Opinons? EF 400mm f/4.0 DO IS vs. EF 400mm f/2.8L IS

[metsuyan]

I was thinking of investing in one of the following lenses but the infamous Size vs. Speed thing comes up again.

Let 'er rip.........

[who me?]

Not having either but would love to, I haven't read much that was really positive on the 400 F4 DO. It seemed like folks that had it felt the sharpness was not up to par for what that lens touts. IMO, the F4 is also WAY to expensive by about $2K. For about the same $$ of the 400 F4, the 500 F4 can be had.
But, hey, unless I win the lottery, I will not be getting either anyway. I will just keep all 3 on my wish list. :-)

[Jim_T]

Glancing at Adorama.. The f/2/8 is about $6500 US and the f/4.0 DO is about $5200 US

The DO lens is lighter and $1300 cheaper.. The f/2.8 is more expensive, heavier and faster

If you really need one more stop and don't care about weight, then go for the 400 f/2.8

Personally I'd go for the f/4 DO.

(I'm saving for the 500 f/4 I'd have one by now, but went and bought a new house in the country and after buying lawn tractors, snow throwers and doing driveways and landscaping, I'm broke again :)

[Scottes]

The 400mm f/2.8 is supposed one of Canon's best lenses, if not the best. The DO is not, by a far shot. (From what I've always heard, honestly.)

[timmyquest]

I'd get the 400 f/2.8...for sure.

But that may only be because i dont care about what makes the DO so special, and thats its size.

I'm turned off by its speed and (although still fantastic) image quality, and i doubt it has as good a focus speed as the 400 as i hear it is one of the best.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Despite the fact that both are very pricey,. the DO is overpriced for what it is.
Your choices shouyld be 400 f2.8 or 300mm f/2.8 with a 1.4X which will be better than the 400mm DO,. (though heavier) faster AF, more flexible, and sharper.