The original Canon 400m f4 DO IS.... is it worth buying one.

boogie 16

boogie 16

Suspended / Banned
Messages
862
Name
John
Edit My Images
No
Could anyone who already owns one, or as previously had one of the above lenses in the past, offer any advice on whether it's worth getting one in order to reduce the weight of gear for an ageing photographer.
I currently use a Sigma 150-600 sports lens and use it for wildlife, both for hide work and walk about use. I find it to be excellent in the image quality department on good bright clear days, but in poor light it can struggle a bit being a f6.3 lens at the long end, the other problem i have is its weight, I'm finding it too heavy to carry about all day along with a tripod and gimbal head, or a monopod to support it. As much as i would like to, I cannot justify the cost of the Canon 400 DO mark ii lens, but the MK I, is justifiable and affordable, it's two stops faster and 3 pounds lighter, plus it's compatible with a 1.4 convertor which will give me roughly the same reach...... But the big question is........ will i be disappointed in its performance?
 
Firstly I do not own one and have never owned one!

However I have used a few of them. The 400 DO Mk1 is STRICTLY a "Try before you Buy" lens in my opinion. There seems to be quite a bit of variation between copies. All are reported to show reduced contrast and muted colours, which ties in with my experiences - but a little processing should sort this.

Sharpness? I had the opportunity to try a brand new one (purchased that day) and it worked very well indeed as a bare lens but wasn't too happy with my Mk2 extenders. Another (used example) was pretty poor and made the Canon 400 F5.6 look wonderful! I also tried two used examples at a Camera shop and they were, frankly, some of the sharpest lenses that I have ever tried/owned! Set up with my (then) Canon 1D4 they exceeded the resolution of the Canon 600 F4 L IS Mk1 that I had at the time. If the shop wasn't asking too much for them I would have one of those two now.

Ageing photographer? Spend it quick and enjoy it! You know you really want the Mk2!:D
 
boogie 16 said:
Could anyone who already owns one, or as previously had one of the above lenses in the past, offer any advice on whether it's worth getting one in order to reduce the weight of gear for an ageing photographer.
I currently use a Sigma 150-600 sports lens and use it for wildlife, both for hide work and walk about use. I find it to be excellent in the image quality department on good bright clear days, but in poor light it can struggle a bit being a f6.3 lens at the long end, the other problem i have is its weight, I'm finding it too heavy to carry about all day along with a tripod and gimbal head, or a monopod to support it. As much as i would like to, I cannot justify the cost of the Canon 400 DO mark ii lens, but the MK I, is justifiable and affordable, it's two stops faster and 3 pounds lighter, plus it's compatible with a 1.4 convertor which will give me roughly the same reach...... But the big question is........ will i be disappointed in its performance?
Click to expand...
Thank you for that, very informative and food for thought. Your reference to spend it quick put a smile on my face.
 
I had one for a few months earlier this year John. It's okay when there's some crisp light providing the contrast but very uninspiring when the clouds are softening the light. I have a 200/2, 300/2.8 and 600/4 and the quality lags behind them by a good margin.

Bob
 
Canon Bob said:
I had one for a few months earlier this year John. It's okay when there's some crisp light providing the contrast but very uninspiring when the clouds are softening the light. I have a 200/2, 300/2.8 and 600/4 and the quality lags behind them by a good margin.

Bob
Click to expand...
Thanks Bob, It's becoming clear that my idea might not be a good one.
 
Then maybe look at a 400 5.6L no IS but a sharp lens and light weight by comparison, it takes a 1.4 TC quite well, although of course that give you effectively F8
I swapped mine out for a 300 because I wanted IS and I already have a 100/400 (mk 1)
Matt
 
There is always the Sigma 150-600mm contemporary it is a lot lighter than the Sport you have and I would easily class mine as my walkabout lens. I have had no problem with low light focus or IQ and often did owls at dusk with ISO12,800 and less than 1/1000 sec at f6.3 on a 7Dii. I chose the contemporary for both the lightness and cost, the IQ seemed on par with the sport and even though I don't shoot in the rain very often a decent lens coat solved the weather sealing niggle.

Before I got the Sigma I was having the same dilemma as you, also wanting to replace a weighty lens a 120-300mmf2.8 Sport which I used with 1.4 and 2xTC which I guess is on par with your 150-600 weight wise but f5.6 with a x2TC though it did loose AF speed when x2TC was attached. I looked at three 400mmDO's but every one I tried was soft through lack of contrast I also asked for RAW files from the owners to make sure it was not me or the conditions, these were also flat, lacking in colour and contrast in my opinion so I did not buy one in the end. I already had a 300f4IS and TC's so often used that with a 1.4TC or even my 70-200f2.8ii with a x2TC but I hated changing over TC's in the field especially at race tracks where it is always dusty, the 400f5.6 was out as old and no IS. The 100-400ii was up there in the mix next but it still only went to 400mm though it worked well with a 1.4TC. In the end a good deal came up on a SH 150-600mmC so I got that and was very happy.

Then earlier this year a mate was selling his 500f4IS and I thought I could improve on the Sigma for low light and quality so I bought it and yes it is much faster to focus, the extra stops of light did and did not come into play as at f4 the DOF is so thin it was no good for larger birds in flight but it does isolate subjects better. Anyway with the new toy taking over I sold the Sigma thinking the 500f4 was the bees knees. Then after a month or so of lugging it around I started to miss the portability and the ease of handholding so without any hesitation I ended up buying another 150-600C which is again my most used lens and often taken on dog walks or just put in a small backpack when out and about. I do still have 500f4 and it is a great lens, has better IQ, focus speed and isolation but I will only take it out if I am not walking far and I can use it on a monopod or tripod with gimbal and that includes low light situations.

If you are still going to look at the version one 400mmDO ask for some RAW files from the seller and be sure to try it on your camera, if they will not supply don't buy and if they do and you are happy you may have found a good one. For me the both 150-600C's I have bought did the trick for weight and IQ and the 500f4 is the icing on the cake. Would I swap both for a new 400DOii? Even without paying extra I very much doubt it.
 
PINNACLE said:
If you are still going to look at the version one 400mmDO ask for some RAW files from the seller and be sure to try it on your camera, if they will not supply don't buy and if they do and you are happy you may have found a good one. For me the both 150-600C's I have bought did the trick for weight and IQ and the 500f4 is the icing on the cake. Would I swap both for a new 400DOii? Even without paying extra I very much doubt it.
Click to expand...
Thank you for all the advice. You bring up some good valid points.
 
johnf3f said:
Firstly I do not own one and have never owned one!

However I have used a few of them. The 400 DO Mk1 is STRICTLY a "Try before you Buy" lens in my opinion. There seems to be quite a bit of variation between copies. All are reported to show reduced contrast and muted colours, which ties in with my experiences - but a little processing should sort this.

Sharpness? I had the opportunity to try a brand new one (purchased that day) and it worked very well indeed as a bare lens but wasn't too happy with my Mk2 extenders. Another (used example) was pretty poor and made the Canon 400 F5.6 look wonderful! I also tried two used examples at a Camera shop and they were, frankly, some of the sharpest lenses that I have ever tried/owned! Set up with my (then) Canon 1D4 they exceeded the resolution of the Canon 600 F4 L IS Mk1 that I had at the time. If the shop wasn't asking too much for them I would have one of those two now.

Ageing photographer? Spend it quick and enjoy it! You know you really want the Mk2!:D
Click to expand...

I can only agree with this assessment of the lens, I had a great copy but I had a chance to put it through a Reikan FoCal check before I bought it so I knew it was sharp.

Do try before you buy, I've sold mine and got a Mk2, which really is the dog's bits, but pricey.

Hope you get fixed up!!

George
 
George said:
I can only agree with this assessment of the lens, I had a great copy but I had a chance to put it through a Reikan FoCal check before I bought it so I knew it was sharp.

Do try before you buy, I've sold mine and got a Mk2, which really is the dog's bits, but pricey.

Hope you get fixed up!!

George
Click to expand...
Thanks for the very valid input George. I think the consensus of opinion is not to buy, Which i think is the right decision. I will just have to save up and dig deep for the mark ii version.
 
Ac
boogie 16 said:
Thanks for the very valid input George. I think the consensus of opinion is not to buy, Which i think is the right decision. I will just have to save up and dig deep for the mark ii version.
Click to expand...

Actually, John, not necessarily......a good copy can give excellent results and the lack of contrast fixed in PP...I have a shot taken with a mk1 and a mk3 2x converter of an otter in Shetland and it's one of the best shots I've taken, cropped and blown up to A2 and sharp as a tack...so don't discount them altogether, the price jump is huge to the mk2 and unless you have a real need, the mk 1 may suffice.

George
 
canonbabie said:
Its the Best plunge Ever though George, makes me smile just to look at it (Lens I mean).
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more....perhaps we should start a mk2 owners club, but I suspect there won't be many members..
 
For me its the Squirrels Nuts, do you think he agrees George?

Though seems to be Dropping his in amazement.

Oops Crop.jpg
 
Last edited:
boogie 16 said:
Thanks for the very valid input George. I think the consensus of opinion is not to buy, Which i think is the right decision. I will just have to save up and dig deep for the mark ii version.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say not to buy one, but I would suggest trying it our first - especially with extenders. The Mk1 can be very good indeed, but it can (in my limited experience) be very mediocre too.

Given the lack of servicing in the not too distant future then I wouldn't pay a great deal for a Mk1 - but if you can find a good one then it will be a LOT cheaper than a Mk2.

Naturally if the finance is available then the Mk2 is the preferred option, is the finances are strained?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top