BCPete Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
Re: 400 f2.8 vs 400mm DO f4 | |
One of these was shot with the 400mm f/4 IS DO (on a 20D), and the other with the 400mm f/2.8L IS II (on a 1DMIII). I doubt anyone would be able to tell you the difference without looking up the shot details. Both lenses are good, but the 400mm f/4 DO is more limiting (I sold mine to fund getting the 300mm f/2.8 and 500mm f/4 - for the f/2.8 at times, and for the extra reach at times). I\'ve since sold the 300mm & 500mm, and now have the 400mm f/2.8II as a compliment to my 800mm - but I\'ll only carry the 400mm f/2.8II with extenders if I have to hike very far.
If you\'re not worried about the cost, then I\'d buy the new 400mm II. The lens is balanced very nicely so that I can handhold it quite easily. Something I never could do very well with my old 500mm f/4 - which weighs the same. The new version III extenders will get you to 800mm on any Canon camera - which is a definite benefit over the DO (no auto focus @ f/8 for a 7D on down). The IS is generations newer also. Being able to shoot at f/2.8 is really important at times for me also.
If weight or cost are your big concerns, then obviously the DO wins out. The 400mm f/2.8 II will get you more shots in the end, but it does come at a price - both in $$$ and weight. I have nothing bad to say about the 400mm f/4 DO though - it\'s just that you can\'t get to f/2.8 with it, and that\'s why I have the new 400mm f/2.8 II.
|