What Was The Problem?

Dale.

Dale.

Bo Derek
Suspended / Banned
Messages
13,716
Name
Dale.
Edit My Images
Yes
With the Canon 400DO mk1?

My thoughts are turning towards lenses again, if it all goes to plan, I might be in a position to buy a big white soon. I'd rather get a 2.8 but being realistic, I might only be able to stretch to an f4 but we'll see in the new year.

Options are the 300 f2.8 (with my TC), a Mk1 500f4 but that has servicing/repair issues, some itteration of the 400 2.8 or an early 600 f4.

I like the compactness of the DOs though but I can't stretch to a Mk2, I just can't justify that amount of cash. I've seen a MK1 for £1.5k but it had problems, didn't it?

Enlighten me please. (y)
 
There's serviceability issues with the mk 1 of that lens.... plus, optically, it really isn't that good. There's a reason for the huge price difference between the mk i & ii lenses. I've looked at these before and it's just not that good. I believe the 300 2.8 + tc is optically superior, if not, the 300 2.8 is miles better optically.
 
Back to the drawing board. :LOL:
 
As I’ve recently been moving to canon I saw these and thought it would be the perfect wildlife lens for me. I asked the same question on the canon R cameras thread.

Price and weight wise the mk1 version looks good but after seeing the price difference between the mk1 and mk2 I thought there would be a performance difference. Serviceability worries me. I’m guessing any EF lens will soon have that issue now none are made any more (I gather all production has gone over to RF lenses).

My idea is to go with the 300mm f4 EF as my wildlife lens and hire the 400mm f4 mk2 as required. It’s not ideal but makes some sense. I think If they bring out a RF version of the 400mm f4 I’d probably be quite interested until I saw the price!
 
I have been toying with investing in some large glass - either canon or nikon. However, the serviceability is the big issue for me.

I believe it makes more sense to hire the latest greatest, when you need it. Especially considering how affordable it is considering the purchase price.
 
Price is a consideration for me. I'm hoping to compromise between it and a decent lens, it doesn't have to be the latest and greatest.

Other options are the 400 f2.8 and the 500f4, although the Mk1 500 has service issues too.

The point about production moving to RF mount lenses now is a very good one, all EF glass will eventually have service issues, given time.

I have the 300f4, it's a lovely lens but a little short at times. It's good extended too but becomes f8 with my TC. Give it the light though and it's a nice combo.
 
Last edited:
400mm DO MK1 is a good lens, yes it wont be as sharp as the 300mm etc etc but its made for more of the compact leightweight aspects, here is a couple of shots from the 400mm DO when I was using it linked below, I now shoot with the 500mm FYI, but still think the 300mm is the best for overall IQ but don't personally get the 300mm if your just going to live with an Extender on it. In my opinion you wouldn't be disappointed with the 400mm DO by far its still a very capable lens

https://flic.kr/p/GH92v9
View: https://flic.kr/p/GH92v9


https://flic.kr/p/PWKPsH
View: https://flic.kr/p/PWKPsH
 
Dale. said:
Thanks for taking the time to post those, rather nice they are too. (y)
Click to expand...

No problem, my final advice would be look into sample images more to find your decision or trial the gear yourself than what people think about the lens that clearly have never used it, I mean as you mentioned you can get a 400mm DO for 1.5k and for that money you won’t find much better value for money
 
I too am interested in some of the older super tele's but can someone explain why the residuals are so strong given the lack of availability of spare parts etc? It's not a point of argument, I'm just very hesitant to invest in some of the older glass, knowing that it could become a paperweight ....
 
The mk1 400mm DO seemed to have variable IQ so if you do go that route I'd make sure you get a chance to test it out. The biggest problem though was it didn't really play very well with converters, so if you think you'll regularly want more focal length it might not be the best option.

Maybe consider a different route - an R6 could be had with not much more cash than you were considering for the DO, and will give much better low light performance, so it would negate the use of your slower current lens. A bit left field maybe but give it some thought

Mike
 
I’m guessing not on your list, but having had and been very happy with the mark 1 100-400 IS. Moved it on a few years back, only becasue I didn’t need the length abs was a bit heavy. Perhaps worth thinking..
 
stickytape said:
I’m guessing not on your list, but having had and been very happy with the mark 1 100-400 IS. Moved it on a few years back, only becasue I didn’t need the length abs was a bit heavy. Perhaps worth thinking..
Click to expand...


I have that lens, it's mega sharp and I wouldn't upgrade it to the Mk2, I see no need. It doesn't play well with the 2x though.

I must get closer. (y)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top