# 400 DO II continues to test out as superb



## wtlloyd (Jan 28, 2015)

Equals/surpasses 300 f/2.8 II

Roger at Lens Rentals has additional testing:

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/01/more-canon-400m-do-ii-comparisons


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 28, 2015)

wtlloyd said:


> Equals/surpasses 300 f/2.8 II
> 
> Roger at Lens Rentals has additional testing:
> 
> http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/01/more-canon-400m-do-ii-comparisons



I wonder when the 800 DO will appear


----------



## 9VIII (Jan 28, 2015)

At this point I'm fairly confident that the 400 DO MkII is the new king of BIF.
The 300f2.8 IS II is probably still better for jungles and indoors, but those are some fantastic results on the 400 DO MkII, and AF should be much faster at the same focal length given the lack of a Teleconverter.


----------



## Rahul (Jan 28, 2015)

Thanks for posting . Roger's tests are the most believable out there because he's playing a game of pure numbers which cut out the possibility of a reviewer's / tester's bias. 

Back the the topic, I am more concerned with how the DO will render the image as a whole, including the background / OOF areas. This feedback will ultimately come from the field and until such time, I'm keeping my fingers crossed as to how this performs from a holistic viewpoint. 

Also, what is of concern to me is how this lens will play with TCs - somehow I have a feeling that it won't be as great as the non-DO superteles.


----------



## BeenThere (Jan 28, 2015)

Still amazes me that with one stop down and no IS, the vintage 400 f/5.6 is still a contender at roughly 1/5 the cost. Imagine how great it would be updating with IS and say 1/4 cost.


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 28, 2015)

BeenThere said:


> Still amazes me that with one stop down and no IS, the vintage 400 f/5.6 is still a contender at roughly 1/5 the cost. Imagine how great it would be updating with IS and say 1/4 cost.


Having owned one for many years, it doesn't surprise me at all. I have to say, I was somewhat disappointed when I bought my 300 f/2.8 II IS - it's better than the 400 f/5.6, but not by a huge amount. The IS and 2 extra stops (or even 1 with 1.4x) make a massive difference, however.


----------



## BeenThere (Jan 29, 2015)

Most of my BIF shots have been taken with the 400mm/f5.6', and I've got some good ones with this lens. Keeper rate could be higher, but that could just be me. Now thinking of trying the new 400mm DO to see if keeper rate or IQ improves significantly. I've been using the FF 5d3 and frequently could use some more reach, so I'll be interested in how it performs with 1.4 on FF vs bare lens on 7d2.


----------



## luckydude (Jan 31, 2015)

I have the mark I of this lens and like it. I just found a mark II in stock and ordered it. I'll do some side by side tests and I suspect that my mark I will be up for sale. I'm really interested to see how it compares with the 1.4x and 2.0x TC.

I've been pretty happy with my mark I, maybe I got a good copy, but here it is with the 1.4x III and the 7DII:

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

That's hand held, in my back yard (the wren was in my burn pile of brush).


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 31, 2015)

luckydude, that looks impressive to me! Please do the comparisons, they'll be very welcomed.

Jack


----------



## liv_img (Feb 3, 2015)

Rahul said:


> Back the the topic, I am more concerned with how the DO will render the image as a whole, including the background / OOF areas. This feedback will ultimately come from the field and until such time, I'm keeping my fingers crossed as to how this performs from a holistic viewpoint.
> 
> Also, what is of concern to me is how this lens will play with TCs - somehow I have a feeling that it won't be as great as the non-DO superteles.



You can find pictures with OOF areas and with teleconverters in my field test: http://blog.alamany.com/2015/01/canon-ef-400mm-f4-do-is-ii-review.html

And I can say you that with teleconverters it works as good or better than my EF 500mm f:4L IS.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 3, 2015)

liv_img said:


> Rahul said:
> 
> 
> > Back the the topic, I am more concerned with how the DO will render the image as a whole, including the background / OOF areas. This feedback will ultimately come from the field and until such time, I'm keeping my fingers crossed as to how this performs from a holistic viewpoint.
> ...



" Acknowledgements and disclaimer
I'm not an English person, so please forgive me the linguistic and gramatical mistakes. I have translated the original Spanish review due to the interest of several foreign photographers."

You do very well and this is a great review with excellent comparisons!  If I didn't have the 300 with extenders (it's light enough for me) I know what I'd be buying for my hiking!!

Jack


----------



## wtlloyd (Feb 3, 2015)

Best practical review I've seen. Your shots really point out all the features of this lens in use.
Bravo!


----------



## wldbil (Feb 4, 2015)

I really like your review liv_img. Will be getting the 400 Do II instead of the 500 mm when my the funds are saved up.


----------



## Karl XII (Feb 4, 2015)

I´m getting my 400mm DO II tomorrow or the day after. 
I live i Stockholm, Sweden.
I´ve been waiting since my pre-order november 4.
Happy days!


----------



## garyknrd (Feb 8, 2015)

I have the 300 II and was going to sell it and buy the 400 DO II. Especially when I saw the results here. I googled it and went to SLR gears site and just the oposite is stated. Looks like there copy of the 300 II was better at 2.8 than the DO II was at F/4.0. Not sure what to think. Maybe just a difference between models? Not sure.
I am holding off until more real live tests come in. My 300 is biting sharp at F/4.0 with a 1.4. The only thing I see that will help me is AF without a T.C.. I also find 400mm to short for BIF most of the time.
My two cents anyway.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 8, 2015)

garyknrd said:


> I have the 300 II and was going to sell it and buy the 400 DO II. Especially when I saw the results here. I googled it and went to SLR gears site and just the oposite is stated. Looks like there copy of the 300 II was better at 2.8 than the DO II was at F/4.0. Not sure what to think. Maybe just a difference between models? Not sure.
> I am holding off until more real live tests come in. My 300 is biting sharp at F/4.0 with a 1.4. The only thing I see that will help me is AF without a T.C.. I also find 400mm to short for BIF most of the time.
> My two cents anyway.



Roger averaged the numbers from 4 300mm lenses with 4 different TC's versus averages from 2 400mm DO lenses. Its not surprising that numbers from a individual pair of lenses would be different.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Feb 8, 2015)

wtlloyd said:


> Equals/surpasses 300 f/2.8 II
> 
> Roger at Lens Rentals has additional testing:
> 
> http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/01/more-canon-400m-do-ii-comparisons


Well done for Roger. 
G.A.S. is attacking me now


----------



## AlanF (Feb 8, 2015)

Roger also wrote: "_The first comparison we made was between the 400mm f/4 DO IS II and the 300mm f/2.8 IS II at their native focal lengths - 400mm and 300mm. I do want to point out that this puts testing distances at roughly 19 and 15 feet respectively. This is not ideal working distance for super telephoto lenses, so take these results with that tiny grain of salt_."


----------



## luckydude (Feb 9, 2015)

Be super careful when buying one of these from Amazon. I ordered what I thought was a mark II and got sent a mark I (for $6,400 US). I'm sure they'll say I screwed up and clicked on the wrong version but I was searching on 400mm DO II and that's where I landed. Entirely possible that I just didn't notice it was the mark I but pretty sleazy to sell what is now a maybe $4000 new lens for $6,400.

So I'm now hunting for one of the mark II's.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 9, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> garyknrd said:
> 
> 
> > I have the 300 II and was going to sell it and buy the 400 DO II. Especially when I saw the results here. I googled it and went to SLR gears site and just the oposite is stated. Looks like there copy of the 300 II was better at 2.8 than the DO II was at F/4.0. Not sure what to think. Maybe just a difference between models? Not sure.
> ...


Three comments to make about this...
1. Roger runs a LOT of lenses through his test bench.... he probably has more experience doing these tests than anyone else.

2. The lenses Roger tests are standard production lenses, not cherry picked ones sent out for reviews.... and he tests them before and after use.. his numbers quickly become the numbers for USED RENTAL lenses.... a far more useful scenario for those of us who want to know what our equipment will be like after a few months (or years) of banging around in the real world.

3. He started off the 400DO tests by saying it was only for 2 lenses. Once he gets more in, he will retest and be able to give numbers for an average lens... once again, far more useful to us than the numbers for the best lens to ever make it off of the production line...

If I were you, I would wait for his updated review. Besides, right now there is a waiting list anyway... not like you will be picking it up and shooting with it tomorrow....


----------



## wopbv4 (Feb 13, 2015)

Karl XII said:


> I´m getting my 400mm DO II tomorrow or the day after.
> I live i Stockholm, Sweden.
> I´ve been waiting since my pre-order november 4.
> Happy days!



Hi Karl XII,

can you share some pics with us?

I am about to order this lens , but I still have doubts. The contrast of version one was not that great

Thanks in advance

Ben


----------



## wopbv4 (Feb 13, 2015)

liv_img said:


> Rahul said:
> 
> 
> > Back the the topic, I am more concerned with how the DO will render the image as a whole, including the background / OOF areas. This feedback will ultimately come from the field and until such time, I'm keeping my fingers crossed as to how this performs from a holistic viewpoint.
> ...




Thanks, very much for the excellent review.
Will the concentric lines show up in a shot of the moon?


----------



## King Eyre (Feb 18, 2015)

Anyone know when it will be available???...everyone seems to be waiting on more stock after the initial delivery?

Thanks, George.


----------



## Karl XII (Feb 24, 2015)

Hi Karl XII,

can you share some pics with us?

I am about to order this lens , but I still have doubts. The contrast of version one was not that great

Thanks in advance

Ben

Hello!
Here are two photos with the 400mm DO II.
They are cropped some, and i´ve added some contrast and sharpness.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/cenm3gtcttcisic/7T3A9448%20a.jpg?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/qnh1bbj3io6f1yd/7T3A9470%20a.jpg?dl=0


----------



## AlanF (Feb 24, 2015)

Karl
Thanks for posting and leaving EXIF data. There is a halo around the beak of the bird, suggesting significant sharpening. How much did you sharpen?


----------



## Karl XII (Feb 24, 2015)

AlanF said:


> Karl
> Thanks for posting and leaving EXIF data. There is a halo around the beak of the bird, suggesting significant sharpening. How much did you sharpen?



Yes I see that now when I enlarge the photo very much. 
Camera raw (45 - 0,5 - 25 - 30)
Contrast +30, Clarity +21


----------



## wopbv4 (Feb 24, 2015)

Karl XII said:


> Hi Karl XII,
> 
> can you share some pics with us?
> 
> ...



Hi,

thanks very much for the photos.
In the mean time, I have ordered the Ef 400 do II.
It is a bit of a gamble overhere in Australia as nobody can give an exact price, they all mumble "around 8500 AUS$"
ETA is unknown as well, hope that I do not have to wait too long.

Thanks,
Ben


----------

