Canon 400/4 DO lens part deux

[gary voth]

Bob, I believe I can now say something definitive about this lens, as I have personally tested two samples. The first one I bought (and eventually returned) from my mail order supplier after carefully reading Michael's review at the Luminous Landscape; the second belonged to my local dealer, which I tested as a control.

 

The bottom line: my experience with this lens was disappointing. At f/4.0 both samples were quite soft, the image improved somewhat at f/4.5 and was mostly crisp at f/5.6. My testing consisted of both walk-around shooting and carefully calibrated photographs of test targets, with the camera/lens mounted on a Gitzo 1349 and mirror locked up, etc. With the second sample, I also tested a Canon 400 5.6 and a 300 2.8 IS with and without the 1.4 TC. The 300 2.8 with the 1.4 was *substantially* sharper at f4.0 than the 400 DO.

 

For me, this result was unacceptable. A lens like this would be used wide open *a lot*, so performance at this aperture is vital. In particular, I think this prohibits the use of teleconverters, making an already expensive 400mm lens even more so (because of its more limited usage scenarios).

 

I can't explain why my results differed so much from Michael's and the Outbackphoto.com tests. Perhaps it was because Michael's tests were all done with the D30 (which does not have the resolution of film). I noticed that some of the Outbackphoto.com review sample images were made at f/8 or thereabouts, where these problems would not be as evident.

 

I returned the lens. Hope this helps.

[patrick_smeaton]

Gary, I am (was) seriously considering purchasing one. In Reichmann's test photo's I seemed to see quite a difference in the contrast between the 300 F2.8 and the 400 F4 (300 being better). I just blew it of as my screen, his scan, my eyes playing tricks, etc. Did you notice any difference in contrast?

[patrick_smeaton]

Also, I believe the shots on outbackphoto.com at F/8 were taken as such because he was using it with the 2x Extender.

 

One more question comes to mind. Since both on-line tests referenced here were shot with a digital with a smaller sensor (in relation to film), I am wondering were you comparing the full frame shot from your (I assume) slides. Therefore, where you could see what the lens could do all the way to edge of a 35mm slide. The other tests were "missing" some info?

[bob stewart jacksonville]

As someone who regularly lugs around around a 600mm f/4, (with the required heavy tripod and tripod head) I can tell you there is something to be said for lighter.

[bruce_gowdy1]

The whole purpose of this lense is to utilize the wide optic (f4.0) for low light situations - else you would select the 400mm L f5.6.

BUT.... the 4.0 resolution and contrast falls off at wide open, thus forcing you to close down to say 5.6 or 8 for sharpness on the edges.

The 400mm f5.6 outpreforms the 400mm DO f4.0 in image quality and costs about $4800 LESS ! Until improvements are made on this DO lens in both optical quality and price, I'd say buying one is a waste.

(I own a 400 f/5.6 and 500 IS f/4.0 and love both.

 

bruce

[ShunCheung]

Just curious, among those who have posted to this thread, besides Gary Voth, who has actually used this lens in nature situations so that they can claim personal experience with it? To really judge this lens or any lens, you need to shoot at least a few rolls of film (or 40, 50, 60 digital images) with this lens and other compariable lenses to have a reasonable comparison.

[gary voth]

Regarding my test methodology: I used Provia 100 and examined the results with 4x Rodenstock and 10x Horizon loupes. The differences between lenses were clearly apparent.

 

What prompted me to do a more formal test of the lens was my initial "blah" response to the first roll I shot with it. Slides just didn't have the snap that I was expecting.

 

Like Bob Atkins, I initially bought the 100-400 expecting a lot. In that case, I used it uncritically for a while. When my results were disappointing I initially suspected my technique, or the then-new IS feature. Only after owning the lens for 6 months or so did I realize that it just plain wasn't that sharp at 400mm. (I had Canon service it and it actually improved, but I eventually sold it.) I had a similar experience with the 17-35.

 

Moral of story: I now always test a new lens before I decide to keep it, no matter what kind of reputation it has. Particularly for zoom lenses with their very complex design, I suspect there may be some sample variation.

 

In the case of the 400 f/4.0 DO, the whole reason for its existence must revolve around performance at f/4.0: otherwise the 400mm 5.6L is lighter and *way* cheaper. Based on my eperience, I think Canon may have some tuning to do.

 

I am not sure that the lack of sharpness wide open is due to the DO design. (I did not notice obvious chromatic aberation, the stigma that the DO technology is designed to combat.) Perhaps Canon was trying to push the envelope a bit on absolute size and weight reduction, and this resulted in compromised performance at wide apertures. (This is pure speculation of course.) Future DO lenses may be fine.

[gary voth]

A minor postscript to this story: I ended up buying a pristine pre-owned 300 f/2.8 IS (which my dealer allowed my to test against his 400 DO), that some guy had just traded to buy the 400! The 300 with the 1.4x TC was clearly sharper than the 400 alone (and almost as sharp as not using a TC at all).

 

Since my work is more corporate/commercial/editorial and nature photogarphy is a sideline, this lens (with its matching converters) actually makes more sense for me anyway...

[michael_lopez]

Count me among those who have not used this lens.

 

FWIW, the French photo magazine Chasseur d'Images reviewed the 400/4 DO in its January-February 2002 issue. They praised its construction quality, its relatively light weight and small size for a 400/4 lens, and its image stabilisation. But they went on to conclude that "while the lens is extraordinarily easy to manipulate, its optical quality is banal, and its price is delirious." Moreover, it "barely reaches the image quality of the 420mm f/4 [telephoto] obtained by a Canon 300/2.8 + 1.4x converter." They measured vignetting at 0.5 EV wide open, though negligable at f/5.6.

[mark_kay]

Well I picked up a 400DO on Friday and tested it against the

300/2.8 with a 1.4x TC on an EOS 1D. I agree with everything

Gary Voth stated. I am going to return mine. mark

[bobatkins]

Gary - Thanks for your very interesting test results. Can't say I'm shocked though.

<p>

<em>"Perhaps (the positive review of the 400/4 DO) was because Michael's tests were all

done with the D30 (which does not have the resolution of film)"</em> I'd say that is a safe bet. I just scanned some test shots of my own taken using the 75-300/4-5.6 IS lens at 300mm f5.6 and taken using my 300/4L at f5.6. They were scanned at 4000dpi. There really isn't a huge amount of difference. Looking at the slides with a 10x loupe you can see a clear difference, but much (though not quite all) of that is lost in the scan. I really don't think using a D30 for a lens test makes any sense at all, unless what you are testing is the lens-D30 system.

<p>

Gary and I must have gotten the only two 100-400L IS lenses that weren't really sharp at 400mm. Most of the reviews say the lens is razor sharp at 400mm. Sounds like Gary's wasn't and neither was mine. Bet they work great on a D30 though...

[ShunCheung]

Meanwhile, some people have been telling us that the D30 can rival 35mm film and the Nikon D1x at 5M pixels can compete with medium format.

[bobatkins]

Does that make the D60 image quality equivalent to a 4x5?

 

People really do get a little overenthusiastic about new stuff. To get a little perspective on things, read reviews in the popular photo press written 2 or 3 years ago on what was hot then (but has cooled off considerably by now!).

[john_merriman1]

Personally, I would still like to see an EF400mmf/5.6 IS. My EF400mm f/5.6 was very sharp and fast focusing, but I found I was using it less and less in favor of IS lenses and I sold it. If Canon would just add IS and the option for closer minimum focus distance I think they would have a winner. The new EF400mmf/4 DO IS was a disappointment in terms of price and now the above reports indicate it may not be quite up to the optical quality of the "L" line of telephotos. So I think there is a decent sized niche for an EF400mm f/5.6 IS. It would be closer in weight to the EF300mmf/4 IS and much lighter than the EF300mmf/2.8 IS. I have the EF300mmf/4 IS and almost always have a 1.4x Extender attached. I would love to have the full optical quality and focus speed of a native 400mmf/5.6 with IS and even entertain the thought of adding the 1.4x in the right conditions.

[patrick_smeaton]

Fritz Poelking used the 400 f/4 for the April "photo of the month", with a 2x teleconverter and he seems to be pleased with the results. He shoots film.

[alan_krantz]

Photo of the month where ?

[patrick_smeaton]

Sorry, just as I was finished typing I looked down at my watch and noticed that I was late from my break, so I didn't edit my post. It is "Photo of the Month" at Poelking's site: www.poelking.com

[meikel]

Hi,

yes Fritz Poelking has finally gotten his report out. It is only available in German, though.

Go to http://www.poelking.com/index_d.htm and select "Werkstattbuch-2", the second latest report gives an overview on the features of the DO and its merits. Poelking has also posted some impressive shots with the lens.

To cut this short, I'd dare summerize that he is very delighted by the lens and recommends it for the generally interested (mushrooms to mammals) covering nature photographer who wants to travel lighter.

The images speak for themselves although of course caution has to be applied to judging lens quality by some tiny tiffs (in the better case) or jpg's (in the worse) over the web.

I save a bit more and get one instead the 300/2,8.

For me weight and size do matter a lot as I do much by foot.

Hopefully F.P. posts soon a translation

Cheers

Michael

[meikel]

I can't help, let me just post a few key-sentences translated:

 

"Die mechanische und optische Qualität des DO 4.0/400 mm"

"Quality of built and optics"

 

Damit kann man es sich eigentlich ganz einfach machen: Das Objektiv ist mechanisch der L-Telereihe 2.8/300, 2.8/400, 4.0/500 und 4.0/600 mm absolut ebenbürtig.

 

"To say it short: the lens is in its built quality absolutely equal to the other L-telephoto lenses: 2.8/300, 2.8/400, 4.0/500 and 4.0/600"

 

 

Und meine ersten Aufnahmen mit diesem Objektiv in Florida im Januar 2002 gemacht, sind in Brillanz und Schärfe einwandfrei und praktisch nicht zu unterscheiden von Aufnahmen mit einem konventionellen Canon L-Objektiv, wie etwa dem 4.0/500 mm. Was will man mehr?

 

"My first images with this lens which I made in January 2002 in Florida are flawless in sharpness and contrast and in practise not distinguishable of the results of a normal L-tele like the 4.0/500.

Any wishes left?"

 

 

Das neue 4.0/400 mm scheint mir für zwei Gruppen geeignet zu sein: Erstens für die Naturfotografen, die viel reisen und mit dem 4.0/400 mm gleich zwei Brennweiten ersetzten wollen: das 4.0/300 mm und das 4.0/500 mm.

 

"The new 400/4.0 seems to be ideal/suitable for two groups of users:

Firstly, for the nature photographers who travel a lot and who want to substitute two focal lengths with the the 400: the 4.0/300 and the 4.0 500."

 

 

Denn dadurch spart man Gewicht, Platz und Geld. Gegenüber dem 500er verliert man zwar 100 mm Brennweite, gewinnt aber an Beweglichkeit, Flexibilität, Schnelligkeit und etwa ein bis zwei Blenden Schärfe durch die kompakte Bauweise und die dadurch verringerten Schwingungen.

 

"This will save weight, space and money. Compared to the 500, one loses 100 mm focal length but gains maneuverability, flexibility and speed and about two stops in sharpness thru the compact built and the therefore reduced vibration."

 

 

Und man spart Geld: denn ein 4.0/400 mm ist wesentlich billiger als ein 4.0/300 mm und ein 4.0/500 mm zusammen und etwa 3-4 kg leichter - also spart man schon die Hälfte des erlaubten Handgepäcks von insgesamt 8 kg ein.

 

"And one saves money, as the 4.0/400 is much cheaper than a 4.0/300 and a 4.0/500 and about 3-4 kg (about 9 pounds??) lighter - means, one saves half of the allowed carry-on luggage."

 

 

Arbeitsweise

"Technique"

 

 

Durch die kurze, kompakte Bauweise und das geringe Gewicht von ca.1.900 Gramm ist es natürlich wesentlich angenehmer und schneller zu handhaben als etwa das konventionelle 4.0/500 mm - gar nicht zu reden vom 4.0/600 mm.

 

"The short and compact built and the low weight of 1900 gr. make this lens much easier and faster to use compared to a conventional 4.0/500, not to mention the 4.0/600."

Kann es diese Objektive ersetzen? Das liegt an der Arbeitsweise und den Vorstellungen des Naturfotografen. Wer etwa in den Yellowstone fliegt/fährt um primär Wölfe zu fotografieren, der sollte besser ein 600er mitnehmen. Wer aber dort Landschaften, Geysire und Pflanzen fotografieren möchte, und zusätzlich die Bisons, Schakale und Trompeterschwäne am Wegesrand, der ist sicher mit so einem DO-400er Objektiv bestens bedient.

 

"Can it replace/substitute these lenses? That depends of course on the photographers style and ideas. For one who leaves to Yellowstones to shoot primarily wolves a 4.0/600 is more useful. While, the traveler who wants to shoot also landscape, geysires and plants and additionally the bisons, jackals and swans along the side of the road is surely far better off with the 4.0/400."

 

 

Man ist viel schneller und spontaner als mit 500 oder 600 mm und braucht auch kein schweres Sachtler-Stativ für dieses 2 kg Objektiv. Man ist auch - innerlich - eher bereit, weitere Wege zu gehen und Motive zu entdecken, die mehr als 1 km vom Auto entfernt liegen.

 

"One works faster and more spontaneously with the 4.0/400 compared to the 500 or 600 mm and ones doens't need to bring a heavy Sachtler-tripod for the 2 kg lens. One is also more prone to explore motives further off the usual path and to encounter new things more than 1 km off the roads."

 

 

I guess that is more or less the essential.

Have fun shooting.

Cheers

Michael

[patrick_smeaton]

http://www.poelking.com/index_e.htm

 

Go to "Workshop 2" section

 

I think you'll find it interesting

[gary voth]

I wish I had gotten Fritz' lens. <g>

 

Maybe he only shoots at f/8, or maybe there's the dreaded "sample variability," or whatever.

 

However, I suggest anyone who purchases this lens (or any expensive lens) do their own tests. Only then will you be satisfied that it meets your expectations.

[p_l_jensen]

Although Pølkings argumentation seems superficially convincing, I don't buy it. Reports of variable quality notwithstanding, the main problem with this lens is the price.

 

Pølking says it can replace both a 500/4 and a 300/4. A 400/4 will never be a 500/4 even with converter. And a 300mm it ain't. However, if a 500/5.6 (400/4 + converter) can replace a 500/4 then surely a 400/5.6 can replace a 400/4; theres an enormous amount of money and weight to be saved here! Or if a 400/4 can replace a 500/4 then maybe a 300/4 can replace a 400/4? Or even better, a 500/4 can replace both a 600/4 and a 400/4; this would be a real money and weight saver!

 

I think this lens make most sense if you ned a 400mm lens and have lots of money. Now if it costed a reasonable amount of money it would have been something entirely different. I wonder why 400/4 and 400/4.5 lenses are so rare? They seem close to ideal to me.

[gary voth]

I think the cost vs. weight savings vs. utility is different for each users. (But for sure it's expeensive.)

[ShunCheung]

Different people have different priorities. To Bill Gates, there is no real difference between $6000 and $600; both are pocket change to him. However, in nature photography, at least I am not willing to compromise the quality of the image; nor can those who compete in the professional market afford to do so. That is why the image quality from this lens is such an important issue.

 

However, in news and sports photography, frequently getting the right image at the right moment is far more important; a little bit of un-sharpness, camera shake, slightly out of focus, large grain etc. is no big deal. Or if soneone rich who is only shooting for his/her own pleasure, they can afford the expensive lenses and may not necessarily be very critical about quality.

[kurt_heintzelman]

Hey, Shun: Stop talking down to us as though we're naive children.

 

"Different people have different priorities. To Bill Gates, there is no real difference between $6000 and $600; both are pocket change to him..." What an irrelevant comment! Do you think Canon planned to successfully market this lens to foolish billionaires with more money than common sense? Most of the merely modestly wealthy people I know did not get wealthy (and then stay wealthy) by being fools with their money. In fact, I find that many self-made, wealthy individuals are often notoriously parsimonious and frugal with their money, as well as often being ruthless bargainers and well-informed consumers who know a bargain when they see one, and who also know a rip-off when they see one. On the other hand, there will always be some wealthy individuals who have more money than common sense, and for a few of them the EOS 400/4 DO IS may be right up their alley. (In addition, there will always be a number of suckers, easily separated from their hard-earned money by ignorance and the allure of spurious claims and promises). However, for the vast majority of knowledgeable middle- and upper-middle class (etc.) photographers who comprise a significant segment of the market for high-end lenses, the 400/4 DO is largely being ignored and dismissed in light of it's absurd price-tag of ~$6000.00, and this lens will be even further dismissed from much serious consideration as the negative reviews and tests continue to mount-up. (Personally, even if this lens was repeatedly reviewed and tested by a multitude of trustworthy experts to provide SIGNIFICANTLY better sharpness and performance than my 300/4L IS with the EOS 1.4x TC, I still wouldn't be willing to pay any more than ~ $3000.00 for it, and I hardly think I'm alone in this regard).

 

"However, in news and sports photography, frequently getting the right image at the right moment is far more important; a little bit of un-sharpness, camera shake [sic: it's an IS lens], slightly out of focus, large grain etc. is no big deal. Or if soneone rich who is only shooting for his/her own pleasure, they can afford the expensive lenses and may not necessarily be very critical about quality." Again Shun, don't talk down to us as though we're naive children. Most of us are well aware of the *potential* advantages and applications of a 400/4 DO IS lens, and we don't need a condescending lesson from you. If the mounting negative reviews about this lens are indeed accurate, then there's really not much this $6000.00 lens can do, that even the 300/4L IS and 1.4x TC (total cost ~ $2000.00) can do with a film like Provia 100F pushed one-stop. And to add insult to injury, this $6000.00 400/4 DO IS lens doesn't even include Canon's latest generation of IS technology, but hey, whadya expect for a mere $6000.00?!

 

And of course, at a street price of ~6000.00 for the 400/4 DO IS, one could spend this sum of money on time-tested and proven outstanding lenses, such as a new 300/2.8L IS and 1.4x TC, as well as having most of a 400/2.8L IS, or 500/4L IS, paid for! At this time, it seems the ONLY advantage of the 400/4 DO would be its size and weight compared to the above mentioned big-glass lenses, and here again, with a film like Provia 100F pushed one-stop, the 300/4L IS and 1.4x TC could probably do just as well, and still cost $4000.00 less than the 400/4 DO IS!

 

At one time, I was quite excited about the promises of Canon's 400/4 IS DO lens, IF it was priced at ~ &3000.00, and IF it proved to be glowingly reviewed/tested. But based on what I've been reading about this lens in its current incarnation, as well as its absurd street price, it seems that very few people are still "standing in line" to buy one, and I'm sure-as-hell no longer even remotely interested in this lens, regardless of how much its price might fall.

 

At this time, it seems hard not to believe that Canon's absurdly priced and marginally performing 400/4 DO IS is fast becoming an orphan, languishing and collecting dust on dealers' shelves.