Anybody owned, or used the Canon 400mm f/4 DO IS II on....

I think the commenter was referring to the size and weight savings of the 500 in comparison to the 600, which weighs a pound and a half more, and is longer. I'd looked into getting a 600 when I was looking for a big white, since at the time I was able to get a used copy for not much more than a 500, but I opted for the lighter lens. Even 7 pounds is pushing it for me for handholding.

Stuart Carlton wrote:

Marximus wrote:

I think the commenter was referring to the size and weight savings of the 500 in comparison to the 600, which weighs a pound and a half more, and is longer. I'd looked into getting a 600 when I was looking for a big white, since at the time I was able to get a used copy for not much more than a 500, but I opted for the lighter lens. Even 7 pounds is pushing it for me for handholding.

Ah, I misinterpreted that then, my error. I agree but I'd still like a 600! Just can't carry it!

If I could afford one... Or someone gave one to me, I'd find a way to pack it to my shooting locations, and I always shoot with a tripod anyway.

That said my 800 F11 is so rediculous light, then strapped on an R7, I have a 1280mm combo that is 5 lbs total !

However, because of the slow speed of the lens, I still pretty much need to use a tripod. Unless I'm shooting from my car, then I can pretty much get by with the frame of my car window for support.

Chris Wolfgram wrote:

I know a lot of you like the 500 F4, but if I were willing to go that heavy, and that expensive, I might as well go with the 600 F4. With the 500 I'd always have to have the 1.4 TC on it anyway. But with the 600 especially on my crop sensor R7, sometimes, I might even be able to use it without the TC.

Logical - all I'd suggest is the weight difference 400mm DO to 500 II is not quite 1.5kg more like 1kg - the size is more the bigger differentiator.

My 1.4X does live most of the time on the 500II - reason is the 500II is so good.

The 600mm II is a lot bigger and also heavier - the 600 III is the same size as the II albeit lighter.  It would not fit in my bag with camera on and harder to travel on planes with.

In the UK at the moment, good used copies of the 600II are going for quite a lot more than the 500II - and the 600 III is megabucks. Used 400 DO's are similar in price to used 500IIs.

I'd still like to rent and play with that 400 DO F4 though.

Good idea. I just think there may be some copy to copy variation - from the copy I had - through to conflicting test reports - and experience on this forum too.

If you buy one - suggest from a retailer with a good return policy.

One other combo which is even cheaper and excellent is the 300 2.8 II - takes TC's very well albeit not so keen on the 2X TC for action.

• Chris Wolfgram wrote:

I know a lot of you like the 500 F4, but if I were willing to go that heavy, and that expensive, I might as well go with the 600 F4. With the 500 I'd always have to have the 1.4 TC on it anyway. But with the 600 especially on my crop sensor R7, sometimes, I might even be able to use it without the TC.

I'd still like to rent and play with that 400 DO F4 though.

Thanks again for all of you guys responses 👍

A used 600 f/4 II will be quite a bit more expensive than a used 500 f/4 II, and will be harder to handle due to its greater weight and being more front end heavy. I know, I’ve tried it, and being lightly built I struggled 🙁.

Although a 600 f/4 III or the RF version is much lighter in the hand it’s much heavier on the wallet. So for many the 500 f/4 II is the sweet spot. That said, it’s true that the 400 f/4 DO is even easier to handle.

The aperture is 400mm/4 = 100 mm, vs. 71 mm for the 800/11. Thus, lower magnification, but twice the light captured per duck.  71% of the shot noise, and theoretically resolves details 71% as large, assuming diffraction-limited.

That 800 looks pretty good.

BirdShooter7 wrote:

KevinRA wrote:

cfieldgate wrote:

Chris Wolfgram wrote:

KiloHotelphoto wrote:

I would say don't waste time with the 400 DO and look at used EF 600 F4 IS II for about the same price. Then get the 1.4 and 2X III TC's to get you to 840/5.6 and 1200/8.

Just SO big and heavy. I mean, I know it has fantastic IQ, and I guess I would use it where I didn't have to carry it far + I already have the TC's..... But it would have to be a "steal of a deal" used price.... and that never seems to happen to me. People want to sell me used stuff for 80+% of new.... and they offer to buy used stuff from me for 20% Story of my life.

A lightly used 500mm f/4 II is quite a bit lighter/ easier to handle. Cheaper too. Works well with the 2x III with static subjects. Maybe not so good with BIF, assuming you can manage it, as AF takes a bit of a hit. 1000mm also makes for limited FOV. Great for airshows with the 1.4x III too.

+1 for the 500 f/4 II

Yes plus one more, it’s the best lens for this type of photography in my opinion

.... then the next question will be is this better or worse than the 100-500mm RF? ... and so it goes on!  We all do it but I think you need a quantum improvement to change, not a marginal one, especially if at the cost of weight or money!

For max reach, I'd say the 500 without reservation. Even if you put a 2x on it, its maximum aperture is only a third of a stop slower than the bare RF lens at 500. I almost always have a 2x on my 500, and it's plenty sharp enough for me, with good AF. Only you can decide whether that's worth the extra money and weight.

Dave C 150 wrote:

BirdShooter7 wrote:

KevinRA wrote:

cfieldgate wrote:

Chris Wolfgram wrote:

KiloHotelphoto wrote:

I would say don't waste time with the 400 DO and look at used EF 600 F4 IS II for about the same price. Then get the 1.4 and 2X III TC's to get you to 840/5.6 and 1200/8.

Just SO big and heavy. I mean, I know it has fantastic IQ, and I guess I would use it where I didn't have to carry it far + I already have the TC's..... But it would have to be a "steal of a deal" used price.... and that never seems to happen to me. People want to sell me used stuff for 80+% of new.... and they offer to buy used stuff from me for 20% Story of my life.

A lightly used 500mm f/4 II is quite a bit lighter/ easier to handle. Cheaper too. Works well with the 2x III with static subjects. Maybe not so good with BIF, assuming you can manage it, as AF takes a bit of a hit. 1000mm also makes for limited FOV. Great for airshows with the 1.4x III too.

+1 for the 500 f/4 II

Yes plus one more, it’s the best lens for this type of photography in my opinion

.... then the next question will be is this better or worse than the 100-500mm RF? ... and so it goes on! We all do it but I think you need a quantum improvement to change, not a marginal one, especially if at the cost of weight or money!

All so true 🙂

John Sheehy wrote:

ThrillaMozilla wrote:

The aperture is 400mm/4 = 100 mm, vs. 71 mm for the 800/11. Thus, lower magnification, but twice the light captured per duck. 71% of the shot noise, and theoretically resolves details 71% as large, assuming diffraction-limited.

I haven't done a well-controlled comparison of the f-ratios on the 400DO II, but f/5.6 is not any sharper than f/4 in my experience, so aberration seems to be well-controlled.

However, under very high magnification, like with a 12MP 1/2.3" Pentax Q on the lens, it has pixel-level detail and even slight aliasing for a very narrow range of distances, as thin as a sheet of paper, and this is blended with a softer point-spread function that lowers high-frequency contrast. IOW, the total PSF seems to be like this:

o

oo

oo

ooooo <- this part is capable of aliasing with the Q.

oo

oo

o

Many DSLR lenses don't have that central spike.

This sounds important.... Wish I was smart enough to understand it 😀

John Sheehy wrote:

Stuart Carlton wrote:

Hardly ever off my R5 with 1.4iii extender. Very acceptable IQ, in fact reasonably comparable with the 500f4 i I had previously, (just couldn’t carry that around any more!) I have also used it in good light with 2xii with acceptable results. Much easier for BIF than the bigger primes! The bokeh is sometimes a little odd depending on background proximity.

Yes, the lens certainly works best when there's nothing in the scene about 1.25x to 2x as far away as the subject.

While using the lens a couple of years ago, I had an Eastern Phoebe perch on top of 4 different wildflowers coming toward me, and the other twigs behind the Phoebe were all wiry-looking with some doubling when it was at the most distant, but as I took a new set of shots each time it got closer, the background got smoother and smoother. I'd seen smooth and wiry backgrounds before, but being the same bird, and looking through all the review images at the same time, it became very obvious.

In the spring of 2020, I had two coyotes behind my home, on the ridge under a power line, and I took photos of them walking the ridge, but the reeds 25 to 50 feet behind them all looked like they were ghosted/doubled. One of my few times to see coyotes that weren't running away from me, but with a very non-ideal distance from the background.

Thanks for that! So it is a feature instead of being a problem with my lens.