Why does the 400mm f/4 DO get ignored?

[WilliamC]

In the New Year I will be in a position to spend some serious dosh on gaining some extra reach for shots of aircraft & wildlife so I've been looking at the options. Bare in mind I already have a 70-300L which I adore and is scarily sharp, it's a brillliant 'everyday' lens. New or used doesn't matter.

The 300's (f4 and 2.8) don't gain me anything without TCs, the 2.8 will cost loads and is well heavy (which puts me off big time). The 400 5.6 doesn't have IS which is important to this shaky old git and the 400 f2.8 would simply never leave the house without a sack barrow, same for 500 f4. There's the Sigma pair 50-500 or 150-500. These are tempting but I worry about the alleged variability between copies but they're a serious possibility.

So I threw the 400mm f/4 IS DO into the mix. There are used recent ones around occasionally for £3-3,500 which is within budget and fits the bill for IS, extra reach, option of a TC and is very light and compact for a 400mm. It ticks a lot of boxes, more so than the 300 f2.8, so .....

So why are they so rare? Is it just the cost? I know the pre-2008 models had issues but later ones have had some excellent reviews with the only consistent issue seeming to be a lack of contrast which even I can fix in PP. Does anyone on here have any real world experience of this lens? I'd love to hear opinions of it because I'm intrigued as to why they're like hen's teeth, even for rental.

FYI max budget is about £4k.

 

[AndrewA]

Have you considered the Sigma 500 f4.5 prime. Nice lens not too heavy for a big prime and mounted on a tripod lack of is isn't too much of an issue.
Andrew

 

[Canon Bob]

William,

It may be worth getting an opinion from Barry Boswell (also in Northants). He is a memmber on here but maybe an infrequent visitor. Several years ago he was using the 400/4 for the shots on his website http://www.britishbirdphotographs.com/ but may have swapped over to Nikon since then.

Bob

 

[artyman]

I recall someone in the Bird section using one a couple of years ago, got some excellent shots with it. Perhaps hiring one for a try out may help you decide.

 

[seriousrikk]

I had a quick go with the 400mm F4 a while back, very nice impressive lens.

Do a search for shots by Paul Beastall (grumpybadger on here). He's not active much these days but there are probably a load of shots from 2010 when he was using the 400mm F4 quite a lot.

 

[ozyboyross]

Just to throw another spanner in the works... What about the 200mm F2.0 with a 2x converter?

Which gives:

200mm F2
280mm F2.8 with a 1.4x
400mm f4.0 with a 2x

And I believe there is one in the classified at the mo for about 2k

 

[WilliamC]

Thanks for all the suggestions folks. I've followed up on all of them and also found an 8 page thread over on another forum. It does seem to be that the pre-2008 models weren't razor sharp and tainted it's reputation (corrected in later models) and that of course it is expensive. Some of Grumpybadger's sea eagles were just stunning in every way and on the other forum the overall impression was similar to mine, nobody quite understood why it gets ignored as much as it does (apart from price)!

In terms of the alternatives suggested - the Siggy 500 got kicked out due to weight/portability and the 200 f2, well, it would only ever have a 2x TC on it since I'm covered for shorter lengths so it would seem an odd solution (to me anyway). Thanks for the suggestions though.

With price being, for once, relatively immaterial I have yet to find a reason why NOT to consider a recent, used one of these when it ticks the boxes for reach, weight, size, IQ, IS and f4. It's just strange that it never ever gets a mention when on the face of it it is a fine lens!

I'll drop Barry Boswell a line and ask about his experience of it but his pictures seem fine to me. If anyone else has experience of them then please shout!

 

[HoppyUK]

400 DO is probably underrated but has never shaken off its less than stellar rep. And the fact remains that it's not quite as sharp as the other primes, which shows up with extenders.

Then on the other hand, the 300/2.8 is not much heavier (new Mk2 is basically the same) for similar money, and the extraordinary sharpness means it works well with 1.4x (420/4) and 2x (600/5.6) making it a more versatile package. Also improved AF performance with Mk2 plus Mk3 extenders.

If you're not familiar with these lenses first hand, I'd hire one first. They are unquestionably gorgeous, but quite a handful. And for your intended use, aviation, 100-400L seems to be the default choice - ticks a lot of boxes

 

[pete.rush]

I think people avoid it because of the diffractive optics. The advantages of the 400mm F4 DO is that it's lightweight for a 400mm lens although a friend has one and my impressions are I would prefer to have my 300mm f2.8 and teleconvertors than the 400mm DO

 

[SLRUser]

I think people avoid it because of the diffractive optics. The advantages of the 400mm F4 DO is that it's lightweight for a 400mm lens although a friend has one and my impressions are I would prefer to have my 300mm f2.8 and teleconvertors than the 400mm DO

Same here, I know someone who has got a 400mm DO and he wishes he had gone down the 300 2.8 IS + TC route instead (either 1.4x or 2x).

The 400mm DO is a nice size, weight and focal length and I even looked at it a while ago but it does suffer from a lack of contrast, that is not to say that it is a bad lens though.

 

[pete.rush]

The 400mm DO is a nice size, weight and focal length and I even looked at it a while ago but it does suffer from a lack of contrast, that is not to say that it is a bad lens though.

although that can be sorted out in post processing (contrast), but for me the 300mm every time

 

[WilliamC]

Thanks to Canon Bob's suggestion I've been invited over to Barry Boswell's to try out his DO so that should answer my question. He tells me that it would be 'splitting hairs' to differentiate between his DO and his 500 f4 in terms of sharpness and I really didn't expect to hear that. It should be an interesting visit and I'll report back.

Ref the 300 2.8, it isn't totally ruled out at this point. I'm going to try out the DO and then also have a play with the 300. The funds (inheritance) won't exist for a couple of months so I've got plenty of time to do the homework. The 100-400 didn't even get a look in, I've used one and really disliked it!

 

[Lee O'D]

I've been using this lens since I bought it new in 2007. It's as sharp as a 500 f4 and easily hand holdable even with a1.4x attached. I've taken thousands of images with it, most of which can be seen on my website: www.wildgallery.co.uk
Best lens there is for flight shots. I didn't bother with reviews, I just tried one out and bought it. I would not part with it, it's a superb lens.

 

[Ben6]

A thought ive been toying with is selling my 70-300L and buying a 70-200 2.8is mkii and 1.4 & 2x converters. Not a sharp as a prime i know but still a very practical option. Im still reading this with much interest as i'd like more reach too but love the sharpness of my 70-300L.

 

[Lee O'D]

A thought ive been toying with is selling my 70-300L and buying a 70-200 2.8is mkii and 1.4 & 2x converters. Not a sharp as a prime i know but still a very practical option. Im still reading this with much interest as i'd like more reach too but love the sharpness of my 70-300L.

I have the 70-300L and love it. I've heard that the Kenko pro 1.4x converter works really well with this lens, thinking of trying one.

 

[Ben6]

I have the 70-300L and love it. I've heard that the Kenko pro 1.4x converter works really well with this lens, thinking of trying one.

Yeah ive heard the same too and i'll most likely be buying one soon. They're £119 on digital rev, i might put a post in the wanted forum first as used ones seem to go for around £80. Got to be worth a try but still think a nice fast prime would be great.

 

[Adam_M]

It has a green ring! who wants that? everyone wants a red ring, right?

 

[Gaz J]

Yeah ive heard the same too and i'll most likely be buying one soon. They're £119 on digital rev, i might put a post in the wanted forum first as used ones seem to go for around £80. Got to be worth a try but still think a nice fast prime would be great.

Bit odd this. But apparently right.

The Canon 70-300 L is officially NOT compatible with Canon extenders. This is the only Canon L zoom lens with a widest focal length of 70mm or longer that is not compatible with Canon extenders (as of review time). The rear 70-300 L lens element physically hits the front element of the extender.
*
In a major firmware update announcement for the Canon EOS 1D X, Canon included the 70-300 L and Canon EF 1.4x III Extender combo on a compatibility list.
*
the 70-300 L's rear element retracts into the lens far enough that, at about 250mm, there is enough clearance for Canon extenders to mount.
*
The available with-1.4x focal length range is about 350-420mm and 500-600mm with the 2x installed. Zooming out wider than the 250mm-or-so zoom ring mark results in a physical bump inside the lens. the rubber around the edge of the extender element contacts the rear 70-300 L lens element or its barrel.

 

[Ben6]

Bit odd this. But apparently right.

The Canon 70-300 L is officially NOT compatible with Canon extenders. This is the only Canon L zoom lens with a widest focal length of 70mm or longer that is not compatible with Canon extenders (as of review time). I've tried mounting Canon extenders to the 70-300 L - and they do not fit. The rear 70-300 L lens element physically hits the front element of the extender.
*
Then, in a major firmware update announcement for the Canon EOS 1D X, Canon included the 70-300 L and Canon EF 1.4x III Extender combo on a compatibility list.
*
Intrigued, I did more experimenting. What I learned is that the 70-300 L's rear element retracts into the lens far enough that, at about 250mm, there is enough clearance for Canon extenders to mount.
*
The available with-1.4x focal length range is about 350-420mm and 500-600mm with the 2x installed. Zooming out wider than the 250mm-or-so zoom ring mark results in a physical bump inside the lens. I'm guessing that it is the rubber around the edge of the extender element contacts the rear 70-300 L lens element or its barrel. I do not recommend mounting this combination due to potential damage the to lens.

Thats very interesting didn't know that they would fit when zoomed to 250mm+ but from what ive heard the kenko converter mounts fine and as long as light is reasonable it is still above to af at apertures of 5.6 or greater on non 1D bodies.

 

[Lee O'D]

Bit odd this. But apparently right.

The Canon 70-300 L is officially NOT compatible with Canon extenders. This is the only Canon L zoom lens with a widest focal length of 70mm or longer that is not compatible with Canon extenders (as of review time). The rear 70-300 L lens element physically hits the front element of the extender.
*
In a major firmware update announcement for the Canon EOS 1D X, Canon included the 70-300 L and Canon EF 1.4x III Extender combo on a compatibility list.
*
the 70-300 L's rear element retracts into the lens far enough that, at about 250mm, there is enough clearance for Canon extenders to mount.
*
The available with-1.4x focal length range is about 350-420mm and 500-600mm with the 2x installed. Zooming out wider than the 250mm-or-so zoom ring mark results in a physical bump inside the lens. the rubber around the edge of the extender element contacts the rear 70-300 L lens element or its barrel.

I've just tried my Canon 1.4x mk2 teleconverter on the 70-300L and it works. AF works and IS works, but if you start to zoom back from 300mm, it fouls the lens element. I will give it a try outside in daylight when I get chance and report back. One odd thing is that it still reports f5.6 with the extender attached?

 

[Ben6]

I've just tried my Canon 1.4x mk2 teleconverter on the 70-300L and it works. AF works and IS works, but if you start to zoom back from 300mm, it fouls the lens element. I will give it a try outside in daylight when I get chance and report back. One odd thing is that it still reports f5.6 with the extender attached?

I'll be very interested to hear your results, i was certain on getting the kenko converter but i'd only ever be using it at the 300mm end and would think the canon optics would be better than the kenko converter so be great to hear what results you get with it with regard to IQ and loosing the f stop.

 

[WilliamC]

I have the 70-300L and love it. I've heard that the Kenko pro 1.4x converter works really well with this lens, thinking of trying one.

I have a Kenko Pro300 DGX 1.4x which I occasionally slap on my 70-300L. It does work in the right conditions, bright and high contrast light, although I never quite 100% trust it to keep focus using AI Servo for things like BIFs. For more static shots it's reliable enough and optically it is absolutely fine with very little loss of IQ. In anything less than bright contrasty light it stays in the bag though.

Lee, your shots with the 400 f4 DO are quite wonderful, thank you for pointing me at them. There are clearly no IQ issues with yours!

 

[Lee O'D]

I have a Kenko Pro300 DGX 1.4x which I occasionally slap on my 70-300L. It does work in the right conditions, bright and high contrast light, although I never quite 100% trust it to keep focus using AI Servo for things like BIFs. For more static shots it's reliable enough and optically it is absolutely fine with very little loss of IQ. In anything less than bright contrasty light it stays in the bag though.

Lee, your shots with the 400 f4 DO are quite wonderful, thank you for pointing me at them. There are clearly no IQ issues with yours!

Thanks William. I tried my canon 1.4x converter with the 70-300L lens today on my 5DMK3. It only works at the 300 end and although it seems to focus accurately, it does hesitate a bit. IQ looked fine on PC. It would be fine for something static, but as you say, I would not attempt to do anything moving. At least I know I've got a bit of extra reach should I need it.

 

[WilliamC]

Just a quick update to this thread for you. After now having tried out a 300mm 2.8 Mk1 and a 400mm DO but not a MkII 300mm I kind of made a decision. I just couldn't succesfully handhold the 300mm, too heavy for me, and on occasion I want to be able to do that. I wanted to stick to my budget which ruled out the admittedly lighter MkII and I went for a nice used 400 DO, it arrived 40 minutes ago.

It's light enough to handhold when needed, I get an extra 100mm and a stop of light over my 70-300L for less money than a MkII 300 which would only ever be used with a TC on it. I've only taken one shot with it so far, see below, SOOC just resized and converted to JPG. This is handheld in windy conditions (wow, that hood works like a sail in the wind!) and I've not yet done a proper test for MA etc. Quite pleased!

Thanks for all the ideas and recommendations, it's been very much appreciated. Have I made an expensive mistake? Only time will tell!