In case anyone is trying to decide whether to replace a 100-400IS with a 400 DO IS. I recently got a used 400 DO (US date code) and compared it to my 100-400. My 100-400 has a UV datecode, is correctly calibrated (according to Canon), and I've always been very happy with its sharpness, even wide open at 400mm.
Here are side-by-side comparisons of the 2 lenses. These are are quite casual comparisons (i.e., no MLU and no tripod), but give an approximate idea how the two lenses compare in real-world field conditions. The photos were all taken on a 1D2n, and the 400 DO is compared against the 100-400 wide-open (i.e., f/4 for the 400DO and f/5.6 for the 100-400), for both center and corner. I also compared the 100-400 at f/8 against the 400DO at f/5.6 for a corner comparison. The shots are 100% camera JPGs with no postprocessing.
As you can see, the 100-400 at 400mm is quite decent in the center, and compares well with the 400DO. When one considers the corners, the 400DO blows the 100-400 away, and it is remarkable that the 100-400 corner at f/8 doesn't catch up with the 400DO at f/4. The colors of the 400DO also seem a little more faithful.
I hope this is informative for any potential buyers. The 400DO is a really impressive performer, and at under 2 kg, it is the only supertelephoto prime one can hand-hold and walk around with (without a tripod or monopod) for a reasonable amount of time.
well I would hope that the DO blows the 100-400 away, we are talking about a lens costing 3 1/2 times as much (UK prices) as a zoom. It would be interesting to see how it stacks up against the 400/5.6.
Shutter speeds? IS on?
The DO probably has more effective IS than the zoom, and the two stop difference (in the f/4 prime to f/8 zoom comparison) could put shutter speeds in a range where that has more effect than the difference in lens acutance.
In any case, they look pretty close to me. I'm sure the DO is a great walk about lens, and I'd like to have one if I could afford it. DavidP has written good things about his.
I found my 100-400 not particularly sharp at 400 until stopped down to f8, and don't have that issue at all with the DO. The 100-400 is sharper at shorter lengths, but still needs to be stopped down where the primes don't.
Not considering price, it stacks up really nicely against the 400 f5.6 because it is an important 1 stop faster and has good IS, as well as the capability to take a 1.4x and retain good autofocus assuming you aren't shooting a 1 series camera...
For the money I think the 100-400 a great lens and a better buy, I would hope that any prime would do better than a zoom. But, the versatility of the zoom makes it a better choice unless you always shoot it at 400mm. But if that is the case why not use a 400 F5.6 L?
Ian.Dobinson wrote:
Surely a 1.4tc would be a cheaper option
Cheaper, yes, but not lighter. This is exactly the reason why I have the DO and not the 300: I have absolutely no use for a 300, so if I end up with a 400/4 (420/4) I may as well save a couple of pounds, _and_ get a 560/5.6 which is better than the 300+2xTC, or even have the option of an 800/8 if I am desperate, an option I don't really have with the 300.
I get the portability thing. Sorry I read it that superficialodd would also keep the 300. If that was the case then haveing a 300 a 100-400 & 400/4 would seem to be keeping alot of the same sort of eggs in your basket. If selling the 300 to get a more portable 400 then yes I can see that as a plus.
I find it funny on here about the DO, in that the praise and knocking seems to go in waves. at the moment its getting aloyt of love but other times it gets knocked about strange bokeh and stuff. Its probably the canon lens that most polarizes opinion.
Ian.Dobinson wrote:
I get the portability thing. Sorry I read it that superficialodd would also keep the 300. If that was the case then haveing a 300 a 100-400 & 400/4 would seem to be keeping alot of the same sort of eggs in your basket. If selling the 300 to get a more portable 400 then yes I can see that as a plus.
I find it funny on here about the DO, in that the praise and knocking seems to go in waves. at the moment its getting aloyt of love but other times it gets knocked about strange bokeh and stuff. Its probably the canon lens that most polarizes opinion....Show more →
I totally agree about it being polarizing. I would also say that most of the knocking comes from people who have never actually used it, but are only regurgitating what others have said, and/or never could afford one in the first place. This whole "it's too expensive so I need to find reasons against it" is way too prevalent - includes 1D series and goes beyond photography.
I have given up trying to understand how good that lens is or, perhaps better put, can be. For example, from Les Zigurski I understood his 400DO was every bit as sharp and contrasty as his 500 f/4, which was a high praise indeed. However, maybe he's got a singularly good 400 DO copy and/or a substandard 500 f/4 copy ?
Either way, I don't plan to spend $4.2-5.5K + in order to find out for sure.
After all, I've got a couple of 400 f/5.6 lenses which are twice as portable as the 400DO, 25% of the price and their IQ probably comparable.
Even if one sets the issue of lens performance aside, it seems to me that the 400DO has the lowest resale value of all in-production supertelephoto lenses. That in itself is telling. Right or wrong, like it or not, that's the way the cookie crumbles.
Your comments are very interesting. By the way, the shots were all taken hand-held, with shutter speeds around 1/320 to 1/400, and with IS on, similar to the parameters I would use when shooting.
I struggled with the same options, i.e., 300/2.8 with 1.4x extender, or a 500/4, but settled on the 400 DO because of its sheer portability. 300/2.8 with a 1.4 is supposed to be sharper but more unbalanced, while the 500/4 cannot be handheld for more than a short while.
Having said that, however, I have no doubt the 400DO is an optical compromise compared to its superb L siblings. I don't think the lens is in the same league as either the 300/2.8 or 500/4. I think (but I'm not sure) if it is similar to the 400/5.6 wide open. Does anyone who has both the 400/5.6 and 400/4 compared them?
PetKal wrote:
Even if one sets the issue of lens performance aside, it seems to me that the 400DO has the lowest resale value of all in-production supertelephoto lenses. That in itself is telling. Right or wrong, like it or not, that's the way the cookie crumbles.
I rarely find them at all and if I do they are all $4500 or above. Most people bought the lens when it was new at about $4500-5000... Resale seems very comparative to the other lenses.
On a side note, I have had issues with a few 400 DO copies taking a 1.4x well. The last one I had shot very good at 400, but was really bad with the 1.4x on. It was very soft and "funny" looking. Not quite sure what it was. Stopping down also didn't help. We can pixel peep and argue numbers all day, but at the end of the day, useage is the most important. I can carry the 400DO and handhold it all day and it produces sharp photos. It isn't front heavy like a 300 f2.8 and it has the IS I need. It just feels right. You don't get that from comparing numbers and prices and advantages and hoping you are picking the right lens when you buy it.
Don't even try putting a 1.4x on a 100-400, it is terrible. I'm still waiting to find a "sharp" copy that people tell me exist in the UW date code line... (I've never found a sharp 100-400 before)
400mm f5.6 lenses are sharp, but I have to have IS and that extra stop is really helpful. I remember the days when I shot film with this lens and had my tripod and I would have to wait until 10AM to start shooting pictures giving up the best light of the day for shooting wildlife. A lot of that was the function of 50 speed Velvia and now we can shoot at ISO 400 so this lens is more useful now.
I wish the 300mm f4 was tack sharp like the 2.8 version. It is pretty good but loses a lot with the 1.4x. If that lens was sharper wide open, had the new 5 stop IS, and took the 1.4x well it might be the economical way to go for large wildlife.
popeshawnpaul wrote:
I rarely find them at all and if I do they are all $4500 or above. Most people bought the lens when it was new at about $4500-5000... Resale seems very comparative to the other lenses.
Adorama has a D (Demo) condition lens listed at $4,249.
KEH have carried an EX condition one for ages now....$4,299.
popeshawnpaul wrote:
I rarely find them at all and if I do they are all $4500 or above. Most people bought the lens when it was new at about $4500-5000... Resale seems very comparative to the other lenses.
Each person has their own reason for buying such a lens. I don't own that one, but have the 400 2.8 and 600. I didn't buy either with resale in mind, rather for their potential value in the field. I can definitely see the value in the very light and portable 400 DO, having borrowed it a couple times from Canon. Depending on high ISO performance of the next 1D camera, it might actually be a viable alternative to the 400 2.8 for many situations. Even if resale after a few years is 60% of new, I'd feel I got my money's worth out of it. IMO the used equipment prices on the FM B&S are somewhat inflated with many items at greater than 80% of new.
I wish the 300mm f4 was tack sharp like the 2.8 version. It is pretty good but loses a lot with the 1.4x. If that lens was sharper wide open, had the new 5 stop IS, and took the 1.4x well it might be the economical way to go for large wildlife.
Wow, I think I have gotten off topic...
I agree 100% about the 300 f/4. If there is a lens that needs to be remade, it's this one (not the 400 5.6, which is pretty much covered by the 100-400 already).
