Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO IS

[gary88]

I searched and searched, and didn't see a thread for this lens that nobody cares for apparently :p

Shot with a 1Ds Mark III, both photos at f/4

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v222/gheb88/3D6F0554w.jpg

http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/449/3d6f05552wem1.jpg

[S.Horton]

Date Modified 2009-02-22 21:20:01
Date Taken 2009-02-22 16:32:31
Camera Canon EOS-1D Mark III
Exposure Time 0.001s (1/1000)
Aperture f/4.0
ISO 100

http://midnightblue.smugmug.com/photos/478890878_DUQ7E-L.jpg

100%
http://midnightblue.smugmug.com/photos/478889818_Z9SLZ-L.jpg

[S.Horton]

Date Modified 2009-02-22 21:20:14
Date Taken 2009-02-22 16:32:52
Camera Canon EOS-1D Mark III
Exposure Time 0.0015s (1/640)
Aperture f/4.0
ISO 100

http://midnightblue.smugmug.com/photos/478892788_29kEu-L.jpg

100%
http://midnightblue.smugmug.com/photos/478891202_jEDXx-L.jpg

[S.Horton]

Date Modified 2009-02-22 21:21:18
Date Taken 2009-02-22 16:37:53
Camera Canon EOS-1D Mark III
Exposure Time 0.008s (1/125)
Aperture f/4.0
ISO 100
Focal Length 400mm (520mm in 35mm)

http://midnightblue.smugmug.com/photos/478896176_ov7Xo-L.jpg

100%
http://midnightblue.smugmug.com/photos/478895419_u3cqf-L.jpg

[S.Horton]

Date Modified 2009-02-22 21:20:58
Date Taken 2009-02-22 16:34:53
Camera Canon EOS-1D Mark III
Exposure Time 0.0012s (1/800)
Aperture f/4.0
ISO 100
Focal Length 400mm (520mm in 35mm)

http://midnightblue.smugmug.com/photos/478895279_zn629-L.jpg

100%
http://midnightblue.smugmug.com/photos/478894794_N4D3m-L.jpg

[S.Horton]

Date Modified 2009-02-22 21:20:29
Date Taken 2009-02-22 16:33:15
Camera Canon EOS-1D Mark III
Exposure Time 0.0012s (1/800)
Aperture f/4.0
ISO 100
Focal Length 400mm (520mm in 35mm)

http://midnightblue.smugmug.com/photos/478893659_X2hHp-L.jpg

100%
http://midnightblue.smugmug.com/photos/478892947_WaWQW-L.jpg

[S.Horton]

Date Modified 2009-02-22 21:24:33
Date Taken 2009-02-22 16:33:38
Camera Canon EOS-1D Mark III
Exposure Time 0.004s (1/250)
Aperture f/4.0
ISO 100
Focal Length 400mm (520mm in 35mm)

http://midnightblue.smugmug.com/photos/478894738_J89ZS-L.jpg

100%
http://midnightblue.smugmug.com/photos/478893999_txLN3-L.jpg

[S.Horton]

http://midnightblue.smugmug.com/photos/281745906_d2nds-L-1.jpg

[sheawyatt]

Here's ~100% crop showing the bokeh of the 400 DO.

This is the famous "doughnut" look in the extreme. I rarely see this impact.
[/IMG]

Doesn't look any worse than my 100-400mm or the 300 f/4

Have you noticed any of the low contrast issues that are often cited as a reason for not getting this lens (by jpeg shooters especially). I can see from your wide open crops that sharpness is definitely NOT an issue.

Do you have any wildlife samples, especially critters with hair or feathers, that you could post up as unprocessed 100% crops? I'd like to see how this lens resolves detail on those fine features.

[S.Horton]

Unprocessed wildlife, not on hand -- But, I promise, when I (finally) get moving through all of the Yellowstone pics, sure, I can post a couple just for this thread. (EDIT: See above, shot two wildlife tests, posted 22 Feb 09)

[sheawyatt]

I'll keep my eyes on this thread then. The light weight and native 400mm is what keeps me interested in this lens vs. the 300 2.8 with TC. The high price is hard to swallow though (but then so is the 300 2.8's price)

There were a bunch of shots by George Lepp in the latest Outdoor Photographer, using the 400 DO from a kayak for wildlife, and they all looked fantastic.

[Recon Photojournalist]

I don't really understand the bad reputation for the 400 DO:rolleyes:

[Minke]

You can see small fish leaping from the jaws of these bubble feeding humpback whales.

http://properaexplora.com//AmongTheGreatWhales/images/img_0995.jpg

Crop from a similar image:

http://properaexplora.com//AmongTheGreatWhales/images/img_1067.jpg

The above were taken with a 5D, the following, a 10D

http://properaexplora.com//Fleet_Week_Starred/images/img_3249.jpg

[mikeivan]

Just found this thread, will contribute a couple of ducks.

343356
Blue-winged Teal

343355
Cinnamon Teal

These were fairly distant, about 40% crops. 50D, 400DO w/1.4X, ISO 400, f/7.1, 1/640 sec, Partial metering +1/3 EC, handheld. I always shoot handheld and the 1.4X is always on this lens. Only had the 50D a couple months, love it with this lens. The entire rig weighs 7lbs and is 18" long.

[S.Horton]

With 1.4 TC, ~100% crop

Date Modified 2008-08-30 21:30:55
Date Taken 2008-06-17 18:39:42
Camera Canon EOS-1D Mark III
Exposure Time 0.0012s (1/800)
Aperture f/7.1
ISO 320
Focal Length 560mm (728mm in 35mm)


http://midnightblue.smugmug.com/photos/362563689_kakse-L.jpg

[BigBlueDodge]

I'm intrigued by the 400mm DO (it's small size and weight), and I've read quite a bit about it, the pro's and it's cons. One of the biggest complaints about it is the contrast (or lack of) that it produces, and I'm seeing that in the images above. I the pictures of the horse, the eagle, the dugs, the butterfly there is a bit of a haze appearance to them that matches samples I've seen on other forums with the same lens. While this is easily corrected in PP, I'm wondering if this is a product of the DO glass, or coatings on the lens.

[S.Horton]

@David - I think what you see is a design characteristic of the DO.

Here is a review by The Digital Picture with which I'd agree 99%
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-400mm-f-4.0-DO-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

[sheawyatt]

I just noticed that the original posts were updated with the new shots. Thanks Sam!! This lens is looking good, just as sharp as any other SOOC, and the bokeh and contrast look good too. Time to start saving my pennies.

[S.Horton]

You're welcome.

EDIT: For those who want to see the original size JPGs, here's the gallery:
http://midnightblue.smugmug.com/gallery/7429337_FLX3G#478891202_jEDXx

[dandig]

I seem to be developing a mild obsession with this lens. I have the 300f4 and its so good i see no need to get the 300 2.8 but i lust after one of the big whites and i'm very much about keeping things lightweight where you can. I wish more people had this lens so there were more examples in this section!

[sheawyatt]

I seem to be developing a mild obsession with this lens. I have the 300f4 and its so good i see no need to get the 300 2.8 but i lust after one of the big whites and i'm very much about keeping things lightweight where you can. I wish more people had this lens so there were more examples in this section!

You and me both. If I ever get a "big-white" it will be this one, simply because a) the 300 f/2.8 is far bigger and heavier than my f/4, and while it works brilliantly with a TC, if I need the reach I feel I should buy the focal length required and b) the 500 f/4 is TOO big and white. I shoot at all focal lengths all the time, so when I go out I tend to take all of my gear, and if I had a 500 f/4 I don't think that would be happening.

On the bright side, I sat down and worked out a budget that would let me purchase the DO by this time next year. Provided I can sell a few old things and no financial crises arise, it should be golden (unless that pesky 14L tempts me again).

[S.Horton]

LOL -- Not bitten by 'L' but by 'DO' --

Here's an entire gallery for you. Crops from 0 to >100% all mixed-in.

(EDIT: URL was wrong.) Here is one purely with the 400 DO
http://midnightblue.smugmug.com/gallery/7779532_q6wE9/1/503346393_PqQdY

This one is mixed, so stick to the first 3, 4 pages, that's the DO in slightly hazy, completely overcast conditions:
http://midnightblue.smugmug.com/gallery/7750293_pRMZY/1/501142113_ZFFvT

[sheawyatt]

LOL -- Not bitten by 'L' but by 'DO' --

Here's an entire gallery for you. Crops from 0 to >100% all mixed-in.

http://midnightblue.smugmug.com/gallery/7684824_iYvvc/1/496420333_R22a2

Are you sure that's the correct gallery? If the EXIF is correct, most of those shots seem to be between 100-400mm...

[S.Horton]

Ah! Thank you, wrong link in the cache for posting!

Corrected in the post above.

Sorry!

[mikeivan]

Spring migration is in full swing in Texas. I got closer than ever to these warblers, right down to 10'. For me, I just can't get these shots unless handheld, 400DO + 1.4.

354871
Male Hooded Warbler


354872
Female Hooded Warbler

[S.Horton]

See also:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=673179

[miketoll]

I got the 400 DO because it will take a 1.4 converter with a 40D and still auto focus. That and it is smaller and lighter than the 500. A couple of examples in good light both with the 1.4 converter on. Hand held but elbows resting on a shelf.

[JustChillin]

here are some test shots I took with the 400 f4 DO with Kenko 300 Pro 1.4x and 2x TC, compared to the well regarded Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS with no TC. The 400 f4 + 2x samples are lower contrast than the 70-200 naked, but actually seems to be sharper. With the Canon 1.4x TC I usually cannot see any visible image degration so it should give better results than the Kenko 1.4x that was used here. Unfortunately I sold the Canon 1.4x before this particular test

The test chart barely fits under the max image size allowed here so the labels at the top of the test are seperate images. if they do not line up on top of the test chart, the ones on the left are wide open, on the right is one stop down

[JustChillin]

This chart shows stopping down in 1/3 increments to show that whole stops are not needed for visible improvements when using TC's

again, if the label image doesnt line up with the chart, starting from the left the columns are: wide open, 1/3 stop down, 2/3 stop down, 1 stop down

[BeritOlam]

thanks man....must appreciated!! :D

[popeshawnpaul]

I am the biggest fan of this lens. There are variations in copies as some are sharp and others aren't. This seems common in some Canon lenses. Also, it can be difficult to pair with a 1.4x at times. Sometimes you need to get a few 1.4x converters until you find one that pairs sharp. I shoot everything in RAW so I don't notice the lack of contrast. It can be a benefit many times.

http://hunting-washington.com/cpg/albums/userpics/10250/ewe.jpg

http://hunting-washington.com/cpg/albums/userpics/10250/mommy_griz.jpg

http://hunting-washington.com/cpg/albums/userpics/10250/goat_final.jpg

http://hunting-washington.com/cpg/albums/userpics/10250/Ducky4.jpg

http://hunting-washington.com/cpg/albums/userpics/10250/mr_big.jpg

[S.Horton]

@pope welcome to POTN - excellent work!

Recent shot, w/1.4 TC, ~100% crop, handheld (by my wife)
http://midnightblue.smugmug.com/photos/614521228_HAizM-L.jpg

[stevenpj]

Been following this thread a while. I am one of the supporting photographer's for the Shuttleworth Collection in the UK.

I bought one of these lenses last year and am still getting to grips with the beast. For me the Jury is still out on using this with/without IS and a teleconvertor with moving objects with a 5D/5D MkII.

Its also very prone to being affected by wind when panning.

here's a selection

http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i272/stevenpj/_MG_5471.jpg

http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i272/stevenpj/_MG_5524.jpg

http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i272/stevenpj/_MG_5790.jpg

http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i272/stevenpj/_MG_5084.jpg

http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i272/stevenpj/_MG_5120.jpg

http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i272/stevenpj/_MG_5627.jpg

[S.Horton]

Welcome to POTN.

I'm generally not happy with performance w/TC with this lens. I can get some nasty CA/fringing. AF/IS seem acceptable. 2X TC is nearly useless, too (for me).

I think that it is fine in front light, flat light, and side light -- But anything I shoot which is lit from behind, I get that "DO haze"

I continue to think the DO is a trade-off between IQ and weight.

[stevenpj]

When I consider the cost of the DO 400 IS and compare it against that of the 300 F2.8 and the fact I already owned the 1.4 TC which is supposed to match/equal the 400's performance when the 300 & 1.4 are paired up, I do wonder especially about its worth as the 2 x gives an autofocus capable 600mm.

Given this was a one off purchase I think I ought to have given more detailed consideration.

As you say the difference in weight was the key. 4.3lbs (400 DO) vs 5.6 (300 IS) vs 11.8 (400 f2.8) is significant but current costs of £3800 (300) vs £5400 (400 DO) vs £6400 (400 f2.8) makes you wonder if the gain/pain is worth it!

Wt loss v IQ. Mmmmm!

[S.Horton]

I have 'informally' tested the 400 DO side-by-side with the 300 + 1.4 TC.

You're correct.

But, I won't be selling my DO soon!

More likely, I'll add the 600 f/4.

[popeshawnpaul]

I'm not going to say that the 300mm f2.8 + 1.4x isn't as good as the 400mm f4 DO. The problem is when you are hiking or handhold shooting this combo the DO is much better balanced and noticeably lighter than the 300mm f2.8 and 1.4x. People forget to add the extra weight of the teleconverter to the package when figuring out the weight difference. I've shot with both setups extensively and I can say the image quality isn't noticeably different with either lens combo. If you stay near the car or don't hike, the 400mm DO may not make sense to you when weighing the other factors. One point to remember is that the DO makes a really good 560mm f5.6 with the 1.4x and the 300mm f2.8 is not good with the 2x unless stopped down to f8 and then it's unusable because you are in such poor bright light to use it. If you hike and handhold shoot a lot then it's perfect. I do like the 300mm f2.8 and can post equally as good of photos with it. It's just they are different lenses for different purposes. Trying sitting on a cliff shooting goats like I am in the picture below and you'll thank that you don't have the extra weight and length of the 300mm f2.8 and the 1.4x...

http://hunting-washington.com/cpg/albums/userpics/10250/shawn-rock-email.jpg

Here are a bunch of tough backlit DO shots:
http://hunting-washington.com/cpg/albums/userpics/10250/spindle_4.jpg

http://hunting-washington.com/cpg/albums/userpics/10250/deep_fork.jpg

http://hunting-washington.com/cpg/albums/userpics/10250/grassy_buck.jpg

http://hunting-washington.com/cpg/albums/userpics/10250/spindle_2.jpg

http://hunting-washington.com/cpg/albums/userpics/10250/one_eye_2.jpg

http://hunting-washington.com/cpg/albums/userpics/10250/Cliff_Buck.jpg

[S.Horton]

Excellent work!

[stevenpj]

Very nice indeed.

[kevinmat]

Two contrasting pics from the 400mm DO

1. Florida Panther (captive, behind glass)
2. Sunset over the Gulf of Mexico from Honeymoon Island

[advaitin]

This is the lens JustChillin had. Now, when I walk out the door, I have hard choices to make as which 400 I take, or how much exercise I want--the 400 L f2.8 gives the workout but the f4 DO is easier to swing around.

Canon 50D, 400mm DO, ISO 250. Pelican 1/1250s @ f9.1, Ev -.33. Seagull 1/2000s @ f5.6, Ev -.67

The gull was a little farther away. After playing around with levels I darkened the overall image to make a satisfying print. On my monitor this appears the same as the print. Hope you folks like it, too.

[advaitin]

There was this issue of sharpness in the 400mm f4 IS DO.

The bee on the flower is 400mm. The young Ibis is with a 1.4 TC II, 560mm. These were shot with a Canon 1DM3.

[advaitin]

Here's a sample of the lens' use with a 50D. This image of grandgirl Sarah is already cropped, then the eye is a 100 percent crop from that.

There was no sharpening in post-processing--just so you can see the native ability of the lens.

ISO 400, 1/1000s @ f4, -.33 Ev.

[JustChillin]

This is the lens JustChillin had. Now, when I walk out the door, I have hard choices to make as which 400 I take, or how much exercise I want--the 400 L f2.8 gives the workout but the f4 DO is easier to swing around.

Glad to hear you're getting along well with the lens! I do miss it... I've gone back to a 400 f5.6 which is all the budget will allow at the moment.

I ran into some weirdo photographer recently and he started talkin about long lenses. He made an assumption based on internet rumors (he repeated some of them to me. One of them was concerning ring shaped bokeh which I have never seen the lens produce) that the 400 f5.6 was better than the 400 f4 DO IS. He sounded completely suprised when I told him I had both at the same time and the 400 f4 was better across the board. I thought the guy must have been nuts for thinking anyone would even consider buying a lens that is bulkier, heavier, and over 4x more expensive if it wasn't better than the 400 f5.6!

BTW the DO, new, has gone up $500!

[advaitin]

Glad to hear you're getting along well with the lens! I do miss it... I've gone back to a 400 f5.6 which is all the budget will allow at the moment.

I ran into some weirdo photographer recently and he started talkin about long lenses. He made an assumption based on internet rumors (he repeated some of them to me. One of them was concerning ring shaped bokeh which I have never seen the lens produce) that the 400 f5.6 was better than the 400 f4 DO IS. He sounded completely suprised when I told him I had both at the same time and the 400 f4 was better across the board. I thought the guy must have been nuts for thinking anyone would even consider buying a lens that is bulkier, heavier, and over 4x more expensive if it wasn't better than the 400 f5.6!

BTW the DO, new, has gone up $500!


I'm somewhat curious as to why there's not more interest in the lens. I guess the price point Canon set for the DO lenses put a lot of people off and the early reviews left a lasting legacy of distrust.

[advaitin]

OK, I understand that my usage of a lens in this forum is not official until I have shot a couple of ducks.

herewith, two ducks: Canon 1DM3, 400mm DO, ISO 250. Duck in culvert 1/250s @ f4. Young swimmer 1/640s @ f6.3

[advaitin]

For good measure, here is a shore bird taken with the 400mm DO IS and a Canon 7D. No crop, ISO 1600 1/2000s @ f11. A little extra saturation to make up for a gray day.

[AeroSmith]

Here are several with this lens on a 1D4. All shot at f/4. In fact, I don't think I've shot this lens at anything but f/4 yet.


http://aerosmith.smugmug.com/Children/2010-Duathalon/C41E0823duathalon/839260692_n9nD7-L.jpg


http://aerosmith.smugmug.com/Children/2010-Duathalon/C41E0824duathalon/839262036_XVbV7-L.jpg


http://aerosmith.smugmug.com/Children/2010-Duathalon/C41E0859duathalon/839296075_5kpDk-L.jpg


http://aerosmith.smugmug.com/Children/2010-Duathalon/C41E0873duathalon/839312322_zZ5SQ-L.jpg

[sheawyatt]

Nice contrast in those. Do you know what was causing the cross-hatching in the background blur of the 4th pic? It's to the right of the kid on the bike.

[AeroSmith]

Nice contrast in those. Do you know what was causing the cross-hatching in the background blur of the 4th pic? It's to the right of the kid on the bike.

Many thanks. The cross-hatching is a waist-height chain link fence, blurred out of course.

[S.Horton]

With 2X TC, monopod, a little tighter than 100%

http://midnightblue.smugmug.com/LAX/LMYA-U15-LAX-2010/20100403164207LMYAU15LAXSCRIMM/827786379_2JMda-M.jpg

[Combatmedic870]

I'm somewhat curious as to why there's not more interest in the lens. I guess the price point Canon set for the DO lenses put a lot of people off and the early reviews left a lasting legacy of distrust.

Its MAINLY the price! You canon get the 300mm 2.8 and slap a 1.4 on it for MUCH cheaper.

[advaitin]

Its MAINLY the price! You canon get the 300mm 2.8 and slap a 1.4 on it for MUCH cheaper.

The DO is much lighter, however, and has quite an advocate in Arthur Morris, the bird photographer. He has a Canon sponsorship and can use anything he wants, including the 800mm L IS, but seems to use the 400 DO in about a third of his published images.

[S.Horton]

Canon has no reason to price the two closely. I think the big difference is bokeh. The 300 is a cream factory. I will never sell th DO, but I will need a 600 or 800. Btw hiking with the 400DO is a pleasure.

[advaitin]

I posted one shot earlier from the first set I shot after I got the lens from justchillin--it was a bee on a flower. Here are two more from that day. The grasshopper is probably the first serious shot I made--and I was delighted. When you are down to the semi-macro level, you don't have to worry about the bokeh.

[S.Horton]

^^ The lens is very good for that kind of work - nice shots. I can't get close to most bugs, so reach matters.

I still have absolutely no idea how macro guys get near a dragonfly. I swear they carry cans of freon.

[advaitin]

^^ The lens is very good for that kind of work - nice shots. I can't get close to most bugs, so reach matters.

I still have absolutely no idea how macro guys get near a dragonfly. I sweat they carry cans of freon.

Except for certain species and certain times of the year, I suppose, when they are distracted by mating, a tele can be the only way to get them in their natural behavior and in realistic backgrounds. Juza, the Italian photographer goes out very early of a morning when the bugs are sluggish to do many of his shots. Got to admire a person who discomforts himself rather than the bugs to get the picture.

Bees and wasps are pretty easy here. We grow lots of their favorite flowers and we let them nest almost anywhere they please, so they seem to tolerate our presence--although I've been right in the midst of strange bees at work elsewhere and never been stung. Of course, I'd never disturb them if they were swarming.

[S.Horton]

So, which do you think is better -- put on the TC or crop tighter no TC?

[advaitin]

So, which do you think is better -- put on the TC or crop tighter no TC?

I have no qualms about putting on a TC, but I'll prefer added support as well--tripod makes a big difference over 500mm. The attached image is at 560mm.

[AeroSmith]

On the 1D4: 400mm: f/4; 1/640; IS mode 1; ISO 200.


http://aerosmith.smugmug.com/Cars/Vehicles-including-08-BMW-335i/C41E0981S8/863141682_CGydQ-L.jpg

[AeroSmith]

Here's another one with this lens at 3.8 meters, almost at the 3.5 meter MFD.

Uncropped: 1D4: f/4; 1/1250; IS mode 1; ISO 200.

http://aerosmith.smugmug.com/Landscapes/Saint-Petersburg-Florida/C41E0977Egret/863300126_WbHhq-L.jpg


100% crop.

http://aerosmith.smugmug.com/Landscapes/Saint-Petersburg-Florida/C41E0977Egret-crop/863300143_huzXh-L.jpg

EDIT: whoa! it sure looks a lot sharper on my screen....

[S.Horton]

Backwards, it also works. (smile)
http://midnightblue.smugmug.com/Other/Foolin-Around/20080517142916LMYALAXU13BSPARK/297510572_GXxmK-L.jpg

[dolina]

Does anyone have the 800, 600, 500, 400/2.8, 300/2.8 or 200/2? How do they compare to the 400 DO?

[S.Horton]

Does anyone have the 800, 600, 500, 400/2.8, 300/2.8 or 200/2? How do they compare to the 400 DO?

The DO is a choice of portability over IQ, IMO.

And remember, the best lens is the one you have with you when you really need it. :p

[virsago_mk2]

I just got this 400mm DO yesterday.
A used one, came with army-green lens coat which I decided to removed it.
I must say I am very-very impressed with the lens. Even though I still need to adapt myself with a super telephoto shooting style, this lens lived up to my expectations.

All images shot using 5D2 docked on a monopod, shooting with JPEG.

1st few shot were taken using Picture Style 1 (Normal) with +7 sharpness. It exhibits a bit of less contrast like everyone said, which I agree.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5282/5356693708_4cd4955987.jpghttp://farm6.static.flickr.com/5169/5356696376_800c838eab.jpg
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5284/5356696886_3a8e54c9a5.jpghttp://farm6.static.flickr.com/5004/5356698216_de5feab59b.jpg

More pics on the next post.

[virsago_mk2]

Then when I changed to Picture Style 3 (Portrait) with +5 sharpess & +3 Contrast, BAM. The picture quality improves. It's almost WYSIWYG. Great sharpness, great contrast, great bokeh, AMAZING.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5205/5356699808_5294a7dfbd.jpghttp://farm6.static.flickr.com/5210/5356700136_3b8e987011.jpg
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5163/5356703336_43fd474954.jpghttp://farm6.static.flickr.com/5203/5356091093_63a91033ac.jpghttp://farm6.static.flickr.com/5286/5356091479_0a1f944a52.jpg

This lens is truly an underrated lens. I am sure on the hands of any enthusiastic photographer, this lens will deliver the best image quality one can get.

100% crop available upon request.
Rest of the photos HERE (http://www.flickr.com/photos/virsago_mk2/sets/72157625701533587/)

[S.Horton]

Kewl

[virsago_mk2]

More pics from today & early of this month.
Some are shot at f/4 , f/5.6 & f/8.

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5254/5458757122_2e85604e28.jpg http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5211/5458186347_451b600d69.jpg
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5138/5458778558_16ce409dba.jpg http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5211/5458163411_8fe40edc59.jpg
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5219/5458158873_f8c47c06c9.jpg http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5136/5458763786_d651989f15.jpg
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5299/5458775222_0692a67ed4.jpg http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5012/5458762352_9fcff3c644.jpg

More on my Flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/virsago_mk2/).

[advaitin]

It's been a while since I last posted:

[S.Horton]

No crop, wide open.
http://midnightblue.smugmug.com/Family/2010-Yellowstone/20100627123220YELLOWSTONE15V96/926389883_ycXvD-L.jpg

[advaitin]

Let's keep it rolling. Until I started looking at my back shots, I had forgotten about these.

[S.Horton]

^^ "Exellican"

ISO 400 f/4 nearly 100% crop
http://midnightblue.smugmug.com/LAX/LMYA-U15-LAX-2010/20100328151336LMYAU15LAXSPRING/827706387_9W342-L.jpg

ISO 3200 f/4 can't recall the crop, but in honor of POTN
http://midnightblue.smugmug.com/Family/Maine-July-2009/20090718185843MAINEJORDANPOINT/614444316_dUEGZ-L.jpg

[advaitin]

^^ "Exellican"

ISO 400 f/4 nearly 100% crop
http://midnightblue.smugmug.com/LAX/LMYA-U15-LAX-2010/20100328151336LMYAU15LAXSPRING/827706387_9W342-L.jpg

ISO 3200 f/4 can't recall the crop, but in honor of POTN
http://midnightblue.smugmug.com/Family/Maine-July-2009/20090718185843MAINEJORDANPOINT/614444316_dUEGZ-L.jpg

Obligatory ducks?

[S.Horton]

Yes, I had to shoot the Ducks, because of POTN.

[advaitin]

In exploring the back files I came across this, a series of shots using the 2x TC II. The first is the whole 1Ds3 frame. The second is a sharpened 100 percent crop. ISO 125. 1/640s @ f9

[advaitin]

Then I found a series with the 1.4 II TC and the 400 DO, under extremely poor light. The first shot of Grandgirl Sarah with smile is on Canon 1DM3 at ISO 3200, 1/20s @f5.6. Second shot is ISO 6400, 1/13s @ f5.6. Some editing was done, especially for noise. These are braced handheld and uncropped images. Most shots in this light were blurred. But look at the eyelashes in shot 2!

[S.Horton]

With 2X TC (Canon, MK I)
f/8

http://midnightblue.smugmug.com/Family/Administrative-Watermarks-Etc/400DO2XTC15V9283/1222975618_2XRMs-L.jpg

100% crop
http://midnightblue.smugmug.com/Family/Administrative-Watermarks-Etc/400DO2XTC100PercentCenter15V92/1222973474_KQAVt-L.jpg

Full size JPG
(http://midnightblue.smugmug.com/Family/Administrative-Watermarks-Etc/400DO2XTC15V9283/1222975618_2XRMs-O.jpg)

[advaitin]

Browsing through some files I had moved to a backup drive I found these 400mm DO images. Canon 1D3, ISO 200. In flight 1/1000s @ f8. In water 1/1600s @ f10.

Now that I have a bad back, this lens becomes more valuable to me than ever.

[advaitin]

I have to keep topping up this thread

[S.Horton]

Gotta love the weight of this lens. Every time I think I want a 500 f/4 I pick one up and put it down.

[advaitin]

Now that I have Flickr figured out, here are four samples of the 400DO on a 1D3. The hummingbird is with a 2x III TC.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3600/5708696453_e8695da65f_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/clgriffin/5708696453/)
x2400do1dm3hmmgbird (http://www.flickr.com/photos/clgriffin/5708696453/) by C L Griffin/Advaitin (http://www.flickr.com/people/clgriffin/), on Flickr

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3289/5709261892_b075ce987e_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/clgriffin/5709261892/)
400do1dm3anole (http://www.flickr.com/photos/clgriffin/5709261892/) by C L Griffin/Advaitin (http://www.flickr.com/people/clgriffin/), on Flickr

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3587/5709261670_0f63c18b89_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/clgriffin/5709261670/)
400do1dm3lizard (http://www.flickr.com/photos/clgriffin/5709261670/) by C L Griffin/Advaitin (http://www.flickr.com/people/clgriffin/), on Flickr

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2092/5709261394_0b50a5084a_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/clgriffin/5709261394/)
400do1dm3flower (http://www.flickr.com/photos/clgriffin/5709261394/) by C L Griffin/Advaitin (http://www.flickr.com/people/clgriffin/), on Flickr

[S.Horton]

Little over 100% crop, ISO 400, MKIII
http://midnightblue.smugmug.com/LAX/LMYA-U15-LAX/i-9wPHrG3/0/L/20110509184842LMYAU15VPARKLAND-L.jpg

[advaitin]

A couple of birds today with 400mm DO and 7D.

[S.Horton]

Gallery of LAX, all wide-open, crops vary.

If you look carefully, you will see the 'haze' this lens produces if the subject is back lit.

You can also see the bokeh it creates.

Versus a 400 L, those characteristics and DOF are the only weak spots. But, the weight just can't be beat. I carried the gear around from field-to-field, a few miles of walking, and my back feels fine.

http://midnightblue.smugmug.com/LAX/Lehigh-LAXFEST-18-June-2011/17631807_GV4ctm

[leroy17]

400 DO is jpeg . It`s a keeper.

[AeroSmith]

400 DO is jpeg . It`s a keeper.

I'd say. Nice capture.

[leroy17]

400 DO 100% crop 1ds m2. Thank`s Josh

[AeroSmith]

Wow, that's awesome.

[AeroSmith]

Here's one I shot last Friday night with the 400/4 DO on a 1D4. This strong fella won the 200 yard individual medley event.

f/4.5; 1/1250; ISO 1600.


http://aerosmith.smugmug.com/Sports/Shorecrest-Swimming-2011/i-Qx6cVrC/0/XL/C41E3813Josh-Chen-XL.jpg

[noisejammer]

I've only had mine a week but it's completely blown me away... here are some (several are posted at full res on flickr starting here.... (http://www.flickr.com/photos/noisejammer/6318624564/in/photostream/))

This at f/10, 1/1600 / 400ISO
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6215/6318624564_3f7f336dc3_z.jpg

This at f/9 with the 1.4x tc, 1/640 sec, 400ISO
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6043/6318574994_aa713f4d2b_z.jpg

The second image shows some of the oof highlights producing "targets" that some lens reviews speak of. I'm not stressed by these at all - they are no worse than the ring patterns visible in my 70-200 Mk II.

I've seen essentially no chromatic aberration, there's no flaring and even hand held. In spite of the difficult lighting, neither of these images needed a contrast boost. This lens is a worker!

[S.Horton]

^^ Yes, it is. I do not see selling my copy, ever.

This is, by the by, the only lens which I needed MA for on the MKIII. (Always was fine on the MKIIN and 30D here)

[virsago_mk2]

New photos taken this morning on Perth International Airport - Public Viewing Area runway 21.
My wife was onboard Garuda Indonesia departing to Bali.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7033/6821313651_b5331024c2.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/virsago_mk2/6821313651/)http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7014/6821312195_700abfc52b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/virsago_mk2/6821312195/)
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7159/6821306573_63ce4d5838.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/virsago_mk2/6821306573/)http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7157/6821300917_5d44f028f5.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/virsago_mk2/6821300917/)
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7013/6821302771_bcfeb4c656.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/virsago_mk2/6821302771/)http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7146/6821294645_6b9a691a1b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/virsago_mk2/6821294645/)

More in my Flickr set here. (http://flic.kr/s/aHsjywsbq6)

[virsago_mk2]

Some of the newest set, using my new combo of 5D3 + 400mm DO.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7047/7053510235_5f0a716e24.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/virsago_mk2/7053510235/)
Old kangaroo (http://www.flickr.com/photos/virsago_mk2/7053510235/) by virsago_mk2 (http://www.flickr.com/people/virsago_mk2/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7039/7053495743_d57c511d7f.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/virsago_mk2/7053495743/)
The official airline of Thai (http://www.flickr.com/photos/virsago_mk2/7053495743/) by virsago_mk2 (http://www.flickr.com/people/virsago_mk2/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7098/7053481045_1bb72262f3.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/virsago_mk2/7053481045/)
BLI_0582 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/virsago_mk2/7053481045/) by virsago_mk2 (http://www.flickr.com/people/virsago_mk2/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7111/7053464187_f4a85b97d7.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/virsago_mk2/7053464187/)
Push back (http://www.flickr.com/photos/virsago_mk2/7053464187/) by virsago_mk2 (http://www.flickr.com/people/virsago_mk2/), on Flickr

[S.Horton]

http://midnightblue.smugmug.com/LAX/Emmaus-Varsity-Lacrosse-2012/i-QvqJg5q/0/X2/20120407143922EmmausVarsiityLa-X2.jpg

[noisejammer]

A friend was doing the Edge Walk thing around the observation deck of the CN tower, so I decided to see what was actually possible. Manually focused, it seems to have outresolved the camera. With the 1.4x TC (Mk III) the finest resolvable structure subtends about 3 arcsec - which is essentially the same as the camera's resolution.

1D4, f/8 1/3200 at ISO 800. Postprocessed in Lightroom to enhance the contrast and filter noise. With the tower strongly backlit, the vignetting was necessary to hold back the sky when contrast was boosted.

Edit - I had a look at the original image and high contrast structures that subtend 0.6 arcsec (way beyond the MTF50 limit of the camera / lens combination) are easily visible. This is just another way of saying that the Dawes limit is not the last word on what a lens can resolve ... it's also a function of contrast. This frame is available on my flickr page.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8431/7759033226_09263dee95_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/noisejammer/7759033226/)
EdgeWalk II (http://www.flickr.com/photos/noisejammer/7759033226/) by NoiseJammer (http://www.flickr.com/people/noisejammer/), on Flickr

[mikeivan]

This lens does not get much action on this thread, but it is my favorite (only) telephoto and, for me, it is a very versatile lens for hand held photography.

615692



615695

Mostly, I photograph birds, but these are two examples of short and long focal distance for this lens. These are with my handheld 50D, 400DO, 1.4 extender, f/8, same rig as for birds.

[sheawyatt]

Just got a nice "cheap" (lol) used one of these bad boys. Will put it through its paces this weekend (if the weather holds), and hopefully have something to contribute here soon! First test shots look nice and crisp, and I must say, hand holding down to 1/30 at 400mm is wonderful...my 400 f/5.6 hangs its head in shame at its 4-stop disadvantage for mostly static subjects.

[sheawyatt]

Alright, shots from my first outing with the lens!

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/41867713/20121020-MiracleBeachBirds-3931.jpg

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/41867713/20121020-MiracleBeachBirds-3946.jpg

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/41867713/20121020-MiracleBeachBirds-3984.jpg

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/41867713/20121020-MiracleBeachBirds-3985.jpg

one with the 1.4x TC
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/41867713/20121020-MiracleBeachBirds-4009.jpg

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/41867713/20121020-MiracleBeachBirds-4024.jpg

Bokeh-licious gull!
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/41867713/20121020-MiracleBeachBirds-4058.jpg

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/41867713/20121020-MiracleBeachBirds-4084.jpg

Definitely a keeper, nice and sharp! The extra stop of light and IS definitely opens up a lot more opportunities than possible with the 400 f/5.6.

[kawi_200]

I've been searching around POTN the last couple days and can't quite find the answer I am searching for. I figure this is the best place to look/ask......

Has anyone ever done a comparison between the 400mm DO and the 400mm f/5.6L?? I'd hate to not have IS on the f/5.6, but being smaller and lighter weight (and cheaper) is a great selling point. I'd love to get an f/2.8L IS, but I'm not sure it'd use it as much because of the weight. It'd be a bit harder to haul around. The 200mm f/2L IS is awesome with the 2x III, but some times I want more, so I'm looking at a 300mm f/2.8L IS mark 1, the 400mm DO, the 400mm f/5.6 (no AF with the 2x TC :( ) or maybe possibly but probably not the Sigma 300-800mm f/5.6. It'll be a few years before I can buy a 500L or 600L. I used to have the 300mm f/4L IS and stopped using it after getting the 70-200L IS II, and now that I have the 200L IS also, I kind of doubt I'll want something in the 300mm range because it'll feel too close. That's why I'm debating 400mm or something more.

Any advice?

[R.J. MacReady]

I've been searching around POTN the last couple days and can't quite find the answer I am searching for. I figure this is the best place to look/ask......

Has anyone ever done a comparison between the 400mm DO and the 400mm f/5.6L?? I'd hate to not have IS on the f/5.6, but being smaller and lighter weight (and cheaper) is a great selling point. I'd love to get an f/2.8L IS, but I'm not sure it'd use it as much because of the weight. It'd be a bit harder to haul around. The 200mm f/2L IS is awesome with the 2x III, but some times I want more, so I'm looking at a 300mm f/2.8L IS mark 1, the 400mm DO, the 400mm f/5.6 (no AF with the 2x TC :( ) or maybe possibly but probably not the Sigma 300-800mm f/5.6. It'll be a few years before I can buy a 500L or 600L. I used to have the 300mm f/4L IS and stopped using it after getting the 70-200L IS II, and now that I have the 200L IS also, I kind of doubt I'll want something in the 300mm range because it'll feel too close. That's why I'm debating 400mm or something more.

Any advice?

What I understand is that you need a 400mm lens lens, faster than f/5.6 and equipped with image stabilizer.
If you don't have a budget limitation, there are two questions to answer in the following order:

1/ do you prefer light weight over image quality
2/ do you you prefer versatility over speed

Now, if you need light weight lens, there is only the 400mm f/4 DO lens.
If not, to my eyes, you need to choose a 400mm f/2.8 or wait for the 200-400 f/4 with built-in 1.4x extender.

In terms of contrast, 400mm f/4 DO can't deliver image quality comparable to that delivered by 400mm f/5.6 and 400mm f/2.8. You can analyze some comparisons:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=338&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=278&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=338&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=327&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2
and the review:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-400mm-f-4.0-DO-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Here you have some more comparisons and reviews:

http://pikespeakphoto.com/tests/canonlens400do.html
http://pikespeakphoto.com/tests/canonlens400.html

http://www.billmajoros.com/photoalbum/categories/new/Canon/400DO/index.html
http://www.billmajoros.com/photoalbum/categories/new/Teleconverters/index.html

http://www.naturescapes.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=127089

Now, my experience on my own and borrowed lenses:

- Forget using 400 f/2.8 (any version) without a monopod or a tripod. Even if you manage to handhold the lens for a while to shoot a photo, it won't last long.
- For its price, 400mm f/4 misses focus preset system, which is very desirable for sport photography.
- 1.4x and 2x extenders deteriorate image quality provided by 400mm f/4 DO much more than in case of 400mm f/2.8.

[R.J. MacReady]

Just two more comparisons I forgot to mention, but no 400mm f/5.6 samples are there:

http://www.juzaphoto.com/article.php?l=en&article=69
http://www.juzaphoto.com/article.php?l=en&article=69

and here's a good comparison of: 400mm f/4, 400mm f/5.6 and 100-400 f/4.5-5.6:

http://www.michaelfurtman.com/comparing_canon_400s.htm

[advaitin]

Of course I've tried TCs on my DO 400. Here's an example at 250 ISO, 560mm, f5.6 @ 1/250s. The shots were in raw and the first thing I noted when the editing window opened was that the contrast went down on the jpg. So the full frame image from the Canon 1D3 has a slight increase in contrast to match what I saw on the raw image. The second image is a crop of the first with more contrast and some slight sharpening.

[Wookster]

Just two more comparisons I forgot to mention, but no 400mm f/5.6 samples are there:

http://www.juzaphoto.com/article.php?l=en&article=69
http://www.juzaphoto.com/article.php?l=en&article=69

and here's a good comparison of: 400mm f/4, 400mm f/5.6 and 100-400 f/4.5-5.6:

http://www.michaelfurtman.com/comparing_canon_400s.htm

Do you know if the images in this comparison are processed or not? I suspect the apparent sharpness could be boosted significantly by increased contrast.

[sheawyatt]

A selection of birds from the past few weeks, all with the 400 DO with and without the 1.4X TC II. Loving this lens more than anything, so good!

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/41867713/20121108-Nanaimo-4502.jpg

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/41867713/20121108-Nanaimo-4490.jpg

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/41867713/20121118-ThetisLake-4701.jpg

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/41867713/20121125-SwanLake-4763.jpg

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/41867713/20121126-CattlePoint-5021.jpg

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/41867713/20121126-CattlePoint-4891.jpg

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/41867713/20121126-CattlePoint-5019.jpg

[Neilyb]

Do you know if the images in this comparison are processed or not? I suspect the apparent sharpness could be boosted significantly by increased contrast.

Juza test just shows how awsome the 300 2.8 IS is and how bad the 400 f4 is :)

[Picture_this1968]

Nice pics, I'm on the fence about this lens.

Which would you say is a better buy: 400 mm 2.8 non is or the 400mm f/4 DO IS. ?

[virsago_mk2]

^
If you want the portability, I'd say get the DO.

[kawi_200]

DO is also still repairable by Canon

[daniel1223]

800mm

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8348/8236170537_89402eafac_b.jpg

[advaitin]

Nothing spectacular, just playing around in the backyard with the 400mm DO and a 1Ds MIII. 400 ISO, 1/250s @ f4, handheld. You can certainly determine the depth-of-field at MFD.

[sheawyatt]

Some shots from yesterday and today at work. All with the naked 400DO, 5D3.

Jet, juvenile male Peregrine Falcon, on a practice kill
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/41867713/SNW_5772.jpg

Adonis, adult male Peregrine, checking out the landscape
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/41867713/SNW_5797.jpg

Adonis on a practice kill
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/41867713/SNW_5820.jpg

Arwen, adult Harris Hawk, out for some exercise
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/41867713/SNW_5826.jpg

Wild Short-eared Owl
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/41867713/SNW_5842.jpg

Same owl
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/41867713/SNW_5845.jpg

[kawi_200]

I love the shots I see with this lens. It really seems like something I want, just not sure if I want to give up the 200L for it or not. Or would I rather go for something else...... Like a Sigma 300-800mm f/5.6

[advaitin]

Canon 5D2, 400mm IS DO, 1.4X TC III, f5.6 at 560mm. Flower is a 10 percent crop of full frame to show the hairs on the flower stamen. Squirrel is full frame. All handheld.

[JimLittle]

I, too was unsure about this lens, but it's given some pretty good stuff:

[advaitin]

Back again with shots from Canon 5D3, 400mm f4 IS DO, 2X TC III. All manual focus with a good deal of wind, except for the hummingbirdshot.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8385/8555307370_eb16559fe9_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/clgriffin/8555307370/)
WA8A1316a_resize (http://www.flickr.com/photos/clgriffin/8555307370/) by C L Griffin/Advaitin (http://www.flickr.com/people/clgriffin/), on Flickr
Full frame

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8100/8554198337_db8e05e330_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/clgriffin/8554198337/)
WA8A1316ab_resize (http://www.flickr.com/photos/clgriffin/8554198337/) by C L Griffin/Advaitin (http://www.flickr.com/people/clgriffin/), on Flickr
A crop to show the fine detail

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8105/8555300434_44424ae8fb_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/clgriffin/8555300434/)
WA8A1366a_resize (http://www.flickr.com/photos/clgriffin/8555300434/) by C L Griffin/Advaitin (http://www.flickr.com/people/clgriffin/), on Flickr
A crop to show butterfly hairs

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8507/8555297864_e9e5809ffe_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/clgriffin/8555297864/)
WA8A1374a_resize (http://www.flickr.com/photos/clgriffin/8555297864/) by C L Griffin/Advaitin (http://www.flickr.com/people/clgriffin/), on Flickr
My Dog, Babe, full frame. She was in a shadow and I couldn't see the focus point

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8520/8555305968_ac24e93626_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/clgriffin/8555305968/)
WA8A1333a_resize (http://www.flickr.com/photos/clgriffin/8555305968/) by C L Griffin/Advaitin (http://www.flickr.com/people/clgriffin/), on Flickr
A crop of fly at closest focus

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8108/8554191865_8dd9f0e5f2_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/clgriffin/8554191865/)
x2400do1dm3hmmgbird (http://www.flickr.com/photos/clgriffin/8554191865/) by C L Griffin/Advaitin (http://www.flickr.com/people/clgriffin/), on Flickr
Hummingbird taken with older 2X TC II. Added to make six examples of 400mm DO capability.

[gocolts]

Just picked up a used (but new to me!) 400mm DO for a good price to replace my 300mm non-IS and my 400mm 5.6L. After hearing all the stories about how this lens can't perform great in low light and with TC's, I decided to give it a little bit of a torture test. The details of this shot are:
-Canon 7D, 6400 ISO-Low light before sunset
-Handheld, through a glass window
-Light processing
-100% crop
-Canon 1.4TC II AND a Kenko 1.4TC stacked

Not only did it autofocus fairly quickly on everything but the center AF point (similiar to how my 400 5.6L does with just the Kenko TC), but I thought the results were fairly decent for a lightweight handheld approx. 800mm. :)

[S.Horton]

Nice. I still love this lens.
http://midnightblue.smugmug.com/LAX/Emmaus-Lacrosse-2013-Varsity/i-QzJDntK/0/L/20130326175341..Emmaus.LAX.2013.Varsity.v.Nazereth ._15V0123-L.jpg