|
|
prion
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 21, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Nov 10, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast AF, handheldable, takes 1.4X TC well, weight relative to 300mm f2.8
|
|
Cons:
|
Weight relative to 100-400mm lens.
|
|
I purchased a used lens at a significantly reduced price. The lens was in mint conditions (2006 model) but soft when compared to my very good copy of the 100-400mm lens. I sent it to Canon for adjustment ($250) and they did a wonderful job recalibrating the lens. The lens has performed flawlessly for me and I am very happy with it.
Its main advantages over my 100-400mm lens are:
1) Faster AF especially in low light conditions.
2) The f4 aperture (vs. f5.6 in the 100-400mm lens) allows for faster shutter speeds in low light conditions.
3) Takes a 1.4X teleconverter very well and unlike my 100-400mm lens + 1.4X TC it auto focuses with my 50D.
I posted some comparison pics at: http://www.pbase.com/juliom/testing
|
|
 Nov 10, 2009
|
|
Rusty1
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 5, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 469
|
|
Review Date: Jun 18, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Light, compact, balances like a dream in your hands. Sharp, weathered sealed, IS, fast AF even with the 1.4 TC, image quality with the TC is still quite good.
|
|
Cons:
|
Very expensive new, only F4 but you know that going in.
|
|
High price and mixed reviews led me to buy this lens used from a reputable dealer with return policy. Worst case I figured I could sell it for little or no loss if needed. Well that was a year ago and I've been very happy with it.
I shoot with it hand held all day at air shows. The fast focus, IS and good handling make it a pleasure to use. It allows my less than rock steady hands to get sharp panning shots using the 1.4 TC at 560mm and 1/250 for nice propeller blur.
Best sharpness comes one stop down from wide open. I always shoot in RAW, use the lens hood and have had no problems with contrast or flare. I often shoot side by side with friends who use the 300 f2.8 w/1.4 TC and 500 f4. Honestly it is very hard to see any difference at all in the images.
To me the real strength of this lens is shooting hand held and taking the 1.4 TC so well. The major down side is price.
|
|
|
Jun 18, 2009
|
|
RikWriter
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Jun 22, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 2155
|
|
Review Date: May 31, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $3,500.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Incredibly light and easy to handle. Fairly nice IQ and contrast without a TC.
|
|
Cons:
|
Doesn't take TCs well...slow focussing, and low contrast even with the 1.4X TC.
|
|
I got a great deal on this lens and I wanted badly to love it, but it just didn't do enough for me. The main reason I wanted it was that it was f4 and thus could take a TC without losing AF, but in the end it didn't take TCs well enough to make it worthwhile to use it over the much cheaper 100-400.
|
|
|
May 31, 2009
|
|
iammikie
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Oct 20, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 114
|
|
Review Date: May 14, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Extremely Light weight, sharp as can be, very well balanced
|
|
Cons:
|
Contrast needs a bump in photoshop
|
|
I owned this lens when I was a Canon guy, sold it a year or so ago when I switched to Nikon, but I got really tired of carrying around the heavy Nikon glass, so I repurchased it new (ouch), and got a 50D to go along with it. Many hate the DO technology, some like me can't live without it.
Yes, it is very expensive, resale value is so-so, but I can carry it along all day with no problem, it is sharp and well balanced.
|
|
|
May 14, 2009
|
|
jimhalay
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 30, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Apr 4, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $3,200.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Light weight, small, fast focusing and great image stabilization for effective hand holdiing.
|
|
Cons:
|
Needs a little post processing contrast adjustment.
|
|
I bought the lens on e-Bay for cheap just to try it out. I love this lens for it's strengths, light weight and smaller size and wouldn't trade it for anything else. It's a natural for birding and sports photography. The slight lack of contrast never bothered me and the quality compared with the 300 2.8 is all there. You really appriciate this lens when you are sitting in a kayak under a Osprey nest for a couple of hours. I rated the build quality a little low because it actually fell apart one day at the screws holding the body to the lens. I found out later that this is not that uncommon with all Canon lenses.
|
|
|
Apr 4, 2009
|
|
John Daniel
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 6, 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 1139
|
|
Review Date: Mar 15, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Light, bright, very fast focus, sharp, relatively small, lens usable with 1.4X on APS-C and the 2X on 1 serie. Hand holdable (really hand holdable without big muscles)
|
|
Cons:
|
Sometimes needs a tad of contrast to be added in PS.
|
|
I have been using the 500 f/4L IS and also the 300 f/2.8L IS. But for weight reasons, I have sold them to buy the 400 DO. Before doing so, I have done quite some test with all tree to make my decision and I do not regret it at all.
This is a heck of a great lens, sharp, light, fast...all you need.
|
|
|
Mar 15, 2009
|
|
GeoffreyLI
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 11, 2009
Location: China
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 11, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Handheldable; Sharp image; Acceptable in size and weight; Fast focusing; Solid built;
|
|
Cons:
|
Too expensive; Slightly low-contrast; Crummy lens cover;
|
|
I own 500mm f/4 len and 400mm DO lens. After I had used them for a period, I fall in love with the 400mm DO len. It is light enough to hand-hold in the field. Though it is too short for bird-shooting, its portable ability would benefit you in the field to take more good images. Using it with a 1.4X attached, the focusing speed and image quality would not loss. However, the most important thing is that you need always having its len-hood attached. If not, the quality of the images will fall extremely sometimes. If you are able to manage it in a proper way, it is really a good tool for all kinds of nature-photography.
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2009
|
|
dauphinas365
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 13, 2008
Location: Germany
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Nov 23, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $5,600.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
light, very light, fast focus, very good build quality
|
|
Cons:
|
a bit softer then others in this price range, you need to be careful under certain light conditions
|
|
Have owned this lens for now about 10 months and have to say it is worth every penny. The main advantage and that is why it is unique is the weight of this lens and a good image quality which outperforms any other none L lens I know. IS is first generation but haven't had any problems handhold shooting of sport events.
One thing you need consider this lens is difficult if light is coming from the direction where you are shooting. Even some mirrored light could cause degradation of image quality. But if you get used to this you can shoot excellent pictures which would not be as easy as with the 2.8/400 as an example.
Probably I will never sell this lens and if you look there are not much used ones on the market, so there seems to be something unique with this lens.
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2008
|
|
mazamabill
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: May 28, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 3
|
|
Review Date: Nov 1, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $5,300.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Extremely sharp, relatively light, fantasic OS
|
|
Cons:
|
Cost, tight hood
|
|
This may not be the best lens for birding lens, but for the megafauna is has excellent reach, IQ, and useability. It's a fantastic lens to hand hold and enables you to get the quick shot. Plus it takeS a 1.4X TC very well. FANTASTIC ALL PURPOSE WILDLIFE LENS!
|
|
|
Nov 1, 2008
|
|
photochaos
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 15, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Oct 7, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
lightweight, image quality
|
|
Cons:
|
price
|
|
Before buying this lens I spent several weeks reading all available reviews. I was a bit hesitant because of some mixed reviews, and for a while considered whether either the 300mm f/2.8 or the 400mm f/2.8 would be better choices.
I decided against the 400mm f/2.8 because I like carrying my lenses around in city walks and mountain hikes--something almost impossible with this lens--and that I would only use this lens for some soccer shots--not worth enough to buy the 400mm f/2.8. It was a relatively easy decision.
I did consider the 300mm f/2.8 much longer. The size and weight would allow me to shoot handheld, it's one stop faster than the 400mm DO, and it has outstanding reviews. However, 300mm was not enough reach for some uses (e.g., soccer) and I knew I would end up using the 300mm with a 1.4x converter quite a bit, losing some autofocus speed, the one stop advantage, and perhaps some image quality.
I finally decided to trust the more recent reviews on the 400 DO, and I am very glad I did! I've shot several soccer games since I got this lens, and I am extremely happy with the results. Fast autofocus, outstanding image quality, good contrast, and I can handheld this lens for several soccer games in a weekend.
I look forward to hiking with this lens, as well as traveling by plane without having to ship part of my equipment.
|
|
|
Oct 7, 2008
|
|
genefixer
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Jan 22, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 1680
|
|
Review Date: Jul 24, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Relatively lightweight, can be handheld with excellent results
|
|
Cons:
|
price of course but you get what you pay for, good quality and flexibility
|
|
I had the 400 5.6L lens and loved it but was restricted to using a tripod. I purchased this for a good price thinking if I did not like it I could turn it around without much of a loss. No way, it is a keeper. I use it mostly with the Canon 1.4x II extender and it is still very sharp. I can say that at shutter speeds below 1/320 I loose some crispness on delicate objects, e.g. those darn little lovely Goldfinches,  . Focuses very quickly on either my 40D or Mark III. Not considering another long lens until I can afford the nes 800mm!!
|
|
|
Jul 24, 2008
|
|
wfr2
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: May 14, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 831
|
|
Review Date: Jul 4, 2008
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
supplement: works well with 2x teleconverter
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
Just a short update now that I bought a Canon 2x teleconverter. This lens worked so well with the 1.4xTC that I decided to buy another 2x after selling my previous one last year. Works very well with this lens. Not quite as sharp as with 1.4x as should be expected but stilll very good. I even tried hand holding it with success.
|
|
|
Jul 4, 2008
|
|
|
