400mm f/4 DO IS opinions?

So I finally sold my old Minolta 600mm f/6.3, I just wasn't using it like I used to and I kinda didn't want to sell it but I got into portraits for hire lately, have another coming soon right now.

But now that I sold it I thought I was gonna invest in a couple of primes or a 24-70mm. But a utterly mint 400mm f/4 DO came my way on FB market place and now I'm very tempted. I thought I was over not having a super telephoto lens, but I guess once a birder always a birder.:D Having IS and AF in a relatively reasonable size and weight package would be SOOOO nice compared to using a MF 600mm. Which I did with good affect.

The 400mm DO was always a lens that intrigued me and something I always thought would make a great replacement for my 600mm. Basically the very shortest and lightest modern replacement you can get. Discounting the Mark II of course. The other alternative was a 300mm f/2.8 IS, which is definitely an option. But I thought have the option of mounting a 2X extender for 800mm would be very cool.

This one alegendly has been out of the box three times since he bought it new in 2007! And it looks like it, all original box and accessories at a very reasonable price.

But I would love your guys thoughts and ideas, especially those that have owned it before.

And I'll be using it on my 1D III and 1Ds III just incase you'd like to know.

Never used V1. Everything I have read/seen on it was that it was very soft, poor bokeh. I'd avoid unless you have an insanely good deal.

I did rent V2. Amazing lens. In reading up about it, it seemed like V2 was much much better than V1.

That is the general consensus, not sure about the poor bokeh. Maybe someone has an example of such? I haven't looked at every review ever made with it or every image. But I have looked at several including Bryan's and he doesn't notice anything terrible about the bokeh. But that is just one review in one use case. Doesn't mean it can't be less than desirable.

Is it worth it, compared to getting the 100-400 f/5.6? I suppose having the ability to add a 2X extender is compelling (which of course you can't do with the 100-400). But the 100-400 is just so sharp and versatile, that giving up one f-stop might be worthwhile.

It's a good deal considering it's in as new condition. There is not a mark on the thing. Mint examples are in the 3k range. $2300 for a nice one and B&H has one for $1600 in number 6 condition. I negotiated him down to $2150 which I feel is very fair considering the condition and that is out of pocket cost compared to paying tax and shipping online. So not a bad deal. But a good deal is not everything.

I do appreciate the feedback and will take into consideration all your thoughts. Keep it coming!

I will say the 100-400mm is a great lens but it doesn't really interest me so much for my use.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fast Glass

That is the general consensus, not sure about the poor bokeh. Maybe someone has an example of such? I haven't looked at every review ever made with it or every image. But I have looked at several including Bryan's and he doesn't notice anything terrible about the bokeh. But that is just one review in one use case. Doesn't mean it can't be less than desirable.

---

My recollection from when I was considering the 400 DO V2. A few quick searches, and I do not see a specific test of the V1 (actually, hardly anything turns up on the v1), but you can see the bokeh issues the V2 has with onion ring (ish) bokeh both in Bryan's review and at Lenstip. My recollection was people attributed this to DO and that I read V1 users saying there was a similar/worse issue with V1. But, bokeh is subjective, perhaps you are fine with it. Easy way to test would be to scroll the flickr form on DO lenses and see what you think.

As for the V2, in terms of fun, it was very high on my list. Just easy to hop in and out of the car, track birds, travel etc.

EDIT. BTW, I do want to emphasize, the V2 was still very very good. I was happy with the majority of my images, but I did occasionally see an image with nervous bokeh. In terms of the points I was trying to make, IQ, contrast were the primary differences between V1 and V2. But the bokeh may not be as creamy as other big whites. But, $2150 isn't the same price as other big whites.

Ask the seller if you can have a field trial.

Version 2 was released in 2014. Since the original owner bought this in 2007, it must be v1. Be sure you seek out image quality results that apply to v1.

It is indeed the V.1.

Good to know, that was kinda the feedback I was looking for. The techie side is one thing, and I know the V.2 is a dramatic improvement over the old one. But it does give me some insight as to the overall ease of use for this lens. I realize I will be giving up IQ, but being relively light and compact for what it is makes me use it more. It doesn't replace a heavy weight if anything it compliments one.

As to IQ, I can live with the bare lens IQ. The extenders might shy me away a little, but I probably will be using the 1.4 the most often with 400mm coming in second and 800mm last. Although the 800mm end would still be important to me. And the price has dropped so much it's worthwhile to try it and if I don't like it I can sell it and not loose money. But I do like the idea of a field trial.

I'm trying not to be hell bent on getting it and be objectiveas possible and taking in all the feedback, but I remember when this thing was 7k. So seeing one in great condition for $2150 is definitely tempting.:)

It has been years since I debated this choice. I would arrive at the same decision.
Instead of the 400mm DO get the Version I of the 300mm f/2.8 L.
With the extenders on it will fair as well if not better than the DO.
Without the extenders it is still an excellent lens.
There are multiple copies around 2K on ebay.

So I just realized looking at the ISO crops that there are 1.4x and 2x extender results for the first sample of the lens, facepalm. It is interesting to see there was not as big a difference as I feared between the 300mm f/2.8 IS and 400mm f/4.0 as I thought. The results were mixed and I am still mulling through them, both lenses lost and won in the sharpness department. Contrast was also very very similar to both based on the charts. Of course real life probably will play out differently.

I am giving both lenses significant thought and definitely the 300mm is not ruled out and both are 50/50 right now in my mind, kinda depends on what focal length range I want at this point. 300mm at 420mm loses out slightly to the 400mm across the board except the vertical lines are slightly sharper in the corners on the 420mm results vs the 400mm bare has slightly better horizontal sharpness. Contrast is pretty much the same at comparable focal lengths. Surprisingly they were both nearly the same bare as well.

It is a similar situation with the 560mm vs 600mm comparison with the 400mm being very close to the 300mm. Center is better for the 400, mid frame looses a tiny bit, corners are mixed bag with the horizontal lines sharper on the 300mm and the vertical lines sharper on the 400mm.

Really this is not at all what I was expecting and the 400mm is very very good sharpness and contrast wise, definitely not what I have been hearing. Not to throw anyone under the bus. I'm actually quite happy about this.

So with that said, anyone that actually used this lens that might be able to comment on it's real world sharpness and contrast ect? Since at least in theory there is not that much difference.

Otherwise, I may have answered my own question. LOL, but it still helps to get others opinions.

Hi Fast Glass....

I'd be tempted too for $2,150.

You may have already seen these, but:

• Art Morris did a positive write up on V1. Good comments section.
• Ari Hazeghi's write up on the V2 model has a couple paragraphs of impressions on V1 and a comparison of V2 of the 400 DO vs 300 f/2.8.

Overall, in my mind at least, this would not be a discussion as to whether or not this is a good or bad lens. It is almost certainly a good lens. It is more a discussion of this lens in comparison to everything else that is out there (400 f/5.6, 300 f/2.8, 100-400 v2, etc), what best fits your needs, and then also making sure there is not an issue with this particular copy.

The Canon 300 f/2.8 was the first telephoto lens I bought. Fabulous image quality but I soon found that it never seemed to have enough focal length even for my backyard setup. Sure you can add teleconverters but I suspect (for birding) you would be happier with the 400mm DO which gives an extra 100mm of reach and I suspect is lighter and easier to handle.

I owned the version 1 and it is a great lens. Another way you might to think of this is that all of your suggestions with convertors are compromises to get length.
Where the 400mm DO is an ok 400mm it isn't one of the great 400mm.
Where in contrast the 300mm f/2.8 is one of the best 300mm that was made.

It is a compromise to get length indeed, but I'm heavily leaning for the 400mm simply because it is longer with it being lighter and shorter as a very nice bonus/strong point.

Having 800mm on the 1D III or 1Ds III cropped to the same amount of reach puts me at the 1000mm range. That is some seriously solid reach for such small light weight package! Mount a high resolution 1.6 crop body for more insane reach if I wanted to.

Technically I could stack extenders, but that probably be relegated to landscape or static subjects if I would even bother. But I would think the IQ would be terrible at that point. V.2 handles it very well though shockingly. But I would still try it for giggles at least once. Lol.