Advice regarding 400mm DO IS lens - Long post warning (1 Viewer)

I would like some assistance to confirm if my proposed lens choice is reasonable.
My wife and I like to visit reserves and look at the local released red kites and I can often photograph wing tag numbers in flight which I know I cannot do regularly with my binoculars. I more often take my kit with me on walks on hills and cliffs of up to 7 miles, dropping the telescope for walks longer than that. I do climb gates and occasionally fences. I am interested in photographing birds and animals on my walks, not necessarily to professional standard, although good photographs are pleasing, but also to assist identification. I probably only recognise 50% of species of birds as they rise on my approach, so far away that I would need a 1200mm lens to get a reasonable photograph. I don't have the real birder's touch, so recognition is an issue for me. When they were handing out mind's eyes in 1945 I seem to have got left out, and the only photographic thing about me is my camera. I won't be doing tetrad census any time soon, although I would enjoy it. Using my binoculars or telescope I regularly note a set of features which are not present on any bird in the world, never mind NE Scotland, if I have not already recognised the species. Photographic identification is therefore important to me.
I have progressed this year from a Panasonic FZ18 with a TCON17 convertor, purchased last autumn, and opening my eyes to photographing birds if not photography, to a 40D with 2 IS kit lenses up to 250mm. Obviously reach is inufficient so I am training with my TCON17 attached to the front of the 250mm lens. This gives me about 400mm. The extended lens combination is about 10 inches long, but only the first 3 inches does not rotate when auto focussing so it is not easy to handle. The 1.7 teleconvertor does produce better results than the 250mm on it's own, and I am starting to have success using it. Off topic but I think interesting, I think I am more likely to damage the micromotor by letting my finger stray to the rotating part than due to the weight on the front, and I was not expecting it to give such reasonable results.
From my studies on the subject of next lens, it seems that there is a consensus that someone wanting reach should get one of the 400mm f5.6 lenses (No, this isn't another of those discussions), get better, and move on to the 500mm f4, or possibly the 800mm f5.6 if my wife has not divorced me already. The weight of the larger lenses worries me, and I'm concerned that the 500mm will not get taken out of the backpack very often, and 400mm is not enough. I think that I can devise a way to carry a reasonably protected mounted 400mm f4 DO IS with or without extender and get it ready to use in a few seconds, slower than my binoculars, but not stowed away. It can also be used with a 1.4 extender and autofocus, and manually focussed on a tripod with 2x extender. If I go the 400mm DO way, I save a lot of weight as my long lens kit will be a new 400mm DO and 2 extenders instead of a 400mm f5.6, a 500mm f4, one extender, 2425g instead of 5340g if canon extenders are used. There is a good weight saving of 2915g, therefore, and also a cost saving, if anything about Canon long lenses could be said to be a cost saving.
There is now the issue of the canon 400mm f4 DO IS USM lens. How good is it really? Although my needs are not that high, any photograph is improved by good contrast and sharpness. Many reviews of the DO lens place it litte higher than one of the 400mm f5.6 lenses. I have never seen one of these lenses and don't think I can hire one either. canon have not made it an L lens, which the 5.6s are. Does anyone have experience of the lens, does it work well with extenders, and would it meet my needs?
The other advantage for me of course is not having to choose which 400mm f5.6 lens to get.:-O
Finally, sorry for the long post, but I already know that the DO lens is not as good as the 500mm f4 or the 400mm f2.8 lenses, and I wanted to get some more useful personal pointers than a simple request about the 400mm DO lens.

although not an L it is made to that standared ,i dont have one but from what iv read some love it and some dont owing to the out of focus part of the shot haveing the look of a mirrow lens i.e downut type rings on highlight's there just not so nice as the results a non DO gives.
have you thought about the 300f2.8isL one of canons sharpest if not the sharpest lens it take a 1.4tc with almost nill loss of IQ and takes the 2x tc with just a small drop in IQ and it is small.
this would give you a 600f5.6 and will af on the 40d too.
it gives many options and is not to heavy .
Just my thoughts.
i would not buy a Do lens myself.
Rob.

Hi Rob,
Thanks for the reply. I have now looked at some web galleries for these rings. Naturally on some they are not present at all, perhaps having been rejected or removed. I did find them on some photographs and I'm surprised how obvious they were. I wonder how to avoid them.
Does this alter my preference, and make me go for the 300mm 2.8. To be honest, I'm not sure. I don't want to carry an extra 610g. Autofocus with the 300mm 600mm, autofocus with the 400mm 560mm. Aaaaarggghhh!
Thanks anyway
Alex

Hi Alex,

I went through this, and couldn't find anywhere to try a 400 DO. Lots of reviews said it lacked punch, so I didn't have the confidence to buy it, bought a 500 instead. It is too heavy to carry backpacking, so have ended up buying a 300 f4 which I will use with a 1.4 and sometimes 2x. I have both TCs, and the 300 is nice and light and not too damaging to the wallet (670 delivered from Ian Kerr).

The 500 can be handheld, but ...

Hi citrinella,
I'm afraid that the same thing might happen to me. I do do a lot of walking so weight is very important. If only there weren't so many negative reviews......
Veering back to still take the plunge. :eek!:
Alex

I use the Canon 400 f5.6L USM, and get satisfactory results without IS - I can hand hold it on 1/800 sec or above depending on light levels, you really need sun - or rest it on the scope and tripod down to 1/500 sec, using asa 200 or 400. I bought a new one on ebay and saved £200....
The IS lenses are a huge amount more expensive - £000s

Alex,the 400F5.6 will auto focus with the 1x4 ext if you tape the pins. The 400F5.6 is the lightest 400,I think you will find.Very sharp at times,esp when using the 40D,although sadly there are a few members who will not agree with this at the moment.

The difficulty that I see with the 400mm f5.6's is that I will want to get a longer prime lens, probably sooner than later, and there have been many reports that the 40D is worse than the older reduced frame cameras at autofocussing (if that is a word) with convertors with taped pins. I'm happy to try taped pins or the 1.5 Kenko, including with the 400mm DO, but I don't want to depend on it.
I do know they cost £1000's but needs must when the devil of Got-to-have-one drives, as they say....
At least the glass keeps it value well if I don't ruin it, which I probably will, looking at everything else I've ever bought. I have got a few ideas up my Heath Robinson DIY sleeve to try to protect my good lenses better than a simple lens cover though, although I'll have to be careful not to ruin my new lens, whatever it is, before my design materialises.
Thanks both

Iam with Rob if you dont want the weight of the 500 id go for the 300 f2.8 plus converters the result are stunning.

I am in a similar position to 'amilne'. At the moment I have the 400 f5.6 which is a great lens but I am looking for more reach. If I was confident I could handle the weight I would get a 500mm f4 tomorrow (probably using it as a 700mm f5.6 most of the time) trouble is that I never shoot from a hide or wait around for the birds but tend to do longish walks and take my shots as and when the opportunity's occurs. I can walk for 3-4 hours with the 400 5.6 and 40D around my neck and be ready to take a shot in seconds - I wonder how many shots I would miss If I had to use a tripod all the time?

If I got the 300mm f2.8 I would be using it as a 600mm f5.6 just about all the time, I keep wondering if the 300 with a 2x would be as good a IQ as the 400 5.6 bare lens. Any one done such a comparison?

Another option is the sigma 500 f4.5 but that it heavier than the 300 2.8 and I think you would lose AF with a 1.4tc on a 40D.

All very frustrating when you have the cash waiting, perhaps I should spend some of it on a body building course :-O

Roy C said:

I am in a similar position to 'amilne'. At the moment I have the 400 f5.6 which is a great lens but I am looking for more reach. If I was confident I could handle the weight I would get a 500mm f4 tomorrow (probably using it as a 700mm f5.6 most of the time) trouble is that I never shoot from a hide or wait around for the birds but tend to do longish walks and take my shots as and when the opportunity's occurs. I can walk for 3-4 hours with the 400 5.6 and 40D around my neck and be ready to take a shot in seconds - I wonder how many shots I would miss If I had to use a tripod all the time?

If I got the 300mm f2.8 I would be using it as a 600mm f5.6 just about all the time, I keep wondering if the 300 with a 2x would be as good a IQ as the 400 5.6 bare lens. Any one done such a comparison?

Another option is the sigma 500 f4.5 but that it heavier than the 300 2.8 and I think you would lose AF with a 1.4tc on a 40D.

All very frustrating when you have the cash waiting, perhaps I should spend some of it on a body building course :-O

Click to expand...

THE 400F5.6 is sharper iv just done a quick test it is a dull damp day here so each could be a little better in good light - resting on a chair 1/750sec both wide open f5.6 iso 400 aprox 100% crops i moved a little closer with the 400mm to keep the image size on the sencor aprox the same as the 300+2xtc
40d used.
Rob.

And this is the 500f4 isL 1/1500 f4 iso 400 all these are taken from the jpeg and i only ajusted brightness and contrast so they all sort of matched up as the light is changing here.
also i turned IS of on the 300mm and 500mm
Rob.

GYRob said:

THE 400F5.6 is sharper iv just done a quick test it is a dull damp day here so each could be a little better in good light - resting on a chair 1/750sec both wide open f5.6 iso 400 aprox 100% crops i moved a little closer with the 400mm to keep the image size on the sencor aprox the same as the 300+2xtc
40d used.
Rob.

Click to expand...

Thanks for that Rob, I agree that the 400 5.6 is sharper than the 300 x2 but the 500 looks streets ahead of them both. I guess the 300 + 1.4 would be a little sharper than the bare 400. You have the absolute right answer - get them all 8-P but then again you must have a problem sometimes as to which one(s) you take with you.
I still got some thinking to do. Thanks again Rob.

Edit Just had a quick play with the 300 x2 image in CS2 and it sharpens up very well.

the 300+ 1.4 is about as sharp as the 400f5.6 theres not much in it and PS can balance it out anyway but you do gain a stop of shutter speed and that can be very handy.
as for which one i take its almost always the 500f4isL if there was a quick way of checking in my gallery i think most shots are taken with it Reach ruls most of the time here in the uk anyway, if it wasnt for the weight i would also have the 600f4isL But its just to much and not one i could handhold either.
Rob.

Thanks very much for all the helpful information. I suppose the lack of comments from 400mm DO owners is just that there are not many out there. I have found a gallery of photographs for the lens, with and without a 1.4 extender here http://www.pbase.com/omar_brannstrom/canon_400mm_do_f4_test_gallery&page=1 which I think shows that someone can get results with the lens when photographing birds.
The sheer lightness makes me think that I will have to go for the DO lens, and probably follow up with a longer prime at some stage, if I don't sell it again first when I find out why no-one else has one. :'D
Alex

I use a 400mm DO and a 600mm I find no difference in the qualiy of the images of the two lens The DO lens is a great lens to carry and 90% of the shots I take with it are hand held I almost always use a 1.4 extender with it no need to tape pins and it very quick at focusing. great for puting in a small bag toget on planes ect. I just put it on my shoulder uusing the strap a matter of seconds will give you a very good shot. I used it for reading White-tailed Sea Eagle tags very readable even at great distances.
If I had to choose between my two lens I would keep the DO,

Thanks for the response. You have some excellent images on your site, Jim. At last I feel really encouraged about the DO lens.
Thanks again
Alex

And have now purchased and which should arrive next week. Unfortunately I am going back to work for a time to help justify my purchase so I won't have so much time to use it. 8-P
When one door opens, another slams in your face....

Good choice. I've had one for around 18 months and it's taken some getting used to but it's a fine walkabout lens and the best thing going for handheld in poor light. I regularly post stuff on Surfbirds (usually common UK gallery) and www.bluebirder.blogspot.com.
PS I have an old Teleplus 2x converter which works fine and retains AF in decent light for those long shots, though quality is a bit iffy - my Canon 1.4 is more permanent.

I went to Finland with Hugh Harrop and was only using a 100-400 IS with a 20D body (I now use a 500mm f4.0 IS on a 1D Mark IIn) and Hugh let me use his 400mm DO throughout the week.Its an excellant,light,sharp lens and I know that alot of the images on www.hughharrop.com have been taken using the said lens.