Canon 100-400 IS II vs 400 DO IS II

Anyone has (or considered) 400 DO II and think it brings value over the 100-400mm II?
Keeping the cost aside, I believe 400 DO II brings longer reach to the table with addition of TCs 1.4x or even 2x.
I am not sure how 2x plays in the context of BIF, but for static or non high action shots that should work well on 400 DO ii
Any insights, experiences?

You might find some useful info on another thread about the DO.
https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1479875

rndman wrote in post #18603902
Anyone has (or considered) 400 DO II and think it brings value over the 100-400mm II?
Keeping the cost aside, I believe 400 DO II brings longer reach to the table with addition of TCs 1.4x or even 2x.
I am not sure how 2x plays in the context of BIF, but for static or non high action shots that should work well on 400 DO ii
Any insights, experiences?

What type of photography are you considering use of these lenses for? . Horse racing?
. Motorsports? . Wildlife photography? Bird photography? . Skiing? . High school football? . Something else?

It's really hard to discuss this lens comparison intelligently when I have no idea what the intended usage is. . You mention something about birds in flight, but never really said if that is something you intend to use these lenses for. . If you could narrow the scope of your question, it would be helpful.


.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18604029
What type of photography are you considering use of these lenses for? . Horse racing?
. Motorsports? . Wildlife photography? Bird photography? . Skiing? . High school football? . Something else?

It's really hard to discuss this lens comparison intelligently when I have no idea what the intended usage is. . You mention something about birds in flight, but never really said if that is something you intend to use these lenses for. . If you could narrow the scope of your question, it would be helpful.

.

I will be using the lens almost always for BIF and some static or low action bird photography.

Archibald wrote in post #18604013
You might find some useful info on another thread about the DO.
https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1479875

Thanks. I have seen that thread. But it is comparing it with 500 f4 which is in different league in terms of cost, weight and handling compared to the DO or the 100-400.
What I am trying to get is if the 400 DO will bring significant advantage (for the cost being paid) over my 100-400 II that I already have.

I have the 100-400 IS II and the new DO II as well as a 500 II. To be perfectly frank, I'm not sure why I bought the DO a year ago since optically, the 100-400 with and without the 1.4x is optically equal to the DO albeit a little easier to hold and carry, and the minimum focusing capability of the 100-400 is vastly superior to the DO. While I infrequently use the DO with a 2x, the focus slows down A LOT! I shoot with 2 1DXs. If you can live with the 100-400 being a stop slower, my advice would be to save your money!!

When I looked into this - I have had the 100-400 II for three years now I came to this conclusion:-

400DOII gains me 1 stop.

100-400II gains me 100mm-399mm and superior MFD.

I kept my 100-400II and now combine it with a 500F4 II

Chris B. wrote in post #18605513
I have the 100-400 IS II and the new DO II as well as a 500 II. To be perfectly frank, I'm not sure why I bought the DO a year ago since optically, the 100-400 with and without the 1.4x is optically equal to the DO albeit a little easier to hold and carry, and the minimum focusing capability of the 100-400 is vastly superior to the DO. While I infrequently use the DO with a 2x, the focus slows down A LOT! I shoot with 2 1DXs. If you can live with the 100-400 being a stop slower, my advice would be to save your money!!

Thanks. point noted..

graham121 wrote in post #18605521
When I looked into this - I have had the 100-400 II for three years now I came to this conclusion:-

400DOII gains me 1 stop.

100-400II gains me 100mm-399mm and superior MFD.

I kept my 100-400II and now combine it with a 500F4 II

The weight of 500mm is a big factor for me. I really don't want to carry tripod to hang that thing. The handholdability was a big factor in considering 400DO.
I was mainly thinking that I get 560mm f/5.6 lens instead of a 560mm f/8 when going with DO compared to 100-400mm. The weight being in the same ballpark for the two.
Now 500mm would be really nice because that will give 700mm f/5.6 only if someone shaves that extra weight.

BTW, do you handhold your 500mm? (I know it's a stupid question).

Yes, I do handhold my 500 II almost 99% of the time It's a little beast, takes a lot of getting used to, but definitely do able. For me, it strikes the right balance between aperture, focal length and weight. Cost was a pill to swallow though...

I shoot small birds, need all the light I can get. Not only does the f/4 vs. f/5.6 help, I have more "reach" when using a full frame camera (5D4), which has about a 1-stop noise advantage over my 80D when it comes time to push ISO. This advantage applies for the DO II as well...

Being able to get to 800mm if need be is awesome. At 560mm f/5.6, it's razor sharp with no IQ loss. Here's the cool part: when the zoom is extended to 400mm, the DO II is physically shorter! Not only that, the 100-400 at 400mm isn't really 400mm, more like 389mm or something like that, so you get a tiny bit more reach with the prime. The DO blows the zoom out of the water when using TC, so there's that too.

Stunner of a lens, the DO II. If I had to choose between that and the 100-400 II now, I'd personally take the prime. For you, OP, doing BIF is a challenge because of the inherent variability... definitely go with the zoom.

MatthewK wrote in post #18605682
Yes, I do handhold my 500 II almost 99% of the time It's a little beast, takes a lot of getting used to, but definitely do able. For me, it strikes the right balance between aperture, focal length and weight. Cost was a pill to swallow though...

I shoot small birds, need all the light I can get. Not only does the f/4 vs. f/5.6 help, I have more "reach" when using a full frame camera (5D4), which has about a 1-stop noise advantage over my 80D when it comes time to push ISO. This advantage applies for the DO II as well...

Being able to get to 800mm if need be is awesome. At 560mm f/5.6, it's razor sharp with no IQ loss. Here's the cool part: when the zoom is extended to 400mm, the DO II is physically shorter! Not only that, the 100-400 at 400mm isn't really 400mm, more like 389mm or something like that, so you get a tiny bit more reach with the prime. The DO blows the zoom out of the water when using TC, so there's that too.

Stunner of a lens, the DO II. If I had to choose between that and the 100-400 II now, I'd personally take the prime. For you, OP, doing BIF is a challenge because of the inherent variability... definitely go with the zoom.

I already have 100-400mm II. It's superb piece of glass, no doubt.
Sometimes I feel hungry for the reach and that is where I am trying to find alternatives.

This is going to sound not at all in line with your original questions, but maybe check out the Nikon D500 + 200-500? Very affordable, very awesome. The reason I suggest this combo is that you've qualified yourself out of the 500 II due to cost/weight/handling, and I honestly am hesitant to say that the 400 DO II, while amazing, is going to satisfy your need for more reach over your 100-400.

Hell, I'm half tempted to check the Nikon stuff out for myself.

MatthewK wrote in post #18605703
This is going to sound not at all in line with your original questions, but maybe check out the Nikon D500 + 200-500? Very affordable, very awesome. Hell, I'm tempted to check them out myself.

Yeah. That will be a way too long shot.

rndman wrote in post #18605576
The weight of 500mm is a big factor for me. I really don't want to carry tripod to hang that thing. The handholdability was a big factor in considering 400DO.
I was mainly thinking that I get 560mm f/5.6 lens instead of a 560mm f/8 when going with DO compared to 100-400mm. The weight being in the same ballpark for the two.
Now 500mm would be really nice because that will give 700mm f/5.6 only if someone shaves that extra weight.

BTW, do you handhold your 500mm? (I know it's a stupid question).

Yes, I handhold the 500mm the vast majority of the time, and carry it around on one half of a black rapid double sling/strap ( unless I am also carrying the 100-400 on the other body in which case I use the complete strap - thats in normally not walking around but standing in the one spot at an airshow all day).

I only tend to put it on a tripod when I know I am going to have the 2x on and will be staking out a particular birding location where I need every mm of the 1000mm and will be using the binoculars for locating particular birds. The tripod is a great place for the lens to rest!

Even at 700mm with the 1.4x I am hand holding most of the time.

On thing about the 500 F4 II is that it is a very well balanced lens. A colleague I shoot with who has one too reckons it is lighter to use in feel than the Sigma 150-600 Sport he was using previously.

Re the 560 F5.6 verses 500 F8 discussion, if your body can AF at F8 then really I feel the 1 stop speed advantage is outweighed by the extra focal length range.

Now I am talking Full Frame bodies here...... if using a crop body things may change.

Arash Hazeghi uses the 400 DOII for bif. Body matters. You can google and find his in depth opinion.

Edit: I left out "with 2X TC" which is obviously relevant