# 400mm thoughts



## geonix (Nov 16, 2014)

Hello everyone

The 400mm f4 DO lens is something of a mystery to me. I have personally never seen one in action and if you look for tests and reviews (e.g. on youtube) the offer is quite limited. And from the few sources I found the opinions on the lens were mixed, so that one could get the impression that the 400mm F4 DO lens was overall not very popular. If so, I don't know if that would be because of real, noticeable technical disadvantages compared to other lenses or because of the price (or both).
Still Canon found it reasonable to announce a newer version of the lens at photokina, so they expect an demand for this lens. 

Compared to the 400mm F5.6 is the image quality (sharpness) of the 400mm f4 DO Mark I better, equal or worse? I would expect the AF and IS to be better (most certainly the IS  ). 

Is there anyone here in the forum who uses the 400mm f4 DO Mark I and/or would be interested in the Mark II version?


----------



## Harv (Nov 16, 2014)

I owned and used the 400 f/4 DO Mark I for a couple of years, having purchased it new. For me the advantage was obviously the IS and 1 stop faster, plus being able to use a 1.4TC on it. I no longer own the lens.

I have owned a number of copies of the 400 f/5.6L and still own one today. In my opinion, the 400 f/5.6L is noticeably sharper at any aperture, and the lens is lighter. The downside is the need for faster shutter speed.

Having said all that, the MTF charts on the 400 f/4 DO Mark II look to be outstanding and I suspect this new version will be much sharper than either of the above two lenses. If it wasn't so dang expensive, I'd consider buying it.

Another lens worth looking at, in my opinion, is the new 100-400 that will be available in late December. The MTF charts on that look great also, plus the latest IS.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 16, 2014)

The advantage of a DO lens is that DO technology allows light rays to be bent at sharper angles without additional CA distortion. This results in a shorter lens, which also means lighter when compared to conventional technology.

The original 400mm DO produced some unexpected aberrations like rings in prints. Contrast (which is related to sharpness) is reduced. It can bee boosted in camera or post processing.

The new generation of DO is said to overcome those issues and have results comparable to classic lens designs while still being short and light.

I think that it is going to be a big hit for those who can afford one. We will have to wait for user feedback, many thousands of users will find issues that a few testers would tale 10 years to find.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Nov 16, 2014)

I am not a 400 DO owner but I have had the opportunity to wring out 3 examples of the Mk1 version.
With all 3 the images looked a bit flat initially but this was easily fixed in PP. What concerned me was that on the 3rd example IQ was poor - certainly bettered by a 300 F4 of 400 F5.6. Sharpness/resolution was mediocre at best.
I found this strange as the previous 2 examples had out-resolved my Canon 600 F4 L IS at the same range! Unfortunately the first 2 were overpriced otherwise I would have been a happy 400 DO owner!
With the Mk1 you really need to try the lens out thoroughly before buying - with the Mk2, we shall see!


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 17, 2014)

johnf3f said:


> I am not a 400 DO owner but I have had the opportunity to wring out 3 examples of the Mk1 version.
> With all 3 the images looked a bit flat initially but this was easily fixed in PP. What concerned me was that on the 3rd example IQ was poor - certainly bettered by a 300 F4 of 400 F5.6. Sharpness/resolution was mediocre at best.
> I found this strange as the previous 2 examples had out-resolved my Canon 600 F4 L IS at the same range! Unfortunately the first 2 were overpriced otherwise I would have been a happy 400 DO owner!
> With the Mk1 you really need to try the lens out thoroughly before buying - with the Mk2, we shall see!


 
Lenses are sometimes knocked out of adjustment, and Canon needs to fine tune them. When buying a used lens, I always assume that I'll need to send it in, and will reduce my offering price to account for a standard adjustment and repair.


----------



## jdramirez (Nov 17, 2014)

I think about getting to 400 f/4... but through a circuitous route. I have a 70-200mm f/2.8L is mkii and I pair that with a 1.4 mkii and I'm satisified with the 280mm f/4... but... I think if I pick up a 200mm f/2L IS and a 2x tc mkiii, then I will have 200mm @ f/2, 280mm @ f/2.8, and 400mm @ f4... the only problem is that I only marginally need the 200L right now... so I will wait patiently till I am overwhelmed by the desire to buy it. 

As for the DO... no clue.


----------



## Bennymiata (Nov 17, 2014)

Does anyone know when the 400 DO2 comes out?

It's either this or the new 100-400, which will normally used at around 400mm.
If I'm going to have a fight with my wife, it might as well be over $8K as it would be over $2k, but I wonder how much better the new 400Do2 compares in focussing and IQ to the new 100-400 2.


----------



## RGF (Nov 17, 2014)

I had the 400 DO and found that the image looked a bit soft until I sharpened them. Then they were very good, but not quite great. I think a lot of people commented on this. The lens is lighter than my 300 F2.8 (v1) though the 300 was sharper.

The real advantage of the DO is its weight. You save around 1/3 the weight off a similar non-DO lens. Of course your wallet is also that much lighter.


----------



## geonix (Nov 17, 2014)

Thanks for all the replies so far. 



Bennymiata said:


> Does anyone know when the 400 DO2 comes out?
> 
> It's either this or the new 100-400, which will normally used at around 400mm.
> If I'm going to have a fight with my wife, it might as well be over $8K as it would be over $2k, but I wonder how much better the new 400Do2 compares in focussing and IQ to the new 100-400 2.



Good question. It seems the new 100-400 will hit the market even before the 400 DO II. But to be honest the 100-400 doesn't interest me much so far. I doubt I will be better at 400mm than the old but good 400 f5.6 L lens.


----------



## Harv (Nov 17, 2014)

GraFax said:


> The MTF's on the new 100-400 @ 400 are substantially better than the 400 5.6 prime which is a pretty sharp lens. In fact, the charts say it's substantially sharper even with the 1.4x and 2x tele's attached. Didn't expect to see that. If it focuses quickly and tracks well I may have to retire the prime.



I put one of these on pre-order the morning it was announced. Based on the published MTF charts, I fully expect it to be sharper. Like you, I'm looking forward to evaluating the AF speed and accuracy and if it turns out to be fast, my 400 f/5.6 will become redundant.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Nov 17, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> johnf3f said:
> 
> 
> > I am not a 400 DO owner but I have had the opportunity to wring out 3 examples of the Mk1 version.
> ...



That may have been the case but I have heard from others who had similar experiences. The consensus over here is that later models tend to be better but all should be well tested before buying.


----------



## BeenThere (Nov 24, 2014)

This is the week that the new 400mm DO II is suppose to start shipping. Has anyone heard anything about any dealer shipping units for pre-orders?


----------

