Canon 400 f4 v 500f4 (2 Viewers)

[graham catley]

If cash were no object has anyone any thoughts on the pros and cons of the new Canon EF400mm f4 DO IS USM (1,940g 128 x 232.7mm) against the widely used Canon EF500mm f4.0 L IS USM (3,870g 146 x 387mm)---clearly the former is smaller and lighter but looses some magnification but I have seen some super shots on some Finnish bird photo web sites taken with this lens and of course lots taken with the 500f4---the 400 is also about £500 cheaper than the 500--

Graham Catley

 

[compa]

Looking on a site here in the US (www.adorama.com) I only see $200US difference between the two lenses. Well worth it for an extra 100mm reach unless I'm really missing something about the 400's features.

Good, even great, shots are due more to the photographer than the equipment. Only both lenses in the hands of the same person can tell the story. Of course if you only need 400mm and you don't care for the extra weight of the 500mm the path is very clear.

 

[Andy Bright]

Not going to be particularly enlightening for you Graham, but I do remember reading recently that there were some issues with the 400mm DO IS ... don't ask me where or what!!... told you it wasn't much help
cheers,
Andy

 

[Michael McKee]

If money & weight are no object then I think the 500mm lens would be the best option. From what I've read the 500mm seems to have the edge on the 400mm for sharpness although how discernible this actually is I'm not sure.

I used to have a manual Canon 500mm f4.5 and it certainly was an excellent lens, but I found that due to its weight I used it less and less. On trips to Shetland I used to go out birding without it and only retrieve it for a good bird as birding for a whole day with it was impossible.

Last year I sold all my old 35mm equipment and went for the 400mm DO lens. For a fast 400mm lens its size and weight are remarkable. (It's actually shorter than the 400mm f5.6). I now find that I can go out birding all day with it and hardly notice it's there.

Along with the weight the IS gives it the advantage of easily being handheld and I've managed to take plenty of flight shots in this way. e.g see the Pallid Swift shots on my website.

With regards to Andy's commments about issues with the 400mm DO it seems that early production lenses (pre mid-2002) were not as sharp as more recent ones.

I hope this adds something to the debate. If you want to see some of my results there is a search option on my website which will filter out photos taken with this lens.

Regards,

Michael

www.michaelmckee.co.uk

 

[Marise]

Hi Graham,

I recently purchased the 400mm DO. This was after a bit of deliberation, but I came to the conclusion that for me it really was the only option.

My criteria was fairly basic:- I wanted extra focal length, I wanted to be able to handhold as I rarely use a tripod and I was not prepared to sacrifice autofocus.

The 1.4 converter does not allow autofocus on the 100-400 but works well on the 400 DO with very little apparent loss of quality (if any) so I have my extra focal length.

The weight of 4.1 lbs is managable as far as holding is concerned even with the converter. Admittedly I am not sure that I could do this for long stretches at a time but I am only 5' 4'' !

Autofocus works quickly even with the 1.4 TC. One thing I have noticed and a report I read confirmed this, it does lack a little in contrast. I have upped the camera parameters but it is still a little lacking - nothing that cannot be rectified post production tho.

I have only had this lens for a few weeks and have not had as much chance to use it as I would have liked - and I am certainly no expert, but so far I am delighted.

I have an 'Untidy Robin' in my gallery which I think was one of my 1st shots with it. ( I would do a link but I'm not sure how to!) Hope this helps.

Regards
Marise

 

[Steve G]

If you plan to do a lot of foreign birding-esp using package flights & the cheaper air-carriers then the much lighter/more compact 400mmDO lens is the one to go for. Otherwise the extra reach of the 500mm is preferable. Unfortunately packing the 500mm IS Canon lens with a 70-200 lens + 1Ds body + 1.4x & 2x convertors + bins is almost impossible to achieve in a hand luggage carry-on bag. Such a bag exceeds carry-on dimensions & will weigh in excess of 10kg.

 

[graham catley]

thanks everyone---I have just read David Tiplings new book on Bird Photography hoping for a means of getting past the weight problems encountered with cheaper airlines but I am afraid it came down to talk nicely to the check in staff!---there is clearly a trade off between weight/size and focal length but I wondered how much difference there was in lens quality so Michael's experience is particularly useful---I also tend to do a fair bit of walking and birding with the camera so weight can soon become an important factor in whether to carry it all day or leave it at home and th elatter option seldom produces good photos!---
now all I need is a big cash arrival

 

[Steve G]

I don't think image quality is an issue between these two lenses but the size/weight difference is. Combining the 400DO with a 1.4x convertor on a 20D will give an impressive piece of kit (x18 magnification & hand-holdable in decent light). Though I frequently handhold my 500 lens (often with a convertor) it really demands a tripod to get consistently sharp images. If I had the money to spare I would get a 400DO as the main travel lens -combining it with a monopod. As things stand I pack a mid-sized Lowepro pack into my suitcase to carry my gear at the other end & take along my wife splitting the gear between us in our hand luggage allowance. Perhaps the 400DO lens would be a cheaper option in the long term!

 

[Iceberg slim]

I have now had my 400 do+20D for around 6 months,taking it to both goa and Panama,it is easily hand holdable and the is helps tremendously,the weightof camera +1.4tc,macro lens &bins plus sundry items is just about on the limit of my large Billingham,likegraham says smile sweetly at the checkin it normally works.

Martin

 

[graham catley]

probably not a quality option but a lot cheaper I see that the Canon 300f4 is less than a grand and it appears to work with a 2x converter from the blurb on Warehouse Express (or at least it doesn't say that it does not work)---anybody any experience of this lens?--I cannot say that I have seen any posted pictures credited to it so maybe it is not widely used

 

[Valerie]

[QUOTE=Marise............. The 1.4 converter does not allow autofocus on the 100-400 but works well on the 400 DO with very little apparent loss of quality (if any) so I have my extra focal length.)



:h?: Does anyone know if a 1.4 converter is compatible and would allow autofocus with my Canon 300D and 75-300 usm lens???

 

[compa]

Teleconverters are not for zoom lenses under 100mm - the physical structure of the lens prohibits their use. When zooming, the lens' glass will strike the teleconverter's glass.

The 1.4 will allow autofocus on a lens of f4 or better. Autofocus will not function with a 2x teleconverter.

You can force the camera to attempt to use autofocus by taping over a couple of the lens' electrical contacts - making the teleconverter electrically invisible - but the autofocus will be slow and erratic. Also the camera will report focal length of the lens only without the teleconverter's multiplication factor. I do this to force autofocus on my 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 lens.

Hope this helps!

 

[Valerie]

Teleconverters are not for zoom lenses under 100mm - the physical structure of the lens prohibits their use. When zooming, the lens' glass will strike the teleconverter's glass.

The 1.4 will allow autofocus on a lens of f4 or better. Autofocus will not function with a 2x teleconverter.

You can force the camera to attempt to use autofocus by taping over a couple of the lens' electrical contacts - making the teleconverter electrically invisible - but the autofocus will be slow and erratic. Also the camera will report focal length of the lens only without the teleconverter's multiplication factor. I do this to force autofocus on my 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 lens.

Hope this helps!

Thank you very much Jim..... I am very grateful for your reply, also very disappointed as it looks like I am destined to fork out more money for another new lens sometime in the future :eek!: :eek!:

Cheers,

Val

 

[Kent]

I've also been trying out the 400DO with the 1.4x teleconverter and like it. Easy to carry mainly. I have some shots here http://www.greenbackedheron.com/id.cfm?setid=1693 and here

Merlin: http://www.greenbackedheron.com/photo.cfm?setid=1700


An earlier Merlin interacting with a Sharp-shinned: http://www.greenbackedheron.com/photo.cfm?setid=1705

Sharpshinned Hawk: http://www.greenbackedheron.com/photo.cfm?setid=1703

 

[screaming piha]

The 1.4 will allow autofocus on a lens of f4 or better. Autofocus will not function with a 2x teleconverter.

It depends on the camera: if you have a 1D you can autofocus at f8. That's one of the reasons why the 500 f4 is so popular. If you can afford the glass you can probably afford the 1D and, with a X2, you then have a 1,000mm f8 lens with autofocus, and IS that works on a tripod. Very handy. Arthur Morris seems to use that setup almost constantly.

Another cheaper (or should I say a little less expensive) option is the 300 f2.8 with converters. If weight is a serious issue, then a 1D with 300 f4 and converters is truly lightweight.

 

[compa]

It depends on the camera: if you have a 1D you can autofocus at f8. That's one of the reasons why the 500 f4 is so popular. If you can afford the glass you can probably afford the 1D and, with a X2, you then have a 1,000mm f8 lens with autofocus, and IS that works on a tripod. Very handy. Arthur Morris seems to use that setup almost constantly.

Another cheaper (or should I say a little less expensive) option is the 300 f2.8 with converters. If weight is a serious issue, then a 1D with 300 f4 and converters is truly lightweight.

Too many variables to look at!!!!!! :scribe:

If using a 20D you have the 1.6 crop factor (compared to the 1D which is full frame) which is even longer than using the 1.4 extender (specially when you consider there is no light loss!). 200mm free! But that 1D is sure sweet on many other points! :t:

I've been fighting this one myself and there is no good answer - it very much depends on one's shooting style - tripod setup or walking through the brush. Both are very good lenses and the answer has to be a personal one!

 

[tom tams]

probably not a quality option but a lot cheaper I see that the Canon 300f4 is less than a grand and it appears to work with a 2x converter from the blurb on Warehouse Express (or at least it doesn't say that it does not work)---anybody any experience of this lens?--I cannot say that I have seen any posted pictures credited to it so maybe it is not widely used

Hi Graham

I use a 300mm f/4 IS USM Lens with a 1.4x extender, which I use mainly on foreign holiday trips. I honestly cant fault this lens Pics can be seen at www.tomtamsbirdimages.co.uk see under Florida


Tom

 

[Russ Jones]

Graham Catley wrote: "probably not a quality option but a lot cheaper I see that the Canon 300f4 is less than a grand and it appears to work with a 2x converter from the blurb on Warehouse Express (or at least it doesn't say that it does not work)---anybody any experience of this lens?--I cannot say that I have seen any posted pictures credited to it so maybe it is not widely used"

I can assure you that the quality of this lens is on par with the best lenses out there. You will not find any lens noticibly sharper. It's the reach that limits you with the 300 f4 but I use mine mainly for butterflies, BTW you will lose autofocus with a 2x TC on a 20D.

As far as which one I'd get..I'd get the DO. I just sold my 500 because I didn't like the size of it. It really took alot of effort to bring it around and I found myself leaving it behind because of this. I woudn't get another one but I am now in the market for a 400 DO... I'd much rather stalk my subjects than sit and wait for them.

Cheers,

Russ

 

[Russ Jones]

400mm DO

Hi,

I just picked up a 400 DO and have had the chance to test it out a bit. This lens is exactly what I needed. The image quality is indistinguishable from the 500mm or any other L lens to me and the size is a dream. With my 20D I get a 640mm F4 and with a 1.4x TC I get 896mm F5.6 in an easily hand-holdable package, that's pretty sweet. I'll write up my thoughts of this lens in the reviews section after I'v had it for a while but my first impression is WOW.

Cheers,

Russ

 

[Robert Davis]

These lenses are heavy and large. If you can use a tripod the 500 f4 cannot be beaten. FOR A MORE VERSATILE CHOICE THAT CAN BE USED HAND-HELD, I VOTE FOR THE 100-400 AF IS ZOOM.
ROBERT DAVIS.

If cash were no object has anyone any thoughts on the pros and cons of the new Canon EF400mm f4 DO IS USM (1,940g 128 x 232.7mm) against the widely used Canon EF500mm f4.0 L IS USM (3,870g 146 x 387mm)---clearly the former is smaller and lighter but looses some magnification but I have seen some super shots on some Finnish bird photo web sites taken with this lens and of course lots taken with the 500f4---the 400 is also about £500 cheaper than the 500--

Graham Catley