In case anyone is trying to decide whether to replace a 100-400IS with a 400 DO IS. I recently got a used 400 DO (US date code) and compared it to my 100-400. My 100-400 has a UV datecode, is correctly calibrated (according to Canon), and I\'ve always been very happy with its sharpness, even wide open at 400mm.
Here are side-by-side comparisons of the 2 lenses. These are are quite casual comparisons (i.e., no MLU and no tripod), but give an approximate idea how the two lenses compare in real-world field conditions. The photos were all taken on a 1D2n, and the 400 DO is compared against the 100-400 wide-open (i.e., f/4 for the 400DO and f/5.6 for the 100-400), for both center and corner. I also compared the 100-400 at f/8 against the 400DO at f/5.6 for a corner comparison. The shots are 100% camera JPGs with no postprocessing.
As you can see, the 100-400 at 400mm is quite decent in the center, and compares well with the 400DO. When one considers the corners, the 400DO blows the 100-400 away, and it is remarkable that the 100-400 corner at f/8 doesn\'t catch up with the 400DO at f/4. The colors of the 400DO also seem a little more faithful.
I hope this is informative for any potential buyers. The 400DO is a really impressive performer, and at under 2 kg, it is the only supertelephoto prime one can hand-hold and walk around with (without a tripod or monopod) for a reasonable amount of time.
Dec 27, 2008 at 09:44 PM
Previous versions of mjmyap's message #6529832 « 400 DO IS vs. 100-400IS »
