Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO Lens

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

  1. Jim Yuan

    Jim Yuan Guest


    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 Yuan, Jul 11, 2003
    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
    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

    Bill Hilton, Jul 11, 2003
    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.