Since I got 500 II some 8-9 months ago, my 400 DO hasn\'t seen a camera once, and there are several very good reasons for that.
However, 400 DO is still much smaller and much lighter than 500 II, therefore, its raison d\'etre is still strong in my collection, and it will continue to get used, although probably not as frequently as before the 500 II came along.
I do think 400 DO is a good lens, and I enjoy using it, just that its design age shows, and so does the IQ compromise Canon ought to have \"designed\" into it, or rather, accepted it.
Since I got 500 II some 8-9 months ago, my 400 DO hasn\'t seen a camera once, and there are several very good reasons for that.
However, 400 DO is still much smaller and much lighter than 500 II, therefore, its raison d\'etre is still strong in my collection, and it will continue to get used, although probably not as frequently as before the 500 II came along.
I do think 400 DO is a good lens, and I enjoy using it, just that its design age shows, and so does the IQ compromise Canon ought to have \"designed\" into it, or rather, accepted it.
Since I got 500 II some 8-9 months ago, my 400 DO hasn\'t seen a camera once, and there are several very good reasons for that.
However, 400 DO is still much smaller and much lighter than 500 II, therefore, its raison d\'etre is still strong in my collection, and it will continue to get used, although probably not as frequently as before the 500 II came along.
I do think 400 DO is a good lens, and I enjoy using it, just that its design age shows, and so does the IQ compromise Canon ought to have \"designed\" into it, or rather, accepted it.
Feb 16, 2013 at 07:16 PM
Previous versions of PetKal's message #11353590 « 400 f2.8 vs 400mm DO f4 »
