400 DO....or DON'T.....

Why the lack of love?

400, f4, compact, IS.....not cheap I know, but neither is a 500 f4.
Is it the 'different' out of focus detail, or are there other shortcomings?

I own a 400mm DO and I am not sure what you mean by different out of focus detail. Many claim that the lens lacks contrast which I also have not noticed. I also own the 70-200mm f2.8 Mk II and I can say that I do not need to increase the contrast in pp for the DO lens any more than I would for the 70-200mm, I truly believe most people that claim this have never owned or even used the 400mm DO. My main reason I have the 400mm DO is for the portability, ease of handholding and focal length. If I want to carry my equipment I can carry the 400mm on a body with the lens shade on and the 70-200mm on a body with the lens shade, both setups ready to shoot, flash and a couple of WA lenses in one pack. I can also put the 400mm DO mounted on a body with the lens shade on ready to shoot and carry in a backpack, not a camera pack but a backpack and the reason is many people always are very curious when they see the camera pack, so I like to be more discreet. The reason I chose the 400mm over a 300mm f2.8 was that with a 1.4X TC on the 70-200mm gives met the 300mm focal length so it seemed like I was doubling up focal length so the 400mm made more sense to me. The 70-200mm f2.8 MkII has quickly become my most favorite lens because of the excellent detail and quick and accurate focusing. I use the 70-200mm with a 1.4X MkIII on both my 5D MkIII and 1D MK IV quite a bit. I use this lens combo for wildlife most of the time and I realize that I can get closer to wildlife than many others can so this focal length works for me where it would be short for many others. Because the new 70-200mm MkII is so impressive I wonder if I am missing something with the new MK II lenses like the 300mm f2.8 Mk II, which would be the only lens that would be within my price range and still remain married.

I'd read on the digital picture review that out of focus detail can appear like a target....guessing he means concentric circles.

I almost went with the 400 DO over the 300 for the same reason as Talaska did. I'm happy with the route I decided to go but I'm sure I'd also be happy if I went the other way.

I never thought the contrast and boken looked all that bad on the 400 DO, sure it might not be as good as the other big whites. I think this and it's price compared to them when it came out is why it didn't get much love. If it was priced lower I'm sure it would have been much more popular.

I agonised over the 400 DO for quite some time before testing one and wondered why it had such a peculiar reputation. I've now owned one for a year and have to say it's just wonderful, it ticks all the boxes I was after - fast, lightweight & long. It's sharp, I don't suffer contrast issues and I've only ever seen strange background effects when deliberately trying to create them.

A lot of the poor opinions I read seem to come from the very earliest ones and a lot came from people who have clearly never given one a serious workout let alone owned one. It did take me a while to get used to it having never owned a long prime before but I now love it. I wouldn't swap it for anything.

It's an amazing lens. Lots of naysayers on the internet about it, and while yes the contrast is a bit less in BAD light (contrast is just great in good light), and it's a hair less sharp than other big whites, neither of those things actually affect real world images. It's small, light, fast focusing, and delivers the goods in a big way. Because of their reputation they sell for cheap used, and it's a great deal if you can find one.

Only thing it doesn't do well is take teleconverters. The 1.4 x III is usable wide open and better at f/8, but the 2X isn't much good at all unless you can stop down to f/16. So in that respect the 500 is going to be what you want if you need to use an extender a lot.

These were taken with a 7D and 400mm DO and 1.4TC II in the middle of the day. The 2nd shot is an 80% crop as I was about 50 rows up in the bleachers to get a shot above the giant fence at IMS.

So...for my purposes, I think the 400mm DO is plenty usable with a 1.4TC.

sheawyatt wrote in post #16320555
Only thing it doesn't do well is take teleconverters. The 1.4 x III is usable wide open and better at f/8,

I use a Kenko 1.4x DGX 300 Pro on my 400 DO without any issues at all.

I just evaluated the 400L DO IS from CPS for my Alaska cruise... Used it extensively on various applications including landscape, candids, and wildlife photography... I also applied TC's (Kenko Pro DGx 1.4x and 2x), when need, with ease... Here are my initial assessment...

CONS:
- Contrast

PROS:
- Weight
- Fast focusing
- Hand holdable ('IS' was fantastic)
- Used TC's without 'focus hunting' issues

The 'contrast' issue wasn't really a problem, per se'... It could be easily adjusted in post... Other than that, it was wonderful to shoot with... Weight was great for easy hand holding and the "IS" made my nervous arms as solid as can be... No problems adding the TC's... Of course I added and extra stop and slightly increased my ISO to remove 'TC Haze' while getting respectable shutter speeds while I was hand holding to captures images... Overall a great performing piece of glass for what it is... Sample captures below from the cruise... 1D4 + 400L DO IS combo... All hand held...

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/airbutchie/9669​664883/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/airbutchie/9714​776009/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/airbutchie/9647​319164/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/airbutchie/9702​232698/