Jump to content

400 mm f5.6L v 400mm f4.0 do is l


richard_pearse

Recommended Posts

Considering purchasing one of the above - budget does not stretch to

500mm.

 

Does anyone have any experience of using these two lenses?

 

Have looked at various reviews etc, including the 300mm F4.0 as a

possibility, currently, favouring the 400mm F5.6L because of ease of

use, extra reach, weight, size, picture clarity/contrast and the

cost. However, can not find any useful information on the two side

by side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I use the 300/4 IS and 1.4x TC for birding with very good results. The 400/5.6 is even sharper but has no IS. From the reviews I've read the 400/5.6 is sharper than the 400/4 DO.

 

The 400/4 DO is about the same price as a 500/4. If I could afford either, I would choose the 500/4 in a heartbeat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, the 400DO weighs in (4.3 lb.) at about half of that of the 500/4 (8.5 lb.) and is

significantly smaller. This plays a role if you are contemplating long hikes or foreign air

travel where weight limits are enforced more often than at home. If that's worth the extra

$ over the 5.6 after the 1 stop benefit and IS, is up to you :-)

Similar discussion here ( http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/359114 )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like Andy said, the 400/4 is a great air travel telephoto. Much easier to put in carry on than a 500/4.5, let alone a 500/4.

 

It's much easier to hike with too. I can carry it all day long with the strap over my shoulder and the foot tucked into my pants. Leaves your hands free for a monopod/walking stick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry I can't help you when it comes to the 400mm f4.0 do. But I have the 300mm F4L IS and 400mm f5.6L.

 

Both are great, the 300mm has much more versatility/usage because it has IS and a much closer focusing distance etc.

 

But as you know the 400mm has the extra reach and if you need that well then you need it. But I find with the 400mm you have to be super still (I don't use tripods) and it needs to be a bright day outside. Hope that helps you out a bit. Take care.

 

DK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree the earlier version non-IS of the 300/4 is a good lens.

 

But don't generalize that the new 300/4 IS is necessarily inferior. I have an excellent example of the 300/4 IS. It works with the EF 1.4X TC II very well. I find the advantages with Image Stabilization far exceeds the slight advantages of small optical advantages.<div>00FSzN-28514684.JPG.3da1e846902b73b874f500db2685cb9f.JPG</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you to all who took the time to respond. I appreciate your individual experiences. Next step is to hire both the 300mm f4.0 + 1.4 & the 400mm F5.5L and try them out in the field before deciding. But if I get my anticipated bonus I might just opt for the 500mm but i am sure my Mrs would have a word to say about that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...