Lens review on Canon 400mm f4 DO image stabilizer

[Steve Foss]

Swimmer was asking about this lens in another thread, and to not push that thread farther off track, I decided to start a new one. This review comes from an online commercial site, so I can't post the link here. I've found this site tremendously helpful in comparing/contrasting Canon lenses and bodies. They are thorough and on the money. The site is the digital picture dot commm. Do a Google search.

Some interesting reading here . . . . .

****************

The Canon EF 400mm f/4.0 DO IS USM Lens is Canon's first DO (Diffractive Optics) lens - yielding 400mm f/4 IS performance in a relatively small and light handholdable package.

Small and light are of course relative. Someone used to shooting with a Canon EF 28-135mm IS Lens will regard the Canon EF 400mm f/4.0 DO IS USM Lens as being large and heavy. But, someone used to shooting with a Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS Lens will regard the Canon EF 400mm f/4.0 DO IS USM Lens as light (4.3 lb vs. 5.6 lb) and definitely more easily handholdable. I really like the weight of this lens. The difference between it and the 300 f/2.8 feels even bigger than the 1.3 lb spec difference indicates.

Combining a light and relatively fast lens with IS (Image Stabilization) makes handholding even more possible. The Canon EF 400mm f/4.0 DO IS USM Lens' tripod sensitive IS enables handheld shots at about 2 f-stops slower than a non-IS 400mm lens. Remember - IS will not stop subject motion. Both Mode 1 and 2 IS are available. Mode 1 IS attempts to stop camera/lens motion in all directions. Mode 2 IS allows panning with a moving subject. As with all IS-equipped lenses, an on/off switch allows IS to be disabled.

Utilizing Ring USM (Ultrasonic Motor), the Canon EF 400mm f/4.0 DO IS USM Lens focuses fast, quietly and accurately. FTM (Full Time Manual) focusing is enabled. A 2-position focus limiter switch allows focusing distances to be limited to a minimum of 3.5m or 8m. Limiting the focus distance range can improve focus lock times. Autofocus Stop buttons (round black buttons on the black ring) near the objective lens allow autofocus to be temporarily stopped.

The Canon EF 400mm f/4.0 DO IS USM Lens is reasonably sharp at f/4 and even sharper stopped down 1/3 - 1 full stop. But not as sharp as the Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS Lens (few lenses are). The 300mm f/2.8 L IS is still sharper with a Canon 1.4x Extender attached (yielding a heavier but less expensive 420mm f/4 IS lens). The Canon EF 500mm f/4 IS L Lens is a bit sharper as well (similarly priced but nearly twice as heavy). The Canon EF 400mm f/4.0 DO IS USM Lens is a bit sharper than the much less expensive, smaller, lighter and slower Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS Lens with both wide open. The Canon EF 400mm f/4.0 DO IS USM Lens is noticeably sharper at comparable apertures.

Some minor light fall-off is apparent on the Canon EF 400mm f/4.0 DO IS USM Lens at f/4, getting better at f/4.5 and basically gone around f/5.6. In comparison, the 300mm f/2.8 L IS has similar vignetting. The Canon 100-400mm L has much stronger vignetting at its longer focal lengths on a Full Frame or 1.3x FOVCF body at its wider aperture settings (which are not as wide as with the Canon EF 400mm f/4.0 DO IS USM Lens' f/4).

Contrast is the Canon EF 400mm f/4.0 DO IS USM Lens' optical shortcoming. I found that most of my shots needed some healthy contrast boost in post-processing (or a positive in-camera contrast setting). I could easily tell which image was taken with the Canon EF 400mm f/4.0 DO IS USM Lens when looking at comparative shots on a monitor. The 300 f/2.8 IS has much better contrast than the Canon EF 400mm f/4.0 DO IS USM Lens and it is still better with the Canon 1.4x Extender installed. The Canon 100-400mm L has somewhat better contrast when the vignetting does not get in the way. Low contrast is my only significant dissapointment with the 400 DO.

The Canon EF 400mm f/4.0 DO IS USM Lens has been criticized for its poor specular highlight bokeh (foreground and background blur quality), but I have not encountered this problem. I can't say I like the bokeh of this lens more than the non-DO Super Telephoto Lenses, but the 400mm focal length combined with a relatively wide aperture can very nicely separate a subject from its background.

The Canon EF 400mm f/4.0 DO IS USM Lens is compatible with the Canon Extender EF 1.4x and Canon Extender EF 2x.

Physically, the Canon EF 400mm f/4.0 DO IS USM Lens is loaded. Build quality is excellent. Construction is dust and weather-resistant. Missing is the focus preset feature (I seldom use this anyway) found on many of the other Super Telephoto lenses.

The lens hood was my first Canon EF 400mm f/4.0 DO IS USM Lens' physical shortcoming. Not the hood itself, but the fit of the hood. It is extremely tight - too tight to get on/off - unless you gently wiggle and tilt the hood just right (objective end tilted toward the thumbscrew) during the install/removal. get the gentle wiggle and tilt just right and the hood removes or installs without aggravation. I tried the lens hood from my 300 f/2.8 IS (they share the same hoods and leatherette lens cap) to confirm that the hood itself was not the problem. My second Canon EF 400mm f/4.0 DO IS USM Lens' hood fits fine.

The Canon EF 400mm f/4.0 DO IS USM Lens comes packed in a protective and lockable Canon 400B lens hard case. The 400B lens case is identical in outside dimensions to the 300 f/2.8's case: about 14.5"W x 9.5"H x 10"D. When you open a Canon Super Telephoto Lens case, you are greeted with a smell that is right up there with new car smell (in my opinion of course). Not so with the Canon EF 400mm f/4.0 DO IS USM Lens. It does not smell bad, but not like the rest of the Super Telephoto cases I've opened. I'll leave the explanation for that to someone else. A neck strap that attaches directly to the lens is included.

The Canon EF 400mm f/4.0 DO IS USM Lens utilizes 52mm drop-in filters and comes equipped with a drop-in gel filter holder with a glass filter installed. This glass filter is also a nice way to catch dust before it drops deep inside the lens. The Canon 52mm Drop-In Circular Polarizer Filter is probably the most-used drop-in filter available for this lens.

My first Canon EF 400mm f/4.0 DO IS USM Lens was purchased retail/new in April 2005. There has been some talk about much earlier production models having lower optical quality. I have not tried one of the earlier models and cannot say if this is true or not.

If the natively lower contrast is not an issue for you, the Canon EF 400mm f/4.0 DO IS USM Lens makes an excellent sports lens. The long 400mm focal length will bring sports action up close. A relatively fast f/4 aperture will stop action in lower light levels and nicely blur the background.

The Canon EF 400mm f/4.0 DO IS USM Lens also makes an excellent walkaround wildlife lens. IS helps get the handheld shot in lower light levels that wildlife tends to be active in.

If you don't mind some extra weight and a shorter focal length (unless you add a 1.4x extender), The Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS Lens is significantly less expensive and performs better optically.

[mcary]

I agree with Steve that the site listed is a great one for lens reviews. I've read pretty much every review on the site, but in the case of the 400mm DO I have read other reviews that give it a much lower rating, especially when compared to the 100-400 f/3.5-5.6 L IS. I believe that this is something that should be noted when one considers the vastly more expensive 400mm DO. I can point interested individuals to an online review that compares three of Canon's 400mm lenses (the 400mm DO, the 100-400 f/3.5-5.6 L IS, and the 400mm f/5.6 L)and gives sample images to back up the claims made. In the opinion of this review the 400mm DO is the least sharp of the three and by far the most expensive (by a difference of nearly $4000). If anyone is interested in a link to the review email me at [email protected]

[Steve Foss]

Mike, I also was surprised the reviewer said the 400 DO was sharper at all aperatures than the 100-400L IS. I've compared images with the 100-400 wide open at max focal length with identical images shot with the 400L f2.8 IS, and noted that the prime was sharper, but not by a lot, and that's one of Canon's sharpest primes.

And the 100-400 takes images sharp enough that I've been able to market them for fine art prints and glossy mag 300 dpi publication. As a pro Canon shooter friend of mine said: It doesn't have the be the ultimate sharpest lens on the planet, it just has to be sharp enough for you to market the images.

Shoot me an e-mail with that link, would you? And let me know next time you head my way.

[Swimmer]

Steve, I read one review (can't remember which) where the conclusion was that one guys 100-400L was tack sharp, super sharp, and another guys was so so. So there seems to be some variability in copies of that lens. I think we know which one you got .

[Steve Foss]

Hey Swimmer, there's a small amount of variability in any product, and sometimes one copy of a lens is better/worse than another. Mine is a little soft wide open at 400mm, but I've compensated for that by getting in the habit of shooting in Av (aperature priority) mode, stopping down 2/3 to one stop and keeping iso at 400 unless there's a lot of light. Or by backing it off to 300 or 350mm when 400 isn't really needed. And by keeping that lens as rock steady as possible. That lens at that iso with the 20D/30D sensor makes for excellent prints to large sizes.

[Dbl]

Quote:

---

Steve, I read one review (can't remember which) where the conclusion was that one guys 100-400L was tack sharp, super sharp, and another guys was so so. So there seems to be some variability in copies of that lens. I think we know which one you got

.

---

Remember swimmer, you can always return what you don't like, and Canon does a very good job if you want to send in a lens for calibration. It is not that uncommon.

[Swimmer]

Thanks again guys. I guess I should have emphasized that the differences in sharpness for the 100-400L between the earliest copies and the latest copies was more pronounced than in other models (at least according to that review).

The latest in my lens quest saga is that I may have a "sponsor"! My boss was wondering what I was doing on the computer last week and I told him..."looking for a lens". It turns out that his daughter has a 30d and his son in law a DRxti. After I explained the nature of the "L" glass and the relatively high cost, he says, "let me take a look at the cash flow, and maybe we can buy a company copy". My reaction: . So, I think a 300 f/4 w/TC or a 100-400 L will be in the mix soon. The only drawback is that we would have to "sign out" the lens for a week or weekend. I guess I can live with that. I guess I'm now considered the company lens expert (at least I can spell the word now (sic)) . So now what?...the 300F/4 w/TC, or the 100-400 L. I'm kind of leening toward the versatility of the 100-400, since it also might be easier to use for the others. But, I like the extended range of the 300 w/TC. Thoughts?

[Steve Foss]

Dude! Wish I had a boss like that!

It comes down to what you're using it for. If you need the versatility of a zoom more than you need the slightly better low-light performance of the prime (minus the TC), get the zoom. If not, get the prime. It's really that simple. The prime will be slightly sharper, but not enough to matter. If you were talking 300 f2.8L and TC vs the 100-400, that would be a tougher choice, because that prime has REAL low-light chops, but in this case I'd say the zoom is the better fit. And, since it's going to be used by more than just you, your boss likely will appreciate the added flexibility.

[Dbl]

Boy, nice boss! I would think that multiple users would be better served with the versatility of the zoom. Shooting with a prime requires a little more work in setting up shots. Some users may be more experienced than others and have different length requirements than the next person. The zoom would be my choice.

[hobbydog]

A guy I work with has the 300 F4 with a TC. He loves the 300 but has never been happy when he uses it with the TC. Has sent it back to Canon and it was better he still not happy enough with it to feel confident using it with the TC.

[Swimmer]

Quote:

---

Boy, nice boss! I would think that multiple users would be better served with the versatility of the zoom. Shooting with a prime requires a little more work in setting up shots. Some users may be more experienced than others and have different length requirements than the next person. The zoom would be my choice.

---

The boss just walked by and asked me if I've ordered the lens yet? And then handed me his credit card. So, Canoga should have the 100-400L here (and a Manfrotto 3422 monopod w/support bracket) later this week! There were two Swans outside his place this morning...thank you Swans! Good help and Great Boss's are hard to find. Hopefully, the lens will be on a weekend, or week, signout basis...

Oops, forgot to ask...does anybody know if I need a ball head for the monopod, or does it come with something? I guess I could call Canoga, but this is probably a stupid question.

[Steve Foss]

The bracket comes with its own ball head. It's called "mini" ball head by Manfrotto, and I can't find a weight rating for it, so you'll just have to use it to see if it has enough muscle to hold the lens/camera combo securely. If not, you'll have to pick up a sturdier ballhead.