Upload & Sell: On
| p.1 #9 · 400 f2.8 vs 400mm DO f4 |
firstgear99 wrote: Which one would you want and why? The DO has IS, the 2.8 can be obtained with IS but at significant cost. So, which and why?
Much depends on what purposes you would use it for.
That kinda general statement applies more strongly to your dilemma than in many other similar cases. The choice between those lenses is highly personal, and much of what we might say will probably not help much because we do not know you and your photography.
However, let us narrow the f/2.8 lens to the IS version Mk1. Now you are looking at one of the best performing Canon lenses (IQ and AF) which also happens to be one of the heaviest.
On the other hand, 400 DO is not near the performance level of the f/2.8 behemoth, but when it comes to the ease of transport, handling and handheld use, the 400 DO is really delightful, and, to some of us, that is the key reason for accepting its somewhat inferior IQ.
You see, this is not an easy choice to make, and I do not know of a way to make it any easier.when you say performance are you meaning the clarity of the photo that the lens yields? In other words, the 2.8 is the king of the hill and everything else is down the mountain?
Before the MkII lenses came along, I believe 400 f/2.8 IS MkI was Canon's best long lens regarding IQ and AF responsiveness, closely followed by 300 f/2.8 IS MkI and 500 f/4 IS MkI, and then 600 f/4 IS MkI and 800L.
However, the MkII lenses have changed that entire picture, and today we have different kings of the hill. However, 400 f/2.8 IS MkI is still close to the best performance-wise, and 400 DO still remains the smallest and the lightest of them all.
Edited on Feb 11, 2013 at 02:34 AM · View previous versions