perfect lens for me if they are able to reduce the minimum focus distance by quite a bit. 11 1/2 feet is way too far for a 400mm, in my opinion.


----------



## Jim Saunders (Sep 11, 2014)

nostrovia said:


> Could very well be the perfect lens for me if they are able to reduce the minimum focus distance by quite a bit. 11 1/2 feet is way too far for a 400mm, in my opinion.



I'm curious, what is the appeal?

Jim


----------



## Steve (Sep 11, 2014)

joejohnbear said:


> If they solved their bokeh problems, perhaps the lens would have more appeal, but I think that bokeh is a problem inherent in the DO design?



The 400 didn't have a bokeh problem. The 70-300 DO was the lens with the sometimes weird bokeh. The internet seems to have lumped both lenses together as if they were one and the same. Spec highlights on the 400 could have a bit of a bullseye effect but that was about it. The OOF areas aren't as nice as the 300 2.8 or 400 2.8 in my opinion, but they aren't really problematic either.

I think the 400 f4 DO II would be pretty amazing if it were about 2/3rd or 1/2 the cost of a 300 2.8 IS II but that's really unlikely.


----------



## Plainsman (Sep 11, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Steve Balcombe said:
> 
> 
> > The image quality would have to be impeccable though...
> ...



You reach 560 with this lens with just 1.4XTC whereas the 300/2.8 is still only at 420. To most people a 2xTC degrades the image to much. So basically this new lens could beat the 300/2.8 in the range 400 - 560. That's pretty important - we shall see.

I think Canon are sticking with DO development as it may be the only way to significantly reduce the weights of the big whites at some point in the future.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 11, 2014)

Plainsman said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Steve Balcombe said:
> ...



Well, if I need to reach 560mm, I'll be using my 600/4L IS II, giving me an extra stop of light, and even more reach with a TC if needed.


----------



## mackguyver (Sep 11, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


Exactly and I was really hoping the next DO lens (with better IQ in theory) would be a 600mm (f/4 or f/5.6). Smaller size & weight at that focal length would make a lot more sense to me.


----------



## Steve (Sep 11, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Well, if I need to reach 560mm, I'll be using my 600/4L IS II, giving me an extra stop of light, and even more reach with a TC if needed.



Sure 'cause the 600's not, like, double the weight and size or anything


----------



## Tanispyre (Sep 11, 2014)

I think this lens just jumped to the top of my Big White wish list. We will see if it drops a notch when the official price comes out.


----------



## Plainsman (Sep 11, 2014)

Steve said:



> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Well, if I need to reach 560mm, I'll be using my 600/4L IS II, giving me an extra stop of light, and even more reach with a TC if needed.
> ...



Yep, I bet that 600/4 II is a brute to carry around - all up weight with box must be quite something


----------



## mackguyver (Sep 11, 2014)

Another thought - what if Canon figured out how to improve IQ AND production and the new lens ends up being excellent and priced at $3500-4000? Not very likely, but it is a possibility given all of the talk in _Lens Work_ about Canon's efforts to increase IQ while coming up with cheaper manufacturing like the GMo, micro USM and other technologies.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 11, 2014)

Steve Balcombe said:


> noncho said:
> 
> 
> > The weight is too close to the 300 2.8L IS II
> ...



Somehow, I do not believe it would beat the 300mm f/2.8. Throw in the TC though, and there is a chance. AF should be faster than the 300 +TC.

TC's have perfprmed poorly on DO lenses, so if one worked well, that would be a huge improvement.


----------



## nostrovia (Sep 11, 2014)

Jim Saunders said:


> nostrovia said:
> 
> 
> > Could very well be the perfect lens for me if they are able to reduce the minimum focus distance by quite a bit. 11 1/2 feet is way too far for a 400mm, in my opinion.
> ...



To me, this is the perfect size and weight to carry into the back country, at least as compared to the other big whites. When in confined spaces or a dense forest, an MFD of 11.5 feet just doesn't leave you enough space for many things that are much closer than that.


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Sep 11, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Somehow, I do not believe it would beat the 300mm f/2.8. Throw in the TC though, and there is a chance. AF should be faster than the 300 +TC.



I don't think so either, but it only needs to equal the 300/2.8, not beat it.



Mt Spokane Photography said:


> TC's have perfprmed poorly on DO lenses, so if one worked well, that would be a huge improvement.



Good point. It would be no use to me if it wasn't excellent with a 1.4x. I'd be ok if it wasn't all that special with the 2x, for the same reason I don't mind being unable to stack both Extenders on the 300/2.8. It's asking too much.


----------



## RGF (Sep 11, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Plainsman said:
> ...



600 F5.6 DO could be really sweet depending upon price, weight (undoubtably easily handheld), and IQ.

Like to see how the new 400 DO II stacks up against the 400 DO (original). I have heard but was never confirmed that Canon made small improvements in the 400 DO over the years. Wonder if that was true?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 11, 2014)

Plainsman said:


> Yep, I bet that 600/4 II is a brute to carry around - all up weight with box must be quite something



I hike with it frequently, hung on a BR Sport-L strap so most of the weight is on my shoulder. I shoot handheld if I stop briefly, put it on the monopod hanging from my belt if I'll be standing there for a while. If I'm staying near the car and in one place (usually winter shooting for raptors), I put it on the tripod with the gimbal head. It's 50% more focal length than the 400 DO, and the body+lens combo is about 50% more weight. 

As for carrying it around, I spend far more time carrying one of my three kids than I do the lens, and the lightest of my three kids weighs ~26 lbs, more than double the weight of the 1D X + 600 II.


----------



## Steve (Sep 11, 2014)

My kit's 16 pounds worth of lens and camera, not including my tripod and gimbal. Just because I can hike it no problem doesn't mean everyone else is my age and ability. This lens would be, I imagine, pretty great for folks who don't want to or simply can't haul a bunch of heavy gear around but still want a good amount of reach. 560mm at 5.6 with 1.4x TC is pretty respectable in a 4lb lens. I bet it fits in an overhead compartment a lot easier, too.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 11, 2014)

Steve said:


> My kit's 16 pounds worth of lens and camera, not including my tripod and gimbal. Just because I can hike it no problem doesn't mean everyone else is my age and ability. This lens would be, I imagine, pretty great for folks who don't want to or simply can't haul a bunch of heavy gear around but still want a good amount of reach. 560mm at 5.6 with 1.4x TC is pretty respectable in a 4lb lens. I bet it fits in an overhead compartment a lot easier, too.



I didn't say a 400/4 DO II wouldn't be a good or useful lens, I didn't say it wasn't the right choice for everyone or anyone, I said it wasn't the right choice for *me*. 

Hope that's clear...

FWIW, the current 400/5.6 is a lot lighter, a lot cheaper, and delivers IQ pretty close to the current 400/4 DO.


----------



## wtlloyd (Sep 11, 2014)

Agree. Keep shutter speed up and it does fine. What it doesn't do is IS and f/4.0.




neuroanatomist said:


> FWIW, the current 400/5.6 is a lot lighter, a lot cheaper, and delivers IQ pretty close to the current 400/4 DO.


----------



## Steve (Sep 11, 2014)

Or take a TC well/at all


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 11, 2014)

Steve said:


> Or take a TC well/at all



Well, not everyone has the age and ability to carry around the 400/4 DO, which is 2 lbs heavier. Nor does everyone have the financial means to spend several thousand dollars on a lens. So the 400/5.6 is pretty great for folks who don't want to haul heavy gear around or can't afford a supertele, but still want a decent amount of reach. 

You see what you I did there?


----------



## Steve (Sep 11, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Well, not everyone has the age and ability to carry around the 400/4 DO, which is 2 lbs heavier. Nor does everyone have the financial means to spend several thousand dollars on a lens. So the 400/5.6 is pretty great for folks who don't want to haul heavy gear around or can't afford a supertele, but still want a decent amount of reach.
> 
> You see what you I did there?



Those are all things I agree with!


----------



## TexPhoto (Sep 12, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> tiger82 said:
> 
> 
> > Now I can afford the Mark I version!!!!
> ...



I can vouch for that. I bought my 400mm f2.8 IS for $3950 about 3 months before VII came out. I then saw them selling at $4500 to $6000 used.


----------



## RickWagoner (Sep 12, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> FWIW, the current 400/5.6 is a lot lighter, a lot cheaper, and delivers IQ pretty close to the current 400/4 DO.



Lots of entry level birders buy into Cannon because of this single lens and most stick with it. A perfect walk around affordable lens!


----------



## NancyP (Sep 12, 2014)

Yes, the 400 f/5.6L is a fun lens to shoot with, and I don't mind at all carrying a 1.2 kg lens around for hours and miles, whether it is the 400 f/5.6L or my other hefty, the 180 f/3.5L macro.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 12, 2014)

Steve said:


> joejohnbear said:
> 
> 
> > If they solved their bokeh problems, perhaps the lens would have more appeal, but I think that bokeh is a problem inherent in the DO design?
> ...




That depends on your definitions of "problem" and "bokeh".

I think the 400 MkI does have bokeh problems, I used one for a day and got it to do stuff like this, I am sorry but for >$6,000 I want much better than that. Now I will admit that I personally shot over water like this regularly, so for me it was an unsurmountable issue, and I can well understand others happy and extensive use that never induces such low quality, but for me the 300 f2.8 IS MkI and 1.4TC was a much better, and cheaper, buy and in my opinion DO sucks, yes the 400 DO sucks less than the 70-300 DO (which really sucks) but they both suck.


----------



## jrista (Sep 12, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> That depends on your definitions of "problem" and "bokeh".
> 
> I think the 400 MkI does have bokeh problems, I used one for a day and got it to do stuff like this, I am sorry but for >$6,000 I want much better than that. Now I will admit that I personally shot over water like this regularly, so for me it was an unsurmountable issue, and I can well understand others happy and extensive use that never induces such low quality, but for me the 300 f2.8 IS MkI and 1.4TC was a much better, and cheaper, buy and in my opinion DO sucks, yes the 400 DO sucks less than the 70-300 DO (which really sucks) but they both suck.



Hmm, are you sure that's the lens? With the 600/4 II, a stellar lens that is capable of producing phenomenal boke, I have seen much the same effect as that. I was worried when I first saw it...then I started noticing that on the days my images had that kind of boke, there was a lot of evaporating water in the air. I tend to get low for my bird shots whenever I can. During the early part of last summer, when we had a few REALLY hot days here in Colorado, I noticed that my boke was really crappy like that...and that you could clearly see the water vapor evaporating off the mud flats between me, my subject, and my subject and the background. Here is an example of crappy water-vapor warped boke with my 600/4 II:







And here is an example of better boke:






This second image is still shot over water (I don't usually keep photos with OOF boke blur circles in the background, so I don't have many examples), so it still isn't perfect. But it's a lot better, as this was taken on a much cooler day, and there wasn't any visible mirage-type warping of the air due to an overload of evaporating water. 

It looks like the photo you shared is shot over some kind of body of water. I'd suspect there is a lot of water vapor in the air, which is probably totally warping the boke blur circles.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Sep 12, 2014)

Jim Saunders said:


> Seems I'm not the only one to look at this lens and wonder, _why?_
> 
> Jim



Whatever the reason, I'm happy Canon is still pushing this technology. In the end, that's what creates progress if not through revolution, then through evolution. Just look at all the other technology around you... How much of it has been developed / evolved from earlier examples?

If any big white is of interest to me, this is the one. The focal length, size and weight are right, if performance is good even with a 1.4 TC then I might at one point save up enough pennies to buy one.


----------



## Vossie (Sep 12, 2014)

The lens is about the weight and size of the 300 2.8 II, which is recognized as one of the very best (Canon) lenses that combines really well with TC's. Unless it is significantly cheaper than the 300 (which is highly unlikely), my guess is that many people would choose the 300 (+1.4x) combo over this lens.

Like most of you, I am interested to read the first reviews of this lens to how good the IQ is.


----------



## Synkka (Sep 12, 2014)

I am really interested to see how this lens performs. Canon seems keen on the DO technology so it will be really interesting to see what improvements they have made over time. I don't think this lens will fill the niche between the stand teles and the big whites, I expect it will be priced with the rest of the big whites.
I hope this lens can shake the DO stigma as from what I can tell a major drawback of the previous DO lens is it's depreciation compared to the other super teles.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 12, 2014)

jrista said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > That depends on your definitions of "problem" and "bokeh".
> ...



Well I have thousands of shots from the 300 f2.8 IS MkI and it is never as bad as the image I posted, not just for the harshness but for the magenta, so I believe the 400 DO MkI does have a propensity for badness in those circumstances. Now as I said many may never shoot in those situations, but I did very regularly, three to four times per week, so for me it was a complete nonstarter.


----------



## jrista (Sep 12, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Well I have thousands of shots from the 300 f2.8 IS MkI and it is never as bad as the image I posted, not just for the harshness but for the magenta, so I believe the 400 DO MkI does have a propensity for badness in those circumstances. Now as I said many may never shoot in those situations, but I did very regularly, three to four times per week, so for me it was a complete nonstarter.



When it comes to the magenta, that's definitely something different...could be some kind of color fringing due to the diffraction.

The pattern of your boke circles, however, looks nearly identical to mine that suffered from the water vapor issue. I think the "standard" boke circle for Canon's old DO lenses is a multi-ringed circle, sometimes a doughnut. It's usually consistent, not warped like the ones from our water shots, but otherwise still not as clean and pristine as a non-do lens is capable of.


----------



## Steve (Sep 12, 2014)

Yeah, that example you posted doesn't look awesome, pbd, but like jrista I've got quite a few pics taken with my 300 2.8 with less than stellar OOF areas. Different conditions will give different results.

I don't think anyone would say the 400 DO outperforms or even equals modern Canon superteles. Canon does not give them the L designation, after all. I just don't think they are utterly broken, useless garbage like much of the internet seems to think. There's a lot of promise in the tech. Its actually a bit of a mixed blessing that Canon is the one with the patents; they have the resources to put toward development but not much in the way of incentive since they are already King of Lens Hill.


----------



## jrista (Sep 12, 2014)

Steve said:


> Yeah, that example you posted doesn't look awesome, pbd, but like jrista I've got quite a few pics taken with my 300 2.8 with less than stellar OOF areas. Different conditions will give different results.
> 
> I don't think anyone would say the 400 DO outperforms or even equals modern Canon superteles. Canon does not give them the L designation, after all. I just don't think they are utterly broken, useless garbage like much of the internet seems to think. There's a lot of promise in the tech. Its actually a bit of a mixed blessing that Canon is the one with the patents; they have the resources to put toward development but not much in the way of incentive since they are already King of Lens Hill.



Agreed. I think there is a TON of promise in the concept. Especially if they can figure out the particle dispersion DO stuff (it has the potential to be far superior, but it's a lot more difficult to achieve.)

I mean, imagine and 800mm lens that is half the length of the current 800/5.6. Imagine even an 800 f/4 DO...the smaller package size and more effective bending of light should make it possible to create a hand-holdable f/4 800mm lens. That would be phenomenal.


----------



## wtlloyd (Sep 15, 2014)

Surprised no one has related this:
Fred Miranda earlier today posted that he has seen the MTF on the new lens and it is excellent, even with a 2X Extender.
He also states that the price will be "way lower than your expectation".
His NDA should be up about 4AM PDT.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1318195/0

(See his second post first page)


----------



## mrsfotografie (Sep 15, 2014)

wtlloyd said:


> Surprised no one has related this:
> Fred Miranda earlier today posted that he has seen the MTF on the new lens and it is excellent, even with a 2X Extender.
> He also states that the price will be "way lower than your expectation".
> His NDA should be up about 4AM PDT.
> ...



Errh so it may be almost within range of mere mortals? We'll wait and see...


----------



## Steve (Sep 15, 2014)

Well, the person he was responding to was thinking $10-13k. If it comes in at $6-7k that would be "way lower" than they expected but still unbelievably expensive.


----------



## 123Photog (Sep 15, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> wtlloyd said:
> 
> 
> > Surprised no one has related this:
> ...



i have asked this on another forums but never got an answer.
is there any statistics from canon how much lenses of each model they sell?

i would be very curious to know how many supetelephoto lenses canon actually sells.
i have no idea what kind of number we are talking about.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 15, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Steve said:
> 
> 
> > joejohnbear said:
> ...



I'm not seeing any Bokeh or contrast issues with that pic you've posted. Shooting into the light (contre-jour) with sparkly waves regardless of the supertele will pretty much give you what you've posted. 
In the image you posted, I would be more concerned with your burnt out highlights than the quality of the Bokeh. 
The contrast in this image is particular high and prolly needed better post prod to pull more out of the RAW file.

















Careful metering & careful post prod. Notice the quality of the bokeh is very similar and the contrast is less. 
These were taken with a 5DIII, ef 400mm f2.8 LIS and with 1.4x or 2x TC's
I choose the far more heavier f2.8 version because it's IQ is a lot better than the f4 DO version (I can use a 2x TC and get amazing sharpness wide open) and I really like the extra stop...sometimes f2.8 is the only way to go!


----------



## jrista (Sep 15, 2014)

wtlloyd said:


> Surprised no one has related this:
> Fred Miranda earlier today posted that he has seen the MTF on the new lens and it is excellent, even with a 2X Extender.
> He also states that the price will be "way lower than your expectation".
> His NDA should be up about 4AM PDT.
> ...



Well, we should know pretty soon here, since his 10-hour wait is almost up.  I'm very interested, if it has a high MTF and the price really is "way lower than your expectation".


----------



## Quest for Light (Sep 15, 2014)

jrista said:


> wtlloyd said:
> 
> 
> > Surprised no one has related this:
> ...



6899$


----------



## jrista (Sep 15, 2014)

Quest for Light said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > wtlloyd said:
> ...



Is that official? I mean, that's still a hell of a lot better than $10000 or more.


----------



## Quest for Light (Sep 15, 2014)

jrista said:


> Quest for Light said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



yes:

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/0082658045/canon-introduces-ef-400mm-f-4-do-is-ii-usm-ef-24-105mm-and-ef-s-24mm-f-2-8-lenses




> Pricing and Availability
> The EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II USM and EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM are both scheduled to be available in November for estimated retail prices of $6,899.00 and $149.99 respectively.



MFT look superb!


----------



## jrista (Sep 15, 2014)

> EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II USM - The Portable Super Telephoto Lens
> Super telephoto lenses are essential whether on a safari or the sidelines to bring the image in tight on a subject, but they often are not the lightest lenses to carry around. Canon’s new compact and lightweight EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II USM super telephoto lens will help lighten the load of professional and advanced amateur photographers. At only 4.6 lbs., it is roughly half the weight of the EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II USM lens. The new EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II USM lens features newly developed gapless dual-layered diffractive optical (DO) elements that help improve optical performance while maintaining virtually the same size and weight as its predecessor. The DO element in the new lens is optimally positioned deeper within the optical formula than in the original EF 400mm DO lens to help reduce flare around backlit subjects. Other optical improvements include the use of a large-diameter ground and polished aspherical element and a UD glass element that work together with the DO elements for thorough correction of spherical, chromatic and other optical aberrations. Canon’s original SWC (Sub Wavelength Structure) lens coating is also used internally to help improve resistance to flare. Fluorine coating is applied to the front and rear lens elements to repel dust and make lens cleaning easy. A nine blade curved diaphragm is also incorporated to help produce smooth, natural-looking bokeh in areas outside the depth of field surrounding the main subject.
> 
> The new EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II USM lens features Canon’s Optical Image Stabilization with up to four shutter speed steps of correction**. In addition there are three IS modes ─ standard, panning and during exposure only ─ that help to provide superb results in a variety of shooting situations. For greater convenience, the Image Stabilizer does not have to be disabled when shooting with a tripod. Four programmable buttons on the front of the lens allow photographers to customize lens and camera operation to fit their unique shooting style, or simply pause autofocus (AF) adjustment at any point to hold focus on a subject in a busy scene. Even in AF mode, full-time manual focus can be employed at any time. The lens also features a Power Focus mode for smooth focus “pulls” ideal for filmmaking. For those mobile shooters and documentarians truly “on-the-go”, the lens is also highly resistant to dust and water for durability and reliability when shooting in even the harshest conditions.



Still sounds like they are using the same kind of DO element design as they did before...no particle dispersion DO yet. Sounds like they did re-position the DO element to reduce or eliminate the haloing/fringing that used to occur with the old one...that was my biggest complaint about it before. It gets the full L-series treatment as well...all the bells and whistles on the Mark II superteles, which is nice.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 19, 2014)

GMCPhotographics said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Steve said:
> ...



Well I have hundreds of 300 f2.8 IS shots with and without the 1.4 TC MkIII and 2 TC MkII that don't look like the 400 DO image I posted, which is why I didn't buy it.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Sep 19, 2014)

I feel like I could make a new post every day how much I want this lens... 

(Un)fortunately winter is coming, a time when I find I have less need for longer lenses - so more time to contemplate and save up


----------



## 9VIII (Sep 20, 2014)

I was about to say that this lens should be a good upgrade in AF with a 7D2 because of the f4 aperture, but alas, the 7D2 is still all f5.6 AF points, with just the center being better.
As opposed to the 1Dx with a dozen or so f4 points, and that nice strip of f2.8 points in the middle.
Given the battery type, the 7D2 won't overdrive your AF either (the 1D runs at a higher voltage for better performance)


----------



## Eswanzey (Jul 29, 2015)

I don't know if this is the correct thread but cream will rise to the top?

I placed an order for the 400mm DO II I don't know how long ago at B&H. Just got an email that the lens has shipped. 

They must be finally clearing out the backlog of whichever California port had container ships to the horizon while some longshoremen or whoever went on strike and caused months of delay in offloading.


----------

