Canon 400 mm f:4 DO

[FrenchAmateur]

Hi from France.
My first post on this nice site.
Sorry to re-open an old debate, but I saw that some of you are using the Canon 400 f:4 DO.
I am travelling a lot, and I have the 'old" Canon 4,5 500 mm and the 100-400 mm, + the new Mark II bought recently to replace my two Eos 10D.
Do you think that the quality of the 400 mm is good enough as a substitue easy to carry to the 500 mm ? I am considering to replace my 500 by this 400, to save weight and space for my travels (I have both converters from Canon if necessary).
The 400 mm is considered in Europe as a lens of average quality compared to the 500 mm, and particularly with the new 500 mm f: 4 stabilized, and is hardly sold here. Some serious tests showed that its quality is inferior to the 100-400 at 400...
I need your opinion and experience.
Could you give me your advices and opinion on the base of your experience, considering that I am only making wildlife photography ?

Thanks in advance...

[daaaveman]

I've never used the lens but wanted to atleast say welcome to the forum.....and give your post a bump.

http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm#Zstd lists it as "good". Have a look.

[Belmondo]

Sorry to re-open an old debate, but I saw that some of you are using the Canon 400 f:4 DO.

I'm not really known for having a good memory, and I really only recall one person who has used this lens. I'll send him a PM in case he missed this thread and might have an opinion for you.

Welcome to the forum. We hope to hear more from you in the future.

[FrenchAmateur]

Thank you for your kind words.
I will pay a visit to this site regularly.

[daaaveman]

Here are some reviews over at FM:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=41&sort=7&thecat=2

[CyberDyneSystems]

I have not used this lens either.. but from what I have read and seen the lens is not quite of the same "super sharp" calibre of the other big primes...

The image quality overall is still wonderfull.. but the level of sharpness and contrast is not the same as your 500mm...

This is a compromise between size/weight and overall image quality. But .. how much of a compromise.. ? It is still a very good lens with above averadge image quality.. many swear by this lens.

I know this does not answer your question.. but I think what you need to figure out is how much "sharpness" are you willling to give up for the ease of portability.

[FrenchAmateur]

Thanks again.
The reports from users give mixed feelings...
To answer to cyberdyne, I am not ready to accept a quality inferior to the one I get with the 100-400 at 400mm, even if I can accept something not as good as my 500 mm.

[ssim]

I have the 400 DO IS lens and find it to have great quality. I haven't had the opportunity to use the 500 so it is not possible to draw any sort of comparison. I can only compare against my 100-400 and it is much sharper than that, IMO.

Here are a few examples.

The 400 on it's own. This was taken on a tripod
http://www.pbase.com/image/30391583.jpg

This one was with the 1.4 tc using a monopod
http://www.pbase.com/image/30187318.jpg

Now I know the subject matter in this is butt ugly (sorry bud, coldn't resist) but it was handheld.
http://www.pbase.com/image/29800172.jpg

All in all I find the lens to be more than acceptable.

[FrenchAmateur]

Thank you for your very efficient answer and the images attached !
I very much appreciate it.

[dtrayers]

Here's a Michael Reichmann opinion:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/400-do.shtml