hk2000, are those shots in your flicker site taken with 400 DO II? you have some real nice shot in there!
one more question, where did you take these shot? those birds are here in US ;-) thanks.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
400mm DO II vs 500mm F/4 II
- Thread starter Austin7642
- Start date
one more question, where did you take these shot? those birds are here in US ;-) thanks.
John Sheehy
Forum Pro
Well, the bench should be closer to the Pentax Q, as the Q gives results closer to analog with the much higher pixel density. One lens could look a bit sharper than the other using the Q, but they'd look practically the same on a 1Dx. The Q pixels are closer to analog, but not analog, and easily alias in the red and blue channels at f/4 with a sharp lens.
Are you talking with or without the TC? Without should be easy, but with a 2x at f/8,
The 1D-series has always supplied more power for the AF motor, so when the sensors can see predictive focus well, they can get there faster (it has to go slow when light is poor, of course, like someone driving in fog). Some newer bodies also raise the speed limit for AF drive with newer TCs and newer lenses (including the 5D4, I think, but the 7D2 was designed too early to get that).
The bottom line to me is how AF performs at a given level of pixels-on-subject. It is more often an issue of FF AF at f/8 vs APS-C AF at f/5.6, with typical pixel densities; not f/8 vs f/8, except perhaps with 5Ds vs 7D2.
Austin7642
Forum Enthusiast
- Messages
- 402
- Reaction score
- 453
I ultimately decided on the 400mm do ii because of its portability and the fact I can just take with it with me in my current bag and not have to hall around a large tripod/ beanbags. I'll most likely take along both my 1.4xiii and 2xiii extenders with it when I am out in the field, as well as a monopod. Obviously shooting at f/8 with only one focus point and slowed af will not be ideal when using the 2x at times, but for when the reach will be needed, it will be invaluable. Otherwise, I will instead stick to the 1.4 for more reach. I will also be carrying around either my 5D IV or EOS R with a short telephoto lens, so if for whatever reason I need to boost my iso above 1600 for any reason or I don't need 800mm-1300mm or so of reach, I'll just use either of those cameras with the 400mm ii.
I also have to admit, it was a hard pass on the 500mm ii. Of all the super telephoto lenses, it's the most versatile for shooting all types of wildlife in almost all conditions. Maybe if I come to sell my 100-400 ii and find myself at times wanting even more reach than the 400mm ii can provide, it or the version one of the 500mm will be my next buy.
an_also
Leading Member
Congrats. You won’t regret it.
I had a similar choice to make as I wanted to upgrade from the 100-400ii to a super tele too.
The main thing that held me back from the 500ii was the weight. I got pretty tired from hand holding it and I don’t like carrying tripods with the way I shoot.
The 400 DO II was perfect and it takes the 1.4 TCIII perfectly. I use it bare more often because I enjoy using the F4 in low light situations.
I found the 1.4TC degraded the image quality a fair bit on the 100-400ii but it’s barely noticeable when it’s on the 400 DOII.
I shoot the 400DOii on the 5D4 so I can’t comment on the performance on the 7Dii
have fun with the new lens. I’m sure you’ll enjoy the heck out of it.
I had a similar choice to make as I wanted to upgrade from the 100-400ii to a super tele too.
The main thing that held me back from the 500ii was the weight. I got pretty tired from hand holding it and I don’t like carrying tripods with the way I shoot.
The 400 DO II was perfect and it takes the 1.4 TCIII perfectly. I use it bare more often because I enjoy using the F4 in low light situations.
I found the 1.4TC degraded the image quality a fair bit on the 100-400ii but it’s barely noticeable when it’s on the 400 DOII.
I shoot the 400DOii on the 5D4 so I can’t comment on the performance on the 7Dii
have fun with the new lens. I’m sure you’ll enjoy the heck out of it.
John Sheehy
Forum Pro
For AF speed/ability, or for subject noise? Using 2x the ISO with a 2x TC does not give higher subject noise; in fact, it often gives slightly less visible noise with a normalized subject size, with the same shutter speed. There is no reason one should automatically increase shutter speed for a TC, as subject-normalized camera shake has nothing to do with focal length, for a given shutter speed. It has everything to do with camera-holding skill and subject motion.
If you're looking at the noise in the out-of-focus areas at 100% pixel view, you're not doing your TC justice. The visibility of that noise is not what is relevant.
Of course, if you have the TC on and you back up away from the subject 1.4x as far away just to fit it in the frame, then that is another story, as your entrance pupil is now viewed at a smaller angle by the subject, and you will get more subject noise at 2x the ISO.
Gee, Dave, what a step upward...from $1.1K to $5K ;-) but 400 DO II would be a huge upgrade in every way! i have the canon 400 f5.6 and i find it a fun lens to use as long as you limit your expectations in term of low light performance! its performance drops down quickly when the light dims! other than that, it has fantastic IQ, ergo and hand-hold ability at excellent price point! i am sure you know all that, already ;-)
Compounding that is the availability of used 400 f/5.6 lenses for significantly less than $1.1K.
an_also
Leading Member
More for AF ability in low light. My ISO sometimes in the 10000 range if I see animals at early dawn. I’ve had opportunities to shoot a fox moving about right before the sun came up and that AF with a TC would have struggled.
--
https://www.instagram.com/anand_iyer/
Last edited:
BigBen08
Veteran Member
My experience, too. I've rented the 400 DO II three time and used it with the 1.4xIII. Excellent results.
maiaibing
Veteran Member
Buying a supertele like the 400mm DO II to glue a converter on it makes no sense.
Get the 500mm F/4 II and enjoy the picture IQ you paid for.
Or compare how little difference you actually get between the 400 DO II and 500mm f/4 II and get your self a 5DS/R to match the 400mm DO - this will actually give you the highest quality pictures by far - with better reach than with the 500mm/5DIV combo.
Get the 500mm F/4 II and enjoy the picture IQ you paid for.
Or compare how little difference you actually get between the 400 DO II and 500mm f/4 II and get your self a 5DS/R to match the 400mm DO - this will actually give you the highest quality pictures by far - with better reach than with the 500mm/5DIV combo.
Last edited:
Chris Mak
Senior Member
Yes, I have the 400DOII and both extenders, and 560mm f5.6 is a sweet spot. It is however not an allround combo in my experience. It excells at close to mid distance, and with the 7DII does very good BIF. It is light, manageable and super responsive. But if your priority is distant subject matter, and especially in brighter daylight, then this combo starts to drop performance significantly compared to my former Pentax DA560, which could yield sharp images at 100% of a bird 100 yards away in full daylight. For allround use therefore, I would save up a bit longer, stomach the surpluss in cost, size and weight, and buy a 500/4 II, if I had to switch from scratch again. But the 400DOII is a fantastic lens up to mid distance or a bit beyond in favorable light, and I will probably keep it forever for its sheer ease of use. I am for one looking forward to see its performance on the coming high resolution EOS-R. O, and now and then anyone using this lens should take of converters and shoot it bare. Bare, it's IQ is truly amazing.
John Sheehy
Forum Pro
That sounds very atypical.
If a drop in performance are your results with the 7D2, that’s to be expected. I use the 5DSR with a much better hit rate... but of course, less FPS. Got rid of the 7D2 because of it’s performance. Distant subjects with big whites were not its forte.
The 500 was by far my most favorite lens with reasonable reach, but I didn’t consider it for allround use, as it’s not as portable as the DO.
yes, for Mid distances with a 1.4, it’s does an amazing job. With the 5DSR attached, it also does a very good job of extending just a bit further than the avg FF. Needless to say, the 500 is a better choice for more distant subjects, but less portable for regular handholding.
--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/128728392@N05/albums/72157648429825829
Last edited:
Chris Mak
Senior Member
With the Pentax DA560, admittedly a telescope design lens, I had become used to very clear and defined images of distant subjects, even allowing significant crop and still remail clear and well defined. With the 400DOII, which has the disadvantage of a TC to get to 560mm, I did not expect similar performance, but still better than what I am getting: glowy edges when zooming in and what seems to be a very thin sharp focal plane, outside of which things quickly turn "messy".
This may sound a bit harsh, but I am comparing to a high performance 560mm telescope design lens with first class coatings. I may have expected too much from an optic designed for portability and using diffractive optics. I could have known that I should not have sold my Pentax DA560! Inside of its parameters, the 400DOII is a fantastic lens. In future, I will not get around buying a second super tele for optimal distant shooting at the level I was used to with the Pentax DA560.
Chris
Last edited:
an_also
Leading Member
Wouldn't atmospheric pressure, heat etc. have more to do with how things that are really fare way get rendered?
Chris Mak
Senior Member
Absolutely. When in fair light and on a flat surface, like a traffic sign 80 yards out, there is no problem, you get a clear and sharp image even with the 2.0 extender on, comparable to the Pentax DA560.
But the performance in the field, in difficult light is apparently where the lens is really "tested", and there I can say that the 400DOII, again with either 1.4TC or 2.0TC, is much more affected than the DA560. It is beyond my knowledge to grasp why lenses are affected to such different degrees and in different ways by lightfall, atmospherics, heatwaves etc. but in hindsight, it appears that the Pentax DA560 could take almost any kind of light or atmospherics, and happily throw out sharp and well defined images (although it could of course also fail if things got really bad). The 400DOII with extenders suffers more and gives up earlier. I don't know if the 7DII plays a part too, but I assume that it is possible. Also, I am not familiar with any other Canon lens, like the 500/4 or 600/4, so have no reference for their performance in similar circumstances. I used the DA560 for 4 years and know it through and through in all sorts of light/circumstances. I know that Pentax used to design and produce highly regarded telescopes, and traditionally have had top-class coatings. In the digital age, they have dropped back.
Chris
Last edited:
an_also
Leading Member
Ah I see what you're saying. Fair enough. Thanks for clarifying.
Chris Mak
Senior Member
I looked at the 5DsR, but am overall content with the 7DII for mid distance and action shooting, and decided to wait for the high resolution EOS-R to pair with the 7DII. I do hope that it will improve far distance performance of the 400DOII. It would help if it will feature a sensor that can handle strong (harsh) light.
Last edited:
I received a deal notice including both. Tempting!
https://www.cpricewatch.com/blog/20...select-used-canon-including-500-ii-400-do-ii/
https://www.cpricewatch.com/blog/20...select-used-canon-including-500-ii-400-do-ii/
Last edited:
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum