Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3       4      
5
       end
  

Archive 2013 · 400 f2.8 vs 400mm DO f4
  
 
Imagemaster
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.5 #1 · p.5 #1 · 400 f2.8 vs 400mm DO f4


uz2work wrote:
Are you paying $4600 more for IS? Or are you paying $4600 more for the ability to shoot at f4? Or are you paying $4600 more for an f4 lens that weighs only 4 pounds? Or, more likely, are you paying the extra money for the complete package of features that allows you to shoot successfully in a much wider range of situations than with the less expensive alternative. The price mark up seems a lot less unreasonable when you consider the full full package of features than it does when you only consider one of them.

Les


My reference to $4600 more for IS was only directed to anyone that felt they had to shoot at f5.6 most of the time:

Sneakyracer wrote:
But it really depends on how good is it at f4 because if I find the need to stop down to f5.6 then the extra expense makes much less sense since the 400 f5.6L is quite sharp and much much cheaper obviously.




Feb 16, 2013 at 02:50 AM
stanj
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.5 #2 · p.5 #2 · 400 f2.8 vs 400mm DO f4


Imagemaster wrote:
I have not seen anything stating the 400 DO focuses faster than the 400 f5.6.


It's not just about faster. It's about which AF points will work on your body (at least on my 1DX, it's different for f4 and f5.6 bodies). Also, most AF systems are rated to a minimum EV level, which will be reached more quickly with a 5.6 lens than with a 4.0 lens.

Not saying anything about price. Just tech specs.



Feb 16, 2013 at 02:56 AM
Sneakyracer
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.5 #3 · p.5 #3 · 400 f2.8 vs 400mm DO f4


Just took this image using the 400 DO @ f4 with the 5D3. Contrast was perfect almost straight out of the camera.







Feb 16, 2013 at 11:16 PM
uz2work
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #4 · p.5 #4 · 400 f2.8 vs 400mm DO f4


Sneakyracer wrote:
Just took this image using the 400 DO @ f4 with the 5D3. Contrast was perfect almost straight out of the camera.


That is looking really good. I'm glad to hear that your impressions are positive.

I've never quite understood the "low contrast" complaint. When I first got my DO, I was prepared to have to make contrast adjustments to the files. After I took my first batch of pictures with the lens, my very first impression was that the contrast looked great, and I guessed that the issue only manifested itself in some shooting situations. If that is the case, I must not ever shoot in those situations because I process my 400 DO files in an identical fashion to the way I process the files from my 500/4, and, as I said earlier, without looking at the file information, I couldn't tell you which pictures were taken with which lens.

I'm often skeptical about assertions that there is significant copy-to-copy variation of a lens even though that claim is often made, particularly with the 400 DO and 100-400. I've come to the conclusion that the 400 DO is an excellent example of an internet phenomenon. When some people start sharing an opinion about a product, others, even without any experience with that product, start repeating what the first group said, and, eventually, when enough people have said the same thing, regardless of whether what they are saying is valid, it becomes "internet fact". As I said earlier in this thread, the 400 DO is the single piece of equipment that I have owned that I am least likely ever to sell.

Les



Feb 16, 2013 at 11:46 PM
howard
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #5 · p.5 #5 · 400 f2.8 vs 400mm DO f4


There is a guy selling this DO lens in "excellent condition" for $4,200; I am almost tempted!


Feb 16, 2013 at 11:47 PM
stanj
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.5 #6 · p.5 #6 · 400 f2.8 vs 400mm DO f4


uz2work wrote:
I've never quite understood the "low contrast" complaint


I fully agree with your statement that the 400 DO is an internet phenomenon of misinformation perpetuated by people who never even handled the lens. Although I am as big a fan of this lens as one can get, when it comes to contrast it's really not something to write home about, and when you shoot it directly into the sun it will remind you that it's not one of its fortes. Still, it's a great lens, it's better than the 200/2 with a 2xIII TC, and I love it for what it is.



Feb 17, 2013 at 12:01 AM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



Sneakyracer
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.5 #7 · p.5 #7 · 400 f2.8 vs 400mm DO f4


Great comments.

Honestly im also baffled. All of the reviews I looked at online were of people who had the lens in their hands. (or so they claim) And they post image samples and in some cases they also had the 400 f5.6L and/or the 100-400mm zoom.

All I can say is that the copy I got from lensrentals.com is excellent. I know they are really into making sure each lens is up to spec or better.

Maybe there are some 400 DO's out there that are way below the curve. That might explain why some have not tested well.



Feb 17, 2013 at 12:09 AM
PetKal
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.5 #8 · p.5 #8 · 400 f2.8 vs 400mm DO f4


Since I got 500 II some 8-9 months ago, my 400 DO hasn't seen a camera once, and there are several very good reasons for that.
However, 400 DO is still much smaller and much lighter than 500 II, therefore, its raison d'etre is still strong in my collection, and it will continue to get used, although probably not as frequently as before the 500 II came along.
I do think 400 DO is a good lens, and I enjoy using it, just that its design age shows, and so does the IQ compromise Canon ought to have "designed" into it, or rather, accepted it.

Edited on Feb 17, 2013 at 01:56 PM · View previous versions



Feb 17, 2013 at 12:16 AM
Sneakyracer
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.5 #9 · p.5 #9 · 400 f2.8 vs 400mm DO f4


For me its between the 300 f2.8L IS I (or v2 also) and the 400 DO. I will test that lens next as soon as I can. Probably in a few weeks since im going to Colorado next week until March 2nd.

I for one think that its crazy to purchase such expensive lenses without testing them yourself. (thankfully lensrentals.com is there now) I think after this weekend I am gonna have a very good feel for the 400 DO. So far it has been a positive experience.

One thing I found out from using the 400 DO is that IS should be almost mandatory in a lens that long.




Feb 17, 2013 at 12:34 AM
PetKal
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.5 #10 · p.5 #10 · 400 f2.8 vs 400mm DO f4


Sneakyracer wrote:
One thing I found out from using the 400 DO is that IS should be almost mandatory in a lens that long.



Many folks have been using 400 f/5.6 handheld since its introduction. Naturally, no IS.
I have always found that I really have to concentrate in order to keep that lens sufficiently steady, i.e., can't shoot with it by casually pointing it here and there, but no real problems with it.

When I started to use 400 DO with IS turned off, lo and behold, it was easier to steady it than 400 f/5.6. I suppose 400 DO's somewhat higher mass filters out the higher frequency hand tremour to which 400 f/5.6 is more susceptible.

With a bit of practice, both lenses can be used handheld with IS turned off, although IS in 400 DO, such as it is, helps quite a bit in many, but not all, situations.



Feb 17, 2013 at 01:19 AM
Sneakyracer
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.5 #11 · p.5 #11 · 400 f2.8 vs 400mm DO f4


Also the IS seemed to make it easier to compose the image since it obviously stabilizes it when focusing so looking through the viewfinder is more pleasant, specially when following a subject. Un-stabilized, specially with the 1.4x on it was really shaky. Typical of long teles handheld.

I also like the balance of the lens. Feels good in hand.

Can't wait to test the 300's. I did have the 300 f4L IS but it wasnt really that good with converters so it saw limited use and optically it was not great wide open. I am expecting the 2.8's to be worlds better.



Feb 17, 2013 at 01:33 AM
1       2       3       4      
5
       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3       4      
5
       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Reset password