Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO Lens

Discussion in 'Canon' started by Jim Yuan, Jul 11, 2003.

  1. Jim Yuan

    Jim Yuan Guest

    Hello,

    I am considering purchasing a Canon 400mm f/4 DO lens to replace my Canon
    300mm f/2.8 lens. My Canon 600mm f/4 and 300mm f/2.8 combination has been
    working well for me in most cases. But since I can¹t bring my 600mm on long
    hiking trips, I¹d be happy to let the 400mm f/4 DO to help me to gain the
    additional 100mm focal length. However, I think my wonderful 300m f/2.8 may
    have spoiled me and I am very afraid that the 400mm f/4 DO will disappoint
    me in terms of the image quality, especially after reading somewhat
    conflicting reviews from different sources about this lens. I am very
    interested in hearing any firsthand comments regarding the image quality of
    the 400mm f/4 DO lens from lens owners to help me make up my mind. For
    example, how does it measure up against the image quality obtained from
    Canon 400m f/5.6 lens, etc.

    Any help would be greatly appreciated.

    Best Regards,

    --Jim
     
    Jim Yuan, Jul 11, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Jim Yuan

    columbotrek Guest

    Just add a 1.4x teleconverter to your 300 f/2.8. You get a 420mm f/4
    out of the deal.
     
    columbotrek, Jul 11, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Jim Yuan

    Bill Hilton Guest

    From: Jim Yuan
    I don't own the 400 f/4 DO IS but saw a couple of people using it in Alaska
    last fall and it was surprisingly small, thanks to the DO. The tests I've read
    say it's a very good lens, but the 300 f/2.8 L IS is a *great* lens, so if you
    have the IS version of the 300 I think I'd just use a 1.4x converter with the
    300, the image quality will still be very close to the 400, if not better.

    If you don't have the IS version of the 300 then it's a more interesting
    decision :)
    I have a chart with the Canon-supplied MTF graphs for these lenses (and several
    others). According to the graphs (which are theoretical, not based on actual
    measurements) the 400 f/5.6 is slightly better at the edges at widest aperture.
    Neither is as good as the 300 f/2.8 L IS (or 400 f/2.8 L or 500 f/4 L IS,
    which is the one I use). If you want I can email you a jpg of the chart
    showing all these lenses.

    Have you seen the reviews of the 400 DO by Fritz Poelking and by Michael
    Reichmann?

    Bill
     
    Bill Hilton, Jul 11, 2003
    #3
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.