Canon 400 DO or f2.8

Big Andy

Big Andy

Messages
3,652
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
Yes
It's a wet grey miserable Saturday morning:( so I'm killing time dreaming about a future lens before going to work. For nature/bird photography which lens would you choose and why? Would you go for the glass in a 400 DO lens or the extra stop of the 400 2.8? I can only dream for now but who knows in the future, say after to nights six numbers.:D
 
I would choose the DO. At 5.37 KG the 400/2.8 is way to heavy for me. Mind you if I won the lottery and could afford a porter to carry it for me I would not mind the 400/2.8 :bonk:
Having said that I would prefer the 800/5.6 to the 400/2.8 anyway.
 
Last edited:
Some people dont like the oof bacground of the DO lens, looks like an old mirror lens in that they are full of doughnut shaped bokeh, which is probably why Canon have both in the line-up.
I'd probably go for the DO, again for the weight advantage, but from what I have seen on e-bay 2nd hand value is quite low, whereas the 2.8 will hold its value.
Matt
 
MatBin said:
Some people dont like the oof bacground of the DO lens, looks like an old mirror lens in that they are full of doughnut shaped bokeh, which is probably why Canon have both in the line-up.
Click to expand...

It's more like the inside of an onion with concentric rings showing in certain situations, not comparable with mirror lenses as it's far more noticeable on those (and they're a heck of a lot cheaper and slower). In most situations when I've used the 400 DO never found it to be a problem it's a little less contrasty than the 400 2.8 but ultimate portability is a good thing.

The reason the 400 DO is in the line-up is to have a portable 400mm lens but now the new 400 f/2.8 II is lighter (I've felt the weight and it's not bad) it's also a contender (I assume you have 11K to spend :gag:)
 
Last edited:
daugirdas said:
Did you consider 300mm f/2.8L IS or 500mm f/4L IS?
Click to expand...
Yep, I reckon those two should also be in the mix. I was faced with the 'problem' of choosing a long lens last year. After trying a 500/4 I went for the 300/2.8 for no other reason than the bulk/weight. For my style of shooting which is walking for several hours and getting my shots as and when they crop up the 300/2.8 (+ tc) is right on my limit (I am a weakling OAP :bonk: ). I would also add that the 300/2.8 + 2x tc has exceeded all my expectations and it makes for a relatively lightweight 600/5.6. I still reckon if weight and cost is no object then the 800/5.6 is top of the pile for bird photography.
 
Last edited:
I was thinking about this recently and would be inclined to go for the 500 f4. That extra 100mm will be significant and it's the same price as the 400 f4 DO.
 
Roy C said:
Yep, I reckon those two should also be in the mix. I was faced with the 'problem' of choosing a long lens last year. After trying a 500/4 I went for the 300/2.8 for no other reason than the bulk/weight. For my style of shooting which is walking for several hours and getting my shots as and when they crop up the 300/2.8 (+ tc) is right on my limit (I am a weakling OAP :bonk: ). I would also add that the 300/2.8 + 2x tc has exceeded all my expectations and it makes for a relatively lightweight 600/5.6. I still reckon if weight and cost is no object then the 800/5.6 is top of the pile for bird photography.
Click to expand...

I agree. 400 DO is very seductive (and tempting used because it's not that popular, ie cheaper) but when you look at what you get from a 300L 2.8 and a couple of extenders - in a relatively handy and affordable package that holds its value - then I think it's game, set and match.

The new 300 MkII and upgraded extenders can only cement its position.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top