I've owned the 400 DO I for basically its entire life span. It was fine on the 1Ds and 1Ds2 but then it started to show its age and weakness. When the 100-400 II came out it was game over, and the DO had to go. No question the right decision.
I've had both versions of the 100-400. The first was OK, but you could tell it was a bit of a hit or miss lens. The V2 on the other hand is just much sharper, and it gets shots where the older version would just keep racking back and forth trying to focus.
One thing both lenses needed was lots of light. I shoot a lot of birds in flight with my 1DMKIV, and especially early in the morning it does tend to hunt a bit more.
My friend who shoots at many of the same places uses the 150-600, and has had very good luck with his, and I think he uses the 7D. You can view his photos here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/pw1961/
The 400mm/f5.6 was the first Canon lens I used where I thought: " I don't even have to sharpen this image". It also focused very fast..... for good reason.... its minimum focusing distance was 11.5 feet. The MFD for the 400/f4 DO II is almost 11 feet.
Compare them both to the 100-400mm v2 with a MFD of just over 3 feet.... about 8 feet closer, and you'll discover another reason the lens is so popular due to its versatility.
jeffdjohnston wrote:
The 400mm/f5.6 was the first Canon lens I used where I thought: " I don't even have to sharpen this image". It also focused very fast..... for good reason.... its minimum focusing distance was 11.5 feet. The MFD for the 400/f4 DO II is almost 11 feet.
Compare them both to the 100-400mm v2 with a MFD of just over 3 feet.... about 8 feet closer, and you'll discover another reason the lens is so popular due to its versatility.
True but when you are shooting around the 400DOII's MFD the magnification is better than the 100-400II because the 100-400 is already losing focal length due to focus breathing...you have to get pretty close to subjects to realize the magnification benefit. That does give the lens versatility for doing semi-macro flowers and insects but really doesn't benefit the majority of bird/wildlife photography as you can never get that close.
p.3 #11 · Canon 400mm DO I vs 100-400 II for birds
If my options were between the 400mm f5.6 or the 100-400mm and my main interest was owls, I'd lean toward the fixed 400mm if sharpness and focusing quickness were my main priorities.
If I believed I'd be shooting owls in lower light conditions regularly, I might swallow hard and buy the zoom because of its IS.
p.3 #12 · Canon 400mm DO I vs 100-400 II for birds
jwolfe wrote:
Or the other option is a Tamron 150-600 v1
I'd look at a Sigma 150-600C over the Tamron G1. It was always regarded as the better option.
If you value IS at whatever SS you tend to shoot then I wouldn't get the 400/5.6...but if you are shooting faster SS and usually stay at the long end of a zoom then the 400/5.6 has always been regarded as better BIF lens than the original 100-400. Also should be noted that although the 100-400 has IS it was the very first version and not anything like the modern ones. I think it only gives 2 stops (maybe 3?).
p.3 #13 · Canon 400mm DO I vs 100-400 II for birds
I have both the 400mm DO mk1 & the 100-400mm mk2,the DO needed an mfa on my 7Dmkii.The DO now works fine & is very sharp,I do a lot of woodland photography with birds & the DO gives me an extra stop of light to work with.It's a lens I would not carry about as it's too heavy.The 100-400mm mkii ,is sharper than the DO(not by much)It makes an excellent carry around lens & takes the 1.4 mkiii extender very well(with f8 centre spot focus)
p.3 #14 · Canon 400mm DO I vs 100-400 II for birds
any thoughts on the 400mm DO mk2 vs the 100-400mm mk2? I hearthe DO really upped its game but I've not seen any comparisons between the do 2 and the zooom 100*400 2
'
p.3 #16 · Canon 400mm DO I vs 100-400 II for birds
The only DO I have is the old 70-300 which is frankly appallingly bad, I guess the 400L DO would be in a different league
I do have the 100-400Lii
I put off buying for years because it was so expensive, now I have it I wish I’d bought it sooner. To me it’s flawless, maybe a tad heavy if handholding all day, but I still have the 70-300L which again is superb, but the 100-400Lii is just that little bit better.
I can’t envisage a time when I would ever sell it. Mine is a keeper. It’s amazing!!
p.3 #17 · Canon 400mm DO I vs 100-400 II for birds
I used the 100-400mk2 on the 5D4. It is a _very_ good lens indeed! And it works very well with the 1.4mk3 converter. When I found that out they were a glued together until it got too dark in late August evenings.
The 400DOmk2 has always surprised me with its image quality, on this site and elsewhere. Never seen one in real life. There are some good post processing going on at times which should be accounted for when judging the IQ of different lenses, include resolution too. The highest resolution bodies, both EF and now RF, are pretty good at showing any weaknesses in, well, every aspect actually; lens design, stabilizer, shooting skills.
My guess would be that the 100-400mk2 is marginally sharper than the 400DOmk2, but not by much. Could be within the variability of different lens specimens.
p.3 #18 · Canon 400mm DO I vs 100-400 II for birds
jwolfe wrote:
Let's throw one more wrinkle in and compare the 100-400 ii to the 400 5.6 L, zoom aside. I don't anticipate zoom being too big of a deal. The 400 5.6 is half the price of a 100-400 these days.
Not even on the same page
400/5.6 has poor MFD and no IS
I had the lens briefly, really sharp but the two caveats above made me return and buy the 100-400ii instead. Amazing lens.
