400 f/2.8 L or 400 f/4 DO

ahbeng · 3rd April 2005

Which is a better lens in terms of optics (sharpness and contrast)? any websites having images to compare these 2 lenses?

user111 · 4th April 2005

2.8 better optics but DO easier to carry

agape01 · 4th April 2005

Is there any proof of that? The f/2.8 has better optics?

I sure would like to see the truth in that statement.

erwinx · 4th April 2005

haven't seen any test of 400 f/2.8 versus 400 f/4 yet...

Fritz Polking tested 400 f/4 versus 500 f/4 and found no difference.

During the Canon zoo outing, i tested 300 f/2.8 versus 400 f/4 and found no difference in quality (i was using digital so maybe digital sensor resolution not good enough to detect the difference, but Polking was using film...)

Terence · 4th April 2005

I used to own the 300/2.8 and 500/4 IS, both of these seem to be on par with the 400 DO, the 300/2.8 might be a tad sharper.

In terms of portability, nothing comes close the the 400DO.

Got one for sale if interested, drop me an email tt@taysty.com

ocean · 5th April 2005

I am using 400 2.8L IS. It is a beautiful lens. Fast autofocus and images are sharp even when wide open. Downside is that it is a heavy lens.

Have not tried the 400 DO. But definitely, the 2.8 is useful for night football matches.

John Tan · 5th April 2005

DO len will not as sharp as normal len as they design to be portability in the 1st place rather than sharpness / quality. If not, nobody will get the 2.8 which is damn heavy & it will be replace by Canon.

Terence · 5th April 2005

Originally Posted by John Tan

DO len will not as sharp as normal len as they design to be portability in the 1st place rather than sharpness / quality. If not, nobody will get the 2.8 which is damn heavy & it will be replace by Canon.

I have a couple of issues with what you wrote.

The singular noun of "Lens" is still "Lens", not "Len".
How do you deduce that the reduced size and weight of the 400 DO impair its image quality? Sure the early copies have softness issues but once the DO glass was improved, those issues seem to have been eradicated.
For some pros, f4 and f2.8 create enough of a difference to justify the use of the 400/2.8. Granted that is generally acknowledged to be a very sharp piece of glass but I hardly think that sharpness alone is what makes folks get that lens. What about the fact that it'd still AF with a 2x extender coupled on? That's an important requirement for many sportshooters.

erwinx · 5th April 2005

Originally Posted by John Tan

DO len will not as sharp as normal len as they design to be portability in the 1st place rather than sharpness / quality. If not, nobody will get the 2.8 which is damn heavy & it will be replace by Canon.

have you, umm tested them and compared them? or in the digital age, have you downloaded full-res files and compared the full-resolution files?

I see you're using 17-40 f/4L. Some think its sharper plus its lighter than the 16-35 f/2.8L. I guess 16-35 f/2.8 will be discontinued soon...

RossChang · 5th April 2005

Originally Posted by John Tan

DO len will not as sharp as normal len as they design to be portability in the 1st place rather than sharpness / quality. If not, nobody will get the 2.8 which is damn heavy & it will be replace by Canon.

Are you judging from the articles you've read about DO Lenses(<- tis is the pural version of Lens)? As of now, DO lens is AS SHARP as normal lens and even so, the rational of going for a 2.8 is a totally different decision, and is for those that really need the extra stop. 400 F/2.8 replace by canon?... since when that rumour came about?...

The only thing about DO Lenses is the bokeh they capture is not as smooth as normal lenses and circular ripples are visible in some extreme reflective situation... saw this pic off some thread in www.dchome.net, can't seems to dig it up thou...

joeyao · 5th April 2005

I think what John Tan is trying to convey is that if the 400 DO is that great a lens, nobody would want to buy the 400 f2.8 which is much more expensive and heavier and if that is the case, Canon may have to stop production of the 400 f2.8 due to majority of consumers opting for the 400 DO. Is that correct, John?

Terence · 5th April 2005

I have a feeling what he was trying to say was...

"Most users will choose the 400/2.8 over the 400 DO because it is a sharper lens. DO optics are designed for weight and space savings and therefore result in poorer image quality when compared to the 400/2.8. Therefore the 400/2.8 still holds a place in the Canon production line because there is ongoing demand for it."

Correct me if I'm wrong but that's my understanding of his rudimentary statement. If so, it doesn't explain why the 400 DO is still in production even though he inferred to the poor demand of the lens.

agape01 · 5th April 2005

oh dear....

This is the exact same thing that happens inside the nikon sub-forum.

If John Tan chooses to take this view of the capabilities of the DO lens, aiya just let him be lah. There is nothing that we can comment on that would change his mind. Just let him find out for himself lah....

Some more we save our time by typing this kind of stupid posts, where we should be outside shooting instead...

Goldenstars08 · 5th April 2005

Canon 400F/2.8 L is better...

RossChang · 5th April 2005

Originally Posted by Goldenstars08

Canon 400F/2.8 L is better...

no, 500mm, 600mm or erm... 1200mm is better...

Adam Goi · 5th April 2005

I'll take the DO for portability since I doubt I'll be getting a car so that it'll be more convenient for me to bring a 400/f2.8 or 500/f4 around ...

Kho King · 5th April 2005

people choose 400mm f2.8 for its bright aperture I guess, and 400mm f4 for its portability. These are two difference group so can't compare one and another. I would believe that Canon L lenses are just good, don't think can see the slight difference between the two.

me no canon nor any telephoto lens owner.

RossChang · 5th April 2005

Originally Posted by Kho King

people choose 400mm f2.8 for its bright aperture I guess, and 400mm f4 for its portability. These are two difference group so can't compare one and another. I would believe that Canon L lenses are just good, don't think can see the slight difference between the two.

Totally agree~!

Originally Posted by Kho King

me no canon nor any telephoto lens owner.

U advocate the dark side

user111 · 5th April 2005

will canon ever come up with 400mm f4 DO L?

Terence · 5th April 2005

Since we're talking about the 400 DO, here's my sale thread...

http://clubsnap.org/forums/showthread.php?t=124697

3rd April 2005	#1
ahbeng Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 426	400 f/2.8 L or 400 f/4 DO Which is a better lens in terms of optics (sharpness and contrast)? any websites having images to compare these 2 lenses?

4th April 2005	#5
Terence Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: I'm a Llama! Posts: 4,716	I used to own the 300/2.8 and 500/4 IS, both of these seem to be on par with the 400 DO, the 300/2.8 might be a tad sharper. In terms of portability, nothing comes close the the 400DO. Got one for sale if interested, drop me an email tt@taysty.com __________________ Visit my photo blog Email only please, NO PM!

5th April 2005	#7
John Tan Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: JRimage Xpress Posts: 5,682	DO len will not as sharp as normal len as they design to be portability in the 1st place rather than sharpness / quality. If not, nobody will get the 2.8 which is damn heavy & it will be replace by Canon. __________________ JRimageXpress.com

5th April 2005	#12
Terence Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: I'm a Llama! Posts: 4,716	I have a feeling what he was trying to say was... "Most users will choose the 400/2.8 over the 400 DO because it is a sharper lens. DO optics are designed for weight and space savings and therefore result in poorer image quality when compared to the 400/2.8. Therefore the 400/2.8 still holds a place in the Canon production line because there is ongoing demand for it." Correct me if I'm wrong but that's my understanding of his rudimentary statement. If so, it doesn't explain why the 400 DO is still in production even though he inferred to the poor demand of the lens. __________________ Visit my photo blog Email only please, NO PM!

5th April 2005	#14
Goldenstars08 Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Singapore Posts: 1,139	Canon 400F/2.8 L is better... __________________ Photography first, Food always.

4th April 2005	#2
user111 Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 4,719	2.8 better optics but DO easier to carry

4th April 2005	#3
agape01 Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Somewhere Out There Posts: 2,254	Is there any proof of that? The f/2.8 has better optics? I sure would like to see the truth in that statement.

4th April 2005	#4
erwinx Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 2,492	haven't seen any test of 400 f/2.8 versus 400 f/4 yet... Fritz Polking tested 400 f/4 versus 500 f/4 and found no difference. During the Canon zoo outing, i tested 300 f/2.8 versus 400 f/4 and found no difference in quality (i was using digital so maybe digital sensor resolution not good enough to detect the difference, but Polking was using film...)

5th April 2005	#6
ocean Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Singapore Posts: 80	I am using 400 2.8L IS. It is a beautiful lens. Fast autofocus and images are sharp even when wide open. Downside is that it is a heavy lens. Have not tried the 400 DO. But definitely, the 2.8 is useful for night football matches.

5th April 2005	#11
joeyao Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 755	I think what John Tan is trying to convey is that if the 400 DO is that great a lens, nobody would want to buy the 400 f2.8 which is much more expensive and heavier and if that is the case, Canon may have to stop production of the 400 f2.8 due to majority of consumers opting for the 400 DO. Is that correct, John?

5th April 2005	#16
Adam Goi ClubSNAP Idol Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Jalan Suka Posts: 5,321	I'll take the DO for portability since I doubt I'll be getting a car so that it'll be more convenient for me to bring a 400/f2.8 or 500/f4 around ...

5th April 2005	#17
Kho King Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 2,799	people choose 400mm f2.8 for its bright aperture I guess, and 400mm f4 for its portability. These are two difference group so can't compare one and another. I would believe that Canon L lenses are just good, don't think can see the slight difference between the two. me no canon nor any telephoto lens owner. __________________ KOH KHO KING http://ShaShinKi.com ~ Malaysia Online Camera Shop! :cool: