Picked one of these up awhile ago, haven’t shot it much. It seems to hit a pretty nice price/performance point. Plus it’s’ only 1300g, whereas the FDn400/2.8 is almost 6kgs.
Did the 400/4DO kill it? It seems like there would still be a place for it, especially based on price.
Technically one could argue it was replaced with the EF 400/5.6. Canon wasn't so interested in the slower 400mm lenses once they had the 400/2.8 series. The EF 400/2.8 II (not to be confused with the IS II) was exceptional for the era.
anselwannab wrote:
Picked one of these up awhile ago, haven’t shot it much. It seems to hit a pretty nice price/performance point. Plus it’s’ only 1300g, whereas the FDn400/2.8 is almost 6kgs.
Did the 400/4DO kill it? It seems like there would still be a place for it, especially based on price.
The Canon 400/5.6 EF L lens was a good performer but not the fastest. In good daylight it was a very much liked lens by wildlife photographers. It competed at the time with the heavier and bulkier Canon 100-400/4.5-5.6 EF L Version I lens. I own the latter - heavier but more flexible in FL. I often used this one with 1.4x II teleconverter, too. Got great moon, star and comet photos with this setup.
The 400/5.6 was never so great, but relatively cheaply. It had no fluorite elements, focus distance was long and it was bulky. The AF was at least decently fast for the times. The 100-400 IS (1st version of which I have 3 copies) was of variable quality, but never very good at larger apertures and 400mm. The 100-400 IS II replaced all those in practice.
