Canon's 400 DO f4...owner's thread!!!

[George]

As the title said, we've been having a chat about this lens among others on another thread, and to avoid hi jacking it I said I'd start a new one.

We are particularly interested in comments from owners and those who have real hands on experience of this lens, we know the rumours well.....lack of contrast, not as sharp as some alternatives, price, but is it a good buy?

Personally I really like this lens, got an excellent 2010 copy second hand, and although I find the contrast slightly down from say the 300 2.8, this is easily sorted in photoshop.

It is very nearly as sharp as the 300mm, which has to be one of Canon's sharpest, and handles the 1.4 converter very well.

For me it's a great carry about lens, actually lighter than the 300 2.8 mk1, and although it's expensive new, second hand at about £2900-3500 it's good value IMO.

Any other comments?

George.

 

[fracster]

Lee O`Dwyer uses one a lot, with pretty good results.


http://www.wildgallery.co.uk/

 

[kev_blizard]

George why not consider the 400 f2.8.is mk1 yes its a bit heavy but you soon get used to it , hand hold mine at airshows but use it with a tripod and 2x for birding makes a great combo and can be found if you streach your budget a bit

 

[Tugster]

MK2 George, you know it makes sense !

Some of those shots on Mr O'Dwyers site are quite remarkable.

 

[fracster]

Lee takes some very good photos, damned nice fella as well.

 

[George]

Kev, the 400 2.8 is a great lens but HUGELY heavy, at my age it's just too much!!..the mk 2 is a much better weight, and must be lovely, Tug, but also VERY expensive!!

I just feel that the DO is, particularly second hand, bang for buck, an excellent all round lens and I'm looking for a good reason as to why it's not more popular.

Lee's shots are great, I must admit....

 

[Tugster]

I looked at the DO F/4 version but there was quite a bit of negativity towards it but looking at Lee's images there doesn't look like too much wrong with it.

 

[George]

I looked at the DO F/4 version but there was quite a bit of negativity towards it but looking at Lee's images there doesn't look like too much wrong with it.

That's my point, Tug, for some reason it has this negativity, and I really think it's undeserved, mine's excellent and I'm wondering if I'm missing something!!...although I realise if I'm happy then that's all that matters!!

 

[Tugster]

Very true George, it's not what you use, it's the image you create with it.

 

[WilliamC]

My name is William and I'm a 400 DO-aholic

As I suggested to George, the 400 DO Owners Club is not going to be a big club! Whenever it gets a mention it always attracts the "why didn't you get a ..... instead?" comments but those of us who have them DID look at the alternatives but still bought a 400 DO. Why? Because, in my case anyway, it ticks boxes that the alternatives do not.

I'll cover those tick boxes a bit more later and post some pics. Breakfast first

 

[WilliamC]

When looking for more reach I had to absolutely consider weight. I have a dodgy shoulder which is a real limitation when it comes to occasional hand-holding and the 400mm f/4 DO comes in at just 1.9Kgs; I can also comfortably sling it over my shoulder for hours. With my shoulder issue I can't "get used" to more weight, I have to avoid stressing it.

The 300 2.8 II is 2.4kgs to start with. I already have 300mm covered with a very sharp 70-300L so I'd always have a TC attached to a 300 2.8 so one has to add the weight of that as well so it'd be pushing 2.7kgs, 800g more than the 400. The 400 2.8 I or II were just out of the picture completely.

The real question was, if I went for the 400 DO, would I be disappointed with the results? One of my first shots with it is below, before I had it calibrated to my 7D, and no, I'm not disappointed! I did not adjust the contrast on this one.

They're far from perfect though. It's an old version of IS and the AF is nowhere near as quick as my 70-300L. Occasionally the AF isn't 100% accurate and some shots do indeed have poor contrast. You also read about strange background effects and somewhere I've got a test shot which I did to deliberately generate some (I'll try and find it), some of them do look very odd but I had to go out of my way to generate them.

Overall though, for my needs, I love it!

 

[Lee O'D]

When looking for more reach I had to absolutely consider weight. I have a dodgy shoulder which is a real limitation when it comes to occasional hand-holding and the 400mm f/4 DO comes in at just 1.9Kgs; I can also comfortably sling it over my shoulder for hours. With my shoulder issue I can't "get used" to more weight, I have to avoid stressing it.

The 300 2.8 II is 2.4kgs to start with. I already have 300mm covered with a very sharp 70-300L so I'd always have a TC attached to a 300 2.8 so one has to add the weight of that as well so it'd be pushing 2.7kgs, 800g more than the 400. The 400 2.8 I or II were just out of the picture completely.

The real question was, if I went for the 400 DO, would I be disappointed with the results? One of my first shots with it is below, before I had it calibrated to my 7D, and no, I'm not disappointed! I did not adjust the contrast on this one.

They're far from perfect though. It's an old version of IS and the AF is nowhere near as quick as my 70-300L. Occasionally the AF isn't 100% accurate and some shots do indeed have poor contrast. You also read about strange background effects and somewhere I've got a test shot which I did to deliberately generate some (I'll try and find it), some of them do look very odd but I had to go out of my way to generate them.

Overall though, for my needs, I love it!

Hi Chris, if you have problems with AF on the 400DO, I would suggest getting it looked at. I also use the 70-300L but I'd say the AF on the 400 is quicker and certainly accurate. I had the AF motor replaced about 3 years ago because I felt it had slowed a bit, but now it's plenty quick enough. I'm told it can produce some odd background effects, but I cant say I've noticed any myself on the stuff I use it for. I've used this lens for several years and had no problems with contrast, AF speed or accuracy and it's as sharp as any lens I've used, including the 500mmm. If it was anything less than spot on, I wouldn't have kept it.
There is no other f4 lens that is as light to carry around and use hand held, even with a converter. It's certainly my all time favourite and I wont be parting with it any time soon!

Lee.

www.wildgallery.co.uk

 

[George]

Lee, how do you find it with extenders?...do you use 1.4 and 2x? What bodies are you using?

Thanks, George.

 

[WilliamC]

Hi Chris, if you have problems with AF on the 400DO, I would suggest getting it looked at.

I'm not sure who Chris is but my 400 was serviced by Canon 3 weeks ago so I don't think the AF motor needs replacing. I do find it slightly slower than the 70-300L though.

George, ref extenders, I use the 1.4x Kenko 300 Pro DGX and with the DO I don't find an issue with it at all. Below is a test shot I did with the 1.4x and my neighbour's brick wall 10.5 metres away. Again this is before I had the DO calibrated to my 7D, this isn't cropped. Btw, no contrast adjustment here either.

 

[Lee O'D]

I'm not sure who Chris is but my 400 was serviced by Canon 3 weeks ago so I don't think the AF motor needs replacing. I do find it slightly slower than the 70-300L though.

George, ref extenders, I use the 1.4x Kenko 300 Pro DGX and with the DO I don't find an issue with it at all. Below is a test shot I did with the 1.4x and my neighbour's brick wall 10.5 metres away. Again this is before I had the DO calibrated to my 7D, this isn't cropped. Btw, no contrast adjustment here either.

Sorry William, don't know where I got Chris from?

George, I use the canon 1.4x almost all the time with no noticeable loss in IQ, although it does slow the AF a bit. I tried the 2x but I was never 100% happy with the results. I've used it on 1D mk2 1Dmk3, 5Dmk2 and 5Dmk3

 

[George]

Thanks William and Lee...(and Chris if he's about!!!)...yes Lee, I find exactly that, I've been using the 1.4 mk3 very successfully, tried the 2x and it isn't really sharp if you go to pixel peeping, however if I stop down to f11 it does improve, but yes the af is slower.
As an aside, been using the mk3 2x with the 70-200 2.8 mk2 and the 1Dx and finding that really quite acceptable, with the 1.4 it's excellent.

Going to try the 2x and the DO on some static subjects and see how that works.

Well, we've established there are 3 of us with this lens, I wonder if any more will come out of the woodwork?...surely!!

George.

 

[WilliamC]

Well, we've established there are 3 of us with this lens, I wonder if any more will come out of the woodwork?...surely!!

Not only that, George, but 3 of us that actually love our DO's which legend would suggest just isn't possible! It may be 4 of us but Chris is being very quiet about his.

EDIT (later that day): I've just received my Don Zeck lens cap for the 400 DO and that appallingly impractical leather cover has been banished to the store cupboard. I really couldn't be bothered with that cover but the lens doesn't fit my bag with the hood in shooting position thereby exposing the FE if I don't use the cover. The solution has arrived, pics below. Marvellous bit of kit, you can use it with the hood on or reversed and fit/remove it with the hood either way. Perfick.

 

[WilliamC]

My goodness, the 400mm f/4 DO owners club is smaller than we thought!

 

[Laudrup]

Did any of you buy the 70-300 DO lens?

 

[George]

My goodness, the 400mm f/4 DO owners club is smaller than we thought!

Will, where did you get that?..could do with a couple, one for the 300 2.8 and one for the 400!!
Laudrup, I don't know anyone who has that, sorry.

William, do you really think there are only 3 of us with this lens?

The lens cap reminds me of a true story, one of my pals was on a quite expensive polar bear trip, on the first day he was asked by a lady why she couldn't see anything through the viewfinder......

He then removed the lens cap....for her...

 

[WilliamC]

Did any of you buy the 70-300 DO lens?

No sir, I have a 70-300L already. No need for the DO version. This is nothing to do with DO as concept but everything about having a hand- holdable 400 f/4

 

[WilliamC]

Will, where did you get that?..could do with a couple, one for the 300 2.8 and one for the 400!!

I got mine direct from Don Zeck, an expensive way of doing it at over £50 but it's protecting several thousand pounds worth of lens. IMO, not a bad deal. I believe (but please do check) that the 400mm DO cap and the 300 2.8 are the same one, if that helps.

http://www.donzecklenscap.com/

It took 14 days to arrive and yes, it is expensive. Brilliant though!

William, do you really think there are only 3 of us with this lens?

Nope, but we are the few who would admit to it. Maybe its a bit like owning a Betamax. We know it's great but nobody will EVER believe it, because they're not supposed to believe it

 

[WilliamC]

Here's another little test I did with my 400 DO to look at the myth that they don't perform well wide-open. Herewith a totally naff and uninteresting photo of my neighbours satellite dish taken at f/4, it's 24 metres away. Exif intact.

...and here it is absolutely cropped to death. You can read the serial number! I don't think that's half bad performance wide open to be honest!

 

[Lee O'D]

Couple of shots from this morning with the new 2x Mk3 extender attached, hand held. Much quicker focusing than the Mk2 version IMHO, and I reckon sharper too. Difficult to see properly when reduced so much for posting on here, but look quite good at full res.

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/gallery/data/3383/800mm_b.jpg

 

[George]

How much crop on that. Lee?
I'm using a 1.4 mk3 on mine quite a lot and getting good results, but I find the 2x af a wee bit slow.
What body are you using?
Gonna try for fun..I have absolutely no intention of buying a 200-560 f4-5.6 at in excess of £9000 even if it sells for that...the new zoom next Sat.
Seriously considering a 500 mk 2 for the extended reach, and selling my 300 2.8 mk 1.

Good to see some shots with the DO, however.

 

[Lee O'D]

How much crop on that. Lee?
I'm using a 1.4 mk3 on mine quite a lot and getting good results, but I find the 2x af a wee bit slow.
What body are you using?
Gonna try for fun..I have absolutely no intention of buying a 200-560 f4-5.6 at in excess of £9000 even if it sells for that...the new zoom next Sat.
Seriously considering a 500 mk 2 for the extended reach, and selling my 300 2.8 mk 1.

Good to see some shots with the DO, however.

Hi George, about 50% crop. I'm using a 5D mk3 body. Focusing is definitely slower than the 1.4x but I never managed a flight shot with the MK2 2x.

 

[WilliamC]

I thought it was time to wake up this thread a bit so here's a shot I got with the 400 DO plus Kenko 300 DGX Pro 1.4x TC. The subject was 275km above me and has people living in it Quite a result I thought and defeats more 400 DO myths that it doesn't take TCs well! This was originally posted in a thread about the ISS in August but I thought I'd put it in here as another example of the 400 DO's capability, especially with a TC.

 

[fatmarley]

I thought it was time to wake up this thread a bit so here's a shot I got with the 400 DO plus Kenko 300 DGX Pro 1.4x TC. The subject was 275km above me and has people living in it Quite a result I thought and defeats more 400 DO myths that it doesn't take TCs well! This was originally posted in a thread about the ISS in August but I thought I'd put it in here as another example of the 400 DO's capability, especially with a TC.

What is it? Looks like something out of star wars.

 

[WilliamC]

ISS

 

[George]

....I can even see one of the crew waving at you, William!!...bet he has a DO at home!!

They still seem sticky to sell on flea bay, well we three (and Chris) will go on enjoying ours anyway!!

What body were you using, William?

Oops, just seen you have a 7D, was that the one?

 

[WilliamC]

bet he has a DO at home!!

Of course he has, astronauts are highly intelligent!

They still seem sticky to sell on flea bay, well we three (and Chris) will go on enjoying ours anyway!!

Anyone heard from Chris about his?

What body were you using, William?
Oops, just seen you have a 7D, was that the one?

It was indeed the 7D with, in case I forgot to mention it, an EF 400mm f/4 DO on the front. Just like the one Chris has.

 

[pete.rush]

That's my point, Tug, for some reason it has this negativity, and I really think it's undeserved, mine's excellent and I'm wondering if I'm missing something!!...although I realise if I'm happy then that's all that matters!!

I accept the 400mm DO can produce decent images, having used a friends and seen him achieve good results but also struggle with this lens. The subject and conditions are important as this can highlight some of the lenses flaws, it's not so good with action photography (Motorsport / Aviation). Lee has taken some cracking images, but under some decent light conditions. Under less than perfect light this lens can struggle, this can be improved with the right camera settings, but would I rather have the 400mm DO or my 300mm f2.8, sorry there's no competition, especially when you add price to the equation.

 

[WilliamC]

.............. subject and conditions are important as this can highlight some of the lenses flaws, it's not so good with action photography (Motorsport / Aviation)..... Under less than perfect light this lens can struggle,.........

What specifically are you referring to with "some of the lenses flaws"? And why don't you think it's not so good for aviation? Mine will be at airfields a lot next year and I've yet to find anything about it that suggests it will cause probs (aviation is one of my passions, so I'm interested!). TIA.

 

[pete.rush]

Not flaws maybe, more quirks of the lens. From what I've seen, the lens suffers from slightly soft images in less than perfect light wide open for fast moving subjects (for example lowfly aviation, airshows and Motorsport). This has been evident from many images taken by a friend over a number of years. Not disputing that it can take a good image but you have to work with the camera settings to produce its best results which is why I'm not overly impressed for such an expensive lens.