Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: thoughts on 400 DO?

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4

    thoughts on 400 DO?



    I have a decent mid-level collection of lenses but am lacking a supertele for birding etc. My wife and I love to hand carry and prefer smaller/lighter lenses in general. The DO seems like it could be a great fit. Thoughts?


    How does it pack into a crowded backpack-type bag? Looking for comparisons to the 70-200 lenses, and 24-70 with which I am familiar.


    Lastly, I prefer to shoot jpg (lazy about post) and have heard this lens wants tweaks in post (not in camera). Thoughts?


    - Isaac

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    269

    Re: thoughts on 400 DO?



    from what iv seen it looks small and especially for a telephoto like others canon makes. Its a constant nice f/ 4 but it does not need to be as bulky as the 2.8 yet is good for birding for sure

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,956

    Re: thoughts on 400 DO?



    The 400mm DO will give more reach than any other lens under 4.3 pounds and 9 inches. If money is not a problem, then go for it.





    I suggest reading Bryan's review if you haven't already:


    http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-400mm-f-4.0-DO-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx


    Compared to the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS, It's about an inch longer and 1.5 pounds heavier.


    The primary alternative for under 4.3 pounds is the 400mm f/5.6. It lacks the f/4 maximum aperture, so it cannot take as many teleconverters (if any, depending on your body and whether you prefer to use autofocus or not). With TC, you can convert the 1-stop aperture advantage of the 400mm f/4 DO into more detail on your subject. (Not to mention the fact that a TC fits in the bag pretty easily.) More importantly, the 400mm f/5.6 lacks I.S. It's a little sharper than the DO at f/5.6, but not nearly enough to make up for a teleconverter. It's one inch longer and 1.5 pounds lighter (2.8 vs 4.3).


    The 100-400 has I.S. and zoom, but isn't quite as sharp as the 400mm f/5.6, particularly with teleconverters, and the short end of the zoom would get used very little when birding.


    The 300mm f/4 with a 1.4X TC is another option, but I think the 100-400 would have the same image quality and focal length without a TC.


    I can't think of any other lenses that would provide similar quality in less than 4.3 pounds.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •