First...I am pretty impressed by the 400 f/5.6. If you go back to the previous post it's 1,390/1,160/990 (Center/Weighted Avg/Corner Avg) is beating the 100-400 II's scores of 1,380/1,020/760.
Second...if I only had ~$4k more, that 400 DO II looks amazing. But, I'd probably shoot it at 560 mm with the 1.4xTC. I will saw, using the Sigma 150-600S last week, I was impressed how often I used the push-pull feature as the birds moved. There are benefits to a zoom when shooting wildlife.
Very impressive.
The one thing you need to take in to consideration for a wildlife lens, and that is the 4 stops of IS. The 400 F/5.6 has none. Those 4 stops are huge on this long lens.
With my new 500mm II I have to say the two biggest improvements that have helped IQ are the additional 2 stops of IS and weight. The resolution is a bit better than version I, but resolution alone it wouldn't have been a worthy upgrade. I think the 4 stops of IS on this 400mm DO II is huge.
This 400mm with 4 stops of IS paired with a 7D II looks like an excellent compact telephoto option for wildlife.
My 500mm I is still for sale, at a local camera store on consignment. As soon as it goes I need to replace my 300mm that sold not long ago. I still need to decide on a replacement if any. I like the idea of this lens, but it may just be to much duplication to have the 400 and 500mm.
Last edited by HDNitehawk; 01-28-2015 at 06:10 PM.
Rick....I would think the biggest difference between the 400DO II and 500 f/4 II would be size and weight. The 400 DO II could fit in just about any camera backpack and would be great for hikes or travel. Pair it with the 7D II, and you would have the equivalent framing of a 896 mm f/5.6 lens.
Depending on how important that is for you, it may be worth having both lenses in your kit.
For me carrying the 300mm is similar to carrying the 70-200mm II. The 400mm being a bit shorter and lighter than the 300mm is very appealing.
Like the earlier thread about "crop factor", to me the equivalent framing might be about 20% or 480mm.
Most likely I will end up with a 300mm f/2.8 II, then the 800mm II if and when it comes out.
That makes sense. To me, the difference in the two lenses gets down to if you prefer 300 f/2.8 or 800 f/8. The other two focal lengths (400-420 f/4 and 560-600 f/5.6) essentially overlap. I suspect, and the lensrentals data supports, that the 400 f/4 is optically a bit better at 400 vs 420 for the 300 f/2.8 + 1.4TC. I also suspect the same will be true at 560 mm / 600 mm in that the 400 DO II + 1.4 TC will be slightly optically better than the 300 f/2.8 II + 2xTC. Finally, I wonder about AF speed with the teleconverters. In the end, 300 f/2.8 is going to be a heckuva argument for most buyers.
Plus, it will depend on how it fits into your kit.
Agreed. For me, since I already have 840mm f/5.6, 300mm f/2.8 is more appealing.Originally Posted by Kayaker72
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote