So I am in the market for a lens to provide me with more reach than what my 100-400mm ii with a 1.4x iii extender on my 7d ii can provide that will also give me the same, if not better image quality, at the same time. I've taken a hard look at all of Canon's super telephoto lenses and the two I've narrowed down to are the 400mm II DO and the 500mm F/4 II. From what I've seen of reviews, the 500mm ii is a lens that you can't go wrong with, however, it like most super telephoto lenses is large, heavy and requires a equally heavy tripod, or gimbal for prolonged use. I've also seen a lot of feedback that this lens handles either a 1.4x or 2x teleconverter with little to no loss in quality. In contrast, I've read up that the 400mm II is nearly half the weight and size and has virtually the same iq and takes a 1.4 or a 2x teleconverter with similar iq results.
As of right now, I'm leaning toward the 40mm DO II, but wanted to get some feedback from DP members who have used it before with extenders and preferably have also used the 500mm ii as well. Are there any significant differences in iq/ use beyond the 100mm of focal length and the size/ weight of the two that would make one more use full than another. Also, in particular with the 400mm DO II, I'd mostly be planning to use it with a 2x iii extender on my 7d II instead of with a 1.4x iii and I' wondering, do images taken with the 2x iii still have enough detail and sharpness to them to be printed at larger sizes- say up to 20x24?
Lastly, for anyone wondering what I intend to shoot/ use either given lens for, it would for all sorts of situations shooting wildlife with a particular emphasis on smaller birds.
The longer the focal length the better for smaller birds. I have a 600 and a 400 DO ii. I have found the 400 to be chosen only when I'm doing extended flight photography. I'm a 33 year old man and can handle the bigger lenses pretty well, so generally the longer the better. You might want to stretch your budget a bit and look for a 600ii on the B/S board. There are at least three on there now. I had one that I conservatively called 8+ condition that I ended up selling locally for $6000 after sitting at a higher price on the B/S forum for nearly six weeks.
I've found the image quality to be good at 800 with the 400 DO and 2X TC, but I wouldn't call it amazing.
I haven't personally used the 500ii but would probably go with that of the two lenses listed.
Another consideration you might like to think about is the Nikon D500 or D850 and the 500 PF (if you can ever find that lens) as the cost of one of those combos could be within the ballpark of the two previously listed lenses.
Have you looked at the EF 300 f/2.8L IS II with 2X Extender?
The lens takes the teleconverter extremely well (probably the best out of any of the super telephotos), and sharpness is still fantastic. It's also light and compact enough to handhold for prolonged periods of time.
I use this combination quite regularly and am very happy with the results. It, with the extender, still produces better image quality than my 100-400 II, and that lens is no slouch.
If you're satisfied with the 600 mm focal range as a maximum, it's a good option to consider. If want more reach than 600mm you'll need to continue looking at the 400 DO II and 500 f/4 II, which are both stellar lenses.
I use the 400DOII on the 7DII with both converters, and although i.m.o. a converter is always a compromise compared to a bare lens with longer focal length, I think both converters work really well with the 400DOII. I used a Pentax DA560 and Sigma 500/4.5 prior to Canon, and where I am not convinced with the Canon 400DOII with extenders, is at long distance shooting. If light is optimal, it works, but the combo can really struggle when light gets difficult. In full daylight with the sun high up, admittedly far from ideal light for bird photography, I may get glow, AF failings, and lack of a sharp plane of focus easier than with the Pentax or Sigma lenses. I am still experimenting with a screw drop-in filter holder with a B+W filter in, or no filter at all. In all cases, I have found it a noticeable improvement over the stock gelatine filter holder with fixed glass.
The great strength of the DOII is close and mid distance birding, it is very easy to handhold with great IS and great sharpness. Just don't plan to do a lot of far distance shooting with it. I don't think it is my copy, as I did not need any MFA bare or with extender. Perhaps others with the 400DOII can chime in.
I don't think I will ever sell the 400DOII, because I like to cycle and hike a lot, but in far future may get a 600mm lens for long distance shooting.
I replaced my EF500mm F4mk1 and 300mmf2.8L mk1 last year with the 400mm F4DOII and have been very happy with the results. The 400mm equaled the 300mm in sharpness and is slightly sharper than the 500 was. Not sure with the 500mm mkII. The 400mm handles extremely well and is so nice for handholding. Performance with the 7d2 and 1.4x is quite good AF is very snappy and it's still very sharp. AF suffers a bit with the 2x but I would say it would easily be as good (probably better) than the 100-400mm with a 1.4X. Lens AF really shines with the 1DX and 1DXmkII with the latter being the best. I don't think there would be any problem printing larger size with the 7D2 + 400mmDOmkII and the 2X. Make sure you have the latest 2X though. Check out this review of the 400mm http://arihazeghiphotography.com/blog/canon-400mm-f4-is-do-mark-ii-review-battle-of-the-light-lenses/
I’ve been looking into a similar but different decision. I want to upgrade my 300/2.8 IS from 2002. I also have the new version of the 100-400, and considered adding a 400/4 DO, 500/4, or 200-400/4 to my kit. The new lens will mostly be shot with my 5D4. I had looked briefly at the new version of the 300/2.8, but decided the improvements didn’t justify the expense for the newer version, especially since I always felt like the old lens never gave me quite enough reach. In short, I ordered a refurb 400 DO from Canon last week, and it is on its way to me now. Key factors I considered were the lighter weight and compact size of the DO lens, since a lot of my shooting is done after airline travel, and it is frequently done from cars. I expect to use teleconverters on the new lens at least half the time. On the old lens, I’d say I used the 2x teleconverter 75% of the time, and a 1.4x 15% of the time. I shoot a wide mix of nature subjects, but more mammals than it sounds like the OP does. In addition to the light weight, the lower cost of the DO lens vs the 500 or the 200-400 was a factor. Hopefully this will let me scratch my new white lens itch but save several thousand dollars! Things I’d suggest the OP may want to look at if he hasn’t include checking the IQ analysis done by Lensrentals.com, and to think about the minimum focus distance for the DO lens, and if that could make problems for him shooting small birds. The good news is that there are no bad choices in this area!
I have both and use them with a 7DMKII, 5DMKIV, and just got the EOS-R. I have to say more and more I reach for the 400 DO II for the luxury of weight and hand holding. I took a trip in the winter to Africa, but found I used the 400 DO II most of the time except where I really needed the reach of the 500 plus 1.4TC. This year birding for the spring migration I found most of the time I used the 400 DO II with and without the 1.4 TC.
I haven't owned the 500II but did own the 600II and still own the 400DOII. I had the Nikon 500E that is same weight as the 500II and the 600II performance with TCs should be essentially the same as the 500II. I did not use the 400DOII on my 7D2 as I'd sold the camera shortly before acquiring the lens.So I will give some of my thoughts on these two with those caveats in mind.
The 400DOII is certainly significantly lighter and smaller and easier to pack around and handhold. After handholding my 600II for a number of years, handholding my 500E was a nice break but you still get tired after a short while but of course everyone is different in how much weight they can tolerate. You can certainly hold the 400DOII up to your eye awaiting some action longer than the 500.
Both my 400DOII and 600II (500II should be similar) had very good IQ with the 2xTCIII. I use my 400DOII with the 2xTCIII on it probably 75% of the time these days as I'm using it on a 24MP FF sensor so need "reach".
However, with my 600II/2xTC on the 7D2 and my 400DOII/2xTC on the 5DSR (similar pixel density to 7D2) I was never overly happy with the results. This might have been because of trying to overreach and mostly using the 2xTC when the subjects were really just too far away and atmosphere interfered or might have been the high pixel density making technique critical or maybe because of the AF not being great at f/8 with the 7D2/5DSR. I do have some 7D2/600II/2x shots of much closer subjects that have great IQ. I also found on the 1DX/1DX2 that the better AF and lower pixel density resulted in much more success with the 2xTC on both those lenses.
If the weight of the 500II seems manageable to you then I would recommend going for the 500/1.4x over the 400/2x. The 600/1.4x did a lot better on my 7D2 than the 2x did. If 560mm seems enough with some use at 800mm then the 400DOII will certainly be a more comfortable lens to use.
I recently borrowed a friend's 7D2 and shot my 400DOII but only up to the 1.4TC. I may try and borrow again and try the 2xTC just to see if my experience is any different than a few years ago and the 5DSR. With the bare lens and 1.4 I got nice results but I'm still not a fan of 7D2 AF compared to other cameras I own now...but that is not really a consideration if you are already familiar with 7D2 AF and are happy with it.
I posted on your other thread on the other forum, but didn't realize you had a priority of small birds. That would heavily sway me towards the longer focal length. When I shot a 400mm f/4, I was able to get small birds shots, but it wasn't as easy as what I can get now with a 500mm. If that were my priority, I would probably go with a 600mm, but I also understand portability is important to you. IMO, I honestly see that you are going to have to make some serious trade-offs.
I have used both. I own the 500 II and I have borrowed the 400 DO II from Canon.
I shoot the 500 handheld the vast majority of the time. It can become cumbersome after carrying it all day and the 400 DO II will be easier to handhold and easier to swing for birds in flight.
IQ wise the 500 is better IMO with better micro contrast. This will be compounded if you are using teleconverters, ie the 500 + 1.4 compared to the 400 DO II + 2x.
The 400 DO II is one of the fastest focusing lenses I’ve ever used.
Lastly, I will say that the 500 II with a 100-400 II makes a created combo whereas if you go with the 400 DO I would say the only combo that makes sense is to pair it with a 600mm.
Of course if you have the $$$$ and think the weight of the 500II is manageable then the real answer is the 600 III which comes in basically the same weight as the 500II.
