Not many recent detailed reviews of the 400 DO, so it was interesting to see this. For years I’ve thought about getting this and previously the first version but the sharpness alway was a concern. I have the R6 & R7 and the 400 DO would seem to be ideal with R7 but this review puts doubt on that. I think a more detailed separate review with that combination would be very helpful. Currently using the 100-500 but miss the soft background I used to get with my 500 f4 which I sold because of the weight.

Still watching the video (will edit this comment and add more if needed), but the 2 images @ 33.30 - I suspect the R7 is less sharp due to diffraction. Remember, that R7 has 32mp APS-C, which is equivalent to ~82mp FF. I'm also very suspect on the DO optics absolute quality (and we see this in honest tests on the new RF200-800). I know some people swear by the R7, but I personally think it's a sub-average camera. 1st edit: I also suspect that the DO optics simply lack the resolution to take advantage of a 82mp FF sensor equivalent...they just can't resolve that fine of detail. 2nd edit: the 2nd BE shots - a bit of an unfair comparison - 400f4 +1.4x TC and 300f2.8 and 2x TC. That 2x TC is *always* going to be softer, especially wide open. Canon's EF 2x TC is renowned for well, being soft (even the mark 3 version). A better option for testing would have been the 1.4x TC for both, and crop into the 300mm/14x TC combo to match the 400mm +1.4x TC uncropped... 3rd edit: I think you'll find the CA on the 1st test chart for the 300mm and 1.4x TC is due to the TC. Again, shoot the 400 and 400 and the 300 at 300 and crop into the 300 and see if the CA exists on the 300 test shot still...I bet it doesn't. I think you've hampered the 300mm f2.8's performance by using TCs. I know you wanted to match focal lengths, but I think that that has led you astray with regards to optical quality comparisons. I have no interest in either of these lenses (too short imho) - I use a 1st gen 500f4 EF prime with a mark 3 1.4x TC on my R3 (birding photography here too). Like in sex size matters.

Thanks for doing this video. I had the old 300 2.8 IS but having moved to full frame, I thought the extra focal length of the 400 DO ii would be more beneficial, so I took the plunge and I've been using the DO for some years now and I'm disappointed overall. The lens is smaller and lighter and that is beneficial for sure, but I've always been slightly disappointed with the results. I'm actually considering swapping it back out for a 300 2.8 ii and this video solidifies that decision for me. One thing I will say, in this video you said that there's no comparison between the bokeh, and this is where you've missed the mark I think. I consistently could see a huge difference in bokeh quality in your test images between the 300 2.8 and the 400 DO. The 300 seems to render the bokeh much smoother, with the DO having harsh edges. I see this in all my images in the past few years. It makes the lens feel more like a 5.6 or even 6.3 in terms of bokeh quality. Just go back to your initial tests of the Owl and look at the background.. there's no comparison, the 300 was better. Also felt that times you said there was a smidge difference in sharpness, to me it was night and day, the 300 2.8 always looked pin sharp. Whilst the owl test is always handy, even the slightest difference in focus point would have thrown the test off. The real life examples did a better Job at showing the differences and the charts at the end revealed why. Thank you for posting either way, it still really helped me decide. There are plenty of other things to consider when choosing between these lenses. If it's down to weight, it's obvious the 400 is the right choice but with the 300 you also get a whole meter closer focus distance, so you can fill the frame with closer subjects. Having to step back because the subject comes too close, will cost you shots. It's certainly cost me many with the 400 DO ii. Something else to consider is the size of the lens as the 300 is thicker and longer, so you will have to take that into account with your camera bag choices.

@lets_go_birding9096

2 ай бұрын

Thank you for your thoughtful and helpful reply. I'm glad the video helped you with your decision.

Hi, great comparison video. Do you plan to do a similar one to Canon 200-400mm in the future or you do not have experience with that lens? Thank you!

@lets_go_birding9096

2 ай бұрын

Thanks! No, I don't have that lens in the shoot-out line currently. Maybe in the future though.

This is an incredible comparison and justified keeping my 300mm 2.8 ii. I just wanted to check whether you used electronic or mechanical shutter when testing the R7. I have both R5 and R7 they are equally sharp but I exclusively use the electronic shutter.

@lets_go_birding9096

Ай бұрын

I'm glad you liked the video. I used electronic first curtain for 95% of this testing. I compared EFC to Electronic in a few experiments and found no difference for all these no-flying experiments.

Excellent review on these great lenses....I have the 300mm f2.8is mk1 and curious how it would do compared to these 2 lenses..your thoughts

@lets_go_birding9096

12 күн бұрын

Thanks! I've never owned or tried out the 300 f/2.8 mk 1 before. I've heard that the mk2 is about the same except that is takes teleconverters much better--especially the 2x version.

I have 300mm MK II, best lens I have ever used. I use it with 1.4x, 2x and RF 1.4x + EF2x. I know, 2 TCs

@lets_go_birding9096

8 күн бұрын

Agreed! I never thought of trying it with two teleconverters! I'll give it a try:-)

Which of the two lenses are you going to sell?

@lets_go_birding9096

Ай бұрын

I was going to sell the 300L, but I took it out yesterday and got some amazing eagle shots with it, so I'm leaning towards selling the 400DO now. Very tough decision--they are both so amazing!

@ferraphotography9448

Ай бұрын

Price

@ferraphotography9448

Ай бұрын

What price ?

👍

The nice thing about the 300 is you still have a 300.

DO optics is not the best design for a good Lens optical image quality, the DO design gives a more compact and light weigt Lens, but now Sigma have "cracked the code" to make a compact light weigt tele Lens without using DO optics ! The new Sigma 500mm 5.6 DG DN OS Sports Lens is both light in weight and compact without the DO optics, direct compared to Nikon AF-S Nikkor 500mm 5.6 E PF ED VR Lens ("DO" optics), then the Sigma is better. So I think in the (near ?) future we will see more compact and light weight Lenses that do not need the DO optics. I have the Sigma 500mm 5.6 DG DN OS Sports Lens, it is very easy to handle and operate, I can go hiking with for hours just holding it my hands without any problems.

@lets_go_birding9096

26 күн бұрын

Thanks for the information. To bad they don't make an EF mount--that would be a good shootout video:-)

I am terribly sorry to say that your 400 DO II samples looks like front focused (This is why the center of the bird looks more sharp).

@lets_go_birding9096

2 ай бұрын

Thank you for your comments: All experiment were done via use of the spot autofocus (no manual focus), so the focus was what it was. Furthermore, the depth of field of the 400 DO (f/4 and especially f/5.6) should have easily been able to get the edges of the bird sharp. The 300L had even a more narrow depth of field (f/2.8) and could still get the bird edges very sharp. The results are what they are:-)

@korkutdemirbas

2 ай бұрын

@@lets_go_birding9096 Bird edges are on the same focal plane with the eyes but not the belly. That's why 300L took them sharp.

@korkutdemirbas

2 ай бұрын

Don't get me wrong. I don't own any of these lenses. If the 400 DO can't focus on the right spot (for your lens example), that's its fault too. But to say that the 300+1.4x is sharper than the 400mm lens alone seems a bit of a stretch.

@weaverrealestatephotograph7716

2 ай бұрын

@@korkutdemirbasit could be possible since the optics are different in the 400 DO.

Then there's the canon (or nikon) 500mm f4 lenses..

@lets_go_birding9096

Ай бұрын

Yes! But then comes the extra weight:-(

@alexmirza5210

Ай бұрын

Hardly much, a kilo or so more. The old 600mm f4s are 6 kilos, now that's quite heavy and impractical.

@alexmirza5210

24 күн бұрын

Can I just add-- the ancient canon non is 400mm f5.6L. It's as sharp as anything at f7.1 and is super compact. Oh and less expensive by far.