What's with posting all the DO II photos? Yes your photos are lovely but clutter-up an interesting question. Take them to a gallery thread. The OP asked about DO I versus 100-400 II.
I have the 100-400 II but have been keeping an eye on DO I prices because at f/4 it would save me from having to change shooting settings when swapping from a big white, which can be quite a fumble in a hurry. Sadly even in the New Mirrorless Era, Canon doesn't provide a way of flipping between multiple sets of exposure settings so when I switch to the 100-400 I have to remember to crank the ISO up three clicks.
What would be really, really nice would be a straight 400mm f/4. No need for fancy diffractive optics. Tamron did one back in the Adaptall days which with that era's ironwork construction still only weighed 300g ( 15% ) more than the space-technology DO I.
Opinions are all over the place on this one. I have the 400 f4 DO v1 and love it. Sure, contrast is slightly lower than the v2, but that is easily adjusted in post, if it is even needed. It is light and sharp. You might be able to pixel peep it to death, but in real world, it's a great lens and my prints are nice as well. Here are some of my pics:
I also failed to mention I have early onset arthritis pretty bad so I don't have the hand strength to hold anything over about 4 pounds, and that's pushing it some days... hence another reason why I'm looking at the 400's.
jwolfe wrote:
I also failed to mention I have early onset arthritis pretty bad so I don't have the hand strength to hold anything over about 4 pounds, and that's pushing it some days... hence another reason why I'm looking at the 400's.
You might want to handle a 100-400 v2, if you haven't already. It's a bit heavier than the v1.
I carried a relatively lightweight 300/2.8 tamron 60B (4.5 lbs?) around a lot a couple years ago and got sick of it. I think I'd be OK with the 100-400 v2 after handling one a little, but I'd recommend trying one if you haven't. The inexpensive sigma 150-600 is less than a pound heavier, IIRC
KEH had a v2 for under $1400, I think, if you go that route. V1 is well under $1K
luminaire wrote:
What's with posting all the DO II photos? Yes your photos are lovely but clutter-up an interesting question. Take them to a gallery thread. The OP asked about DO I versus 100-400 II.
Because it was mentioned by someone else and you never know. Others thinking about one or the other may be reading.
jwolfe wrote:
I also failed to mention I have early onset arthritis pretty bad so I don't have the hand strength to hold anything over about 4 pounds, and that's pushing it some days... hence another reason why I'm looking at the 400's.
There is a significant difference between the two if age and or things like arthritis are a factor. Shooting time is a big factor as you can tire out more quickly. The younglings aren't effected by this
I use the 400 5.6 on a 7d2. I've tried the 100-400 vii on the same body and didn't find it any better except for the flexibility of the zoom, and it felt a lot heavier. The 400 5.6 does fine with the 1.4x vii, although I only get center point AF on the 7dii.
p.2 #10 · Canon 400mm DO I vs 100-400 II for birds
OregonSun wrote:
I use the 400 5.6 on a 7d2. I've tried the 100-400 vii on the same body and didn't find it any better except for the flexibility of the zoom, and it felt a lot heavier. The 400 5.6 does fine with the 1.4x vii, although I only get center point AF on the 7dii.
Heron
You only get the centre point (and 4 point expansion only) with the 100-400 II as well.
p.2 #11 · Canon 400mm DO I vs 100-400 II for birds
You can go wrong with the 100-400 II, sadly Mine is not sharp. It is great in all the other ways, though, but it is not a sharp lens. My 400 DO M2 just blows it right out of the water, as does my 400 f/5.6L(which is still quite a killer lens when you factor in the weight - and for BIFs you don't need IS).
p.2 #12 · Canon 400mm DO I vs 100-400 II for birds
If f/5.6 is suitable for your photography then without a doubt get the 100-400II. It works well with the TC, it has zoom as an added benefit, it has close up pseudo macro ability. BUT if you need f/4, you need f/4 and then I'd go for the 400DO. I never owned the 400DO (only the Mk II) and it has the reputation of low contrast and always gets mixed review but if f/4 is important I'd go for it anyways.
My copy of the 100-400II was sharp as tack...sharp with the 1.4...resulted in photos I couldn't tell the difference between my 300/2.8II or 600/4II or 200-400 or 400DOII etc....it is a prime optic.
p.2 #13 · Canon 400mm DO I vs 100-400 II for birds
I have never used a 400 DO, but I do own and love the 100-400L II. It is very sharp naked; admittedly I haven't used it much with a TC to be able to comment on performance in that regard. I find it very lightweight, but then again my main wildlife lens is 10-lbs so of course 3.5 lbs seems light! It also focuses quite close, making it a great all-in-one option when I don't feel like taking the supertele and macro lens with me. Put it in a backpack and you can hike all day. If image stabilization isn't needed, you may want to give the 400/5.6 a look. I just sold a nice copy for $575 to a friend. It is a great bang-for-the-buck lens.
p.2 #14 · Canon 400mm DO I vs 100-400 II for birds
I've had the DO and thought it was decent. Not great, but not as bad as many claim. I have since sold it, but if I were to go back in time I would save the $1000 difference and go with the 100-400II. The DO would be a better choice for me if it actually worked with the 2.0x extender. That was the basis of my decision. In wildlife, having a 2.0x is a big help. But Canon outright lied or at a minimum misled buyers about its compatibility, yes it fits and communicates with the lens, but it simply can't accurately focus with it. If I used contrast detection (LiveView), the lens and extender worked fine, but that's simply not practical. I've sent in various bodies, the lens, and extenders (plural, V2 and V3) and Canon said each time that it was working within spec, but it was clearly miss focusing.
The 100-400 II on the other hand seems to be faultless. Great IQ, great features (the 3 foot MFD should not be dismissed) and excellent focus speed make it a no brainer, at least in hindsight.
p.2 #17 · Canon 400mm DO I vs 100-400 II for birds
100-400 v.2 can be quite sharp, even with the 1.4x TC. Here's an example: 5DsR. 100% magnification crop. Handheld, 100-400mm lens with 1.4x TC at 400mm (560mm effective), sandhill crane in flight.
- Wide open mine displays noticeable vignetting, though I can compensate in post.
- With the TC on the 5DsR you lose a large number of the AF points and you pretty much need your target in the center of the frame.
For pure 400mm photography I might consider a 400mm prime. But if you have reason to shoot at other focal lengths, you don't give up much in image quality terms to get versatility from the 100-400.
