Three Questions about 400mm f4 DO IS USM

[DCB]

I tried to search on this, but came up empty. I've not yet gotten the knack of searching for short words, like lens designations. Sorry. :)

Just a few questions about the EF 400mm /f4.0 DO IS USM.

1. Any idea why this is not an "L" lens? I would have expected it with the price. Canon claims that there's no loss of quality in the DO process. If that's true, why can't they make it an L, especially at that price?

2. Any hands-on quality comparisons between this and the 400mm f/2.8 IS USM? I like what I've seen with the 2.8, but it would have to be substantially better to justify the extra weight (I'll be shooting motorcycle track stuff, plus other stuff).

3. Any shots with the DO lens and the 1.4X II?

I'm this close to getting this lens. Please talk me out of it. I'll even consider paying you commission on the money I save. :)

[HKFEVER]

You can search this forum about this len. It is not that consistance in sharpness, and have some effect on the edge of some light condition.

[DCB]

You can search this forum about this len.

Like I said, I tried. It kept giving me a "too short" error. Guess I'll need some instruction on that. :)

It is not that consistance in sharpness, and have some effect on the edge of some light condition.

Any chance you can point me to some samples?

Thanks much.

[HKFEVER]

Check out these links

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-300mm-f-4.5-5.6-DO-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=218&sort=7&thecat=27

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

Unless you like the edges' effect, otherwise wait for next next generation.

[mdclaros]

hi
I have the 70-300 mm DO IS
II like it because is easy to carry around and it is not white. It is not an L you are right, but the quality of the pics is very high comparable to L lenses i would say, the re is some ghosting effect that you may say is like soft focus sometimes, but with good light the pictures are beautiful and tack sharp. It is fast and the IS function is the best. So far I am very happy with it.
Hope it helps.
Mdclaros

[trbo187]

Michael Reichman has a review of this lens here...http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/400-do.shtml

[CyberDyneSystems]

DCB,...
You are correct,. there is very little info on this forum regarding that particular lens.

It is not very popular in general,. and even less so here..

It's main problem is that it is simply overpriced. With all the other great lenses out there that will get you to 400mm at much more reasonable cost.. it is a very hard sell.

Still,. it is a viable option for some. For one thing it is about 1/3 the size and weight of the 400mm f/2.8.. so in that sense they are not comparible.

DO lenses are not L. It;s just a different thing Canon is doing. Yes it is certianly of the build quality of an L.. but lenses with DO elements don't get called L. Only Canon can answer why :)

As for talikng you out of it,

Personally I would never own this lens. For about the same price a ral super tele like the 500mm f/4L IS is within your grasp.

Or you could go with a 300mm f/2.8L IS.. (for less $$)frankly,. the 300mm with a 1.4X T-con is probably sharper than the 400mm DO.. (the 300mm is CERTAINLY MUCH sharper on it's own)...and weight isn't that much more.

If you really want t o save the $$ just grab a 400mm f5.6L

Hope this helps.

[scottbergerphoto]

If you really want t o save the $$ just grab a 400mm f5.6L

Hope this helps.
I agree! Focuses fast, light, hand holdable, great lens.
Scott

[Belmondo]

One of our Canadian members has 400mm DO lens, and has posted some really stunning photos with it. Hopefully we'll see this thread and chime in.

[Scottes]

DO lenses are not L. It;s just a different thing Canon is doing. Yes it is certianly of the build quality of an L.. but lenses with DO elements don't get called L. Only Canon can answer why :)

Doesn't the L mean that one of the elements is made flourite? And DO lenses apparently don't have a flourite element from what I can find on the Canon site, so thus DO aren't L.

Maybe?

[Jon]

Doesn't the L mean that one of the elements is made flourite? And DO lenses apparently don't have a flourite element from what I can find on the Canon site, so thus DO aren't L.

Maybe?
I don't think so. For instance, Canon says the 70-200 f/4 has a fluorite element while the 70-200 f/2.8 doesn't. And some non-L lenses have UD (28-135 IS for one). So all L means is "Luxury" or "bank Loan needed".

[CyberDyneSystems]

There are "L" lenses without flourite indeed.

Most of the wide angle L lenses use UD but not flourite.

[DCB]

Thanks for all the help, folks. I thought carefully about all the feedback and read the reviews I could find. Here's what I decided. I bought the 300 f/4.0 IS for $1,140. And here's the thinking behind it:

1) I already own the 1.4x II.

2) I can use that to get me to 400+ mm.

3) It's not a super fast lens, especially with the converter on it, but I think the IS will compensate sufficiently.

4) Even with the converter it weighs less then 400mm DO.

5) It'll probably be sharper than the DO.

Two other things I'll mention based on the research today, and these echo what others have said.

First, the 400 IS DO seems to be a very good lens now, while it was not when it came out. Apparently Canon has really tightened up the manufacturing.

Second, and now that they've fixed the lens so that basically a good one, the issue is price. A number of you said you'd buy the lens if it was priced at ca. $2,500, and tha't aobut where I landed. Even at that price, the only advantage is a faster lens vs. the 300 + 1.4.

Thanks again for the help.

[Tom W]

The 300 f/4 and the 1.4X teleconverter should work well together. Oddly, Canon's published MTF curves (source: Lens Works III) show an improvement on that lens when the 1.4X teleconverter is used. That isn't very sensible, and could be an error, but it is interesting.