It makes sense that you would have to double the ISO from 3200 to 6400 in order to get that exposure right, as that is increasing the exposure by one stop. f/4 is one stop less than f/2.8. Lose a stop because the smaller aperture, gain it back by doubling the ISO. Great vid, really enjoyed it!
Great Video! I’m very fortunate to own the Canon 400mm f2.8L IS Mark I and it is just a spectacular lens. Previously I was using a 70-200mm IS M2 with a 2x converter and the difference is night and day. The 400mm was bought 3rd hand, but it was owned by two very experienced professional football photographers before me and it was in very good condition. The biggest and warning I could say for anyone looking to buy the Mark I in 2021 is beware that Canon no longer repair these lenses due to their age. My lens toppled over in late 2019 at a Scottish Championship match and the contact came away from the end of the lens and was stuck onto my camera. Canon suggested two repair centres in England. One promised me they had a warehouse in China full of old spare parts but ten minutes after they had received it after I had used an expensive delivery firm to get it to them they told me they were unable to fix it. Thankfully I found a place in Glasgow who had a very experienced engineer who fixed it perfectly, so whilst they are coming down in price you really have to be careful that you don’t end up with a lens which may break or needs a repair and you are left with nobody to fix it and a loss of £3000! The Mark 1 paired with the R5 is great in a straight line shooting, but if you are trying to quick find a moving subject it does seem to hunt for a split second, which can mean you miss the shot. It has kept its value in the 4 years I have owned it, and I could sell it today for more than I paid for it. Still my favourite lens I’m fortunate enough to own!
@@premierestudios6639 I've had my lens in there 3 times now. Sadly Scottish Football weather wise and distance between grounds has meant my lens has been through a lot, but they have always found ways to bring her back to life!
As the father of a high school marching band student who just won a state championship in her freshman year, with three more seasons of performance down the road, the often suboptimal lighting, rapid motion, and distances involved in shooting from the bleachers, this decision weighs heavily on my mind. I debate standing on the sidelines but then you miss the flag corps and drum corps on the far side of the field. I’ve considered the f4 telescopic lenses but experience has taught me that in the extremes, when the color guard flings their flags around in an evening performance an f4 just cannot capture things sharply and without unacceptable graininess of an excessively high ISO. Ultimately the dilemma then comes down to affordability, and as a private practice anesthesiologist, your highlighting the quicker focus of an f/2.8 closed the door on the decision for me. I’ll be purchasing an RF 400mm f/2.8 for my R5 for next season.
The 400DO II is popular for surveillance. We use a package that consists of the 400DO II with the new 1dx markIII coupled with a 2x teleconverter and hardwired ethernet for remote control and image captured. One custom setup is attached to a custom RF detector that picks up the Garage opener remote burst.
Interesting. When I bought my 500 F4, the guy selling it said that he was surprised it wasn't someone into surveillance that wanted it. I'd never thought about that until then.
When China hires you to surveil dissidents living in the US... a couple private eyes are going to jail for espionage and it needs to happen more often. Your deliberate ignorance regarding who your employers are is no excuse.
I just found out yesterday on the Metabones website that they just updated the firmware for their speedbooster to be compatible with the R5 and R6. This means you can now shoot the R5 in crop mode and gain an extra stop of light, granted at 17 megapixel. Imagine the Canon 200-400 f4 now 200-400 f2.8. Etc. I will be definitely picking up one ASP. ;)
excellent explanation on a different settings, I'm just starting to get back into photography after several years of taking a break . Definitely will be signing up to your RUclips channel to learn a lot more . thank you 🙏
I own a 400mm f4.0 DO II, and a 400mm f2.8 IS. The 2.8 I've had for 15 years, the f4 I just bought a year ago. I loved the 2.8 for a long time, but as I've passed 50 in age, the weight is just too much and the f4 IS takes amazing photos. With the f4 I am much more mobile on the side of the field.
Well, the physical size (length) of f/4 version is mostly achieved by the inner construction (diffractive optics). But it's an amazing lens still. Crazy short and light for a 400mm. I was honestly surprised by it's focusing speed, I've expected much worse response from what I've learnt about the lens from the reviews. You shouldn't be surprised by the bump up to ISO6400 in the image, you've lost a stop of light in the aperture, have to compensate for it with the sensitivity of the sensor... I know, sometimes it's not that exact and 2/3 of a stop would suffice. These are pro grade lens, I'd rely on the numbers on them. The 2.8 Mark III is a beast. First time I had it in my hand I thought they gave me some mockup, or that it's missing a big portion of the glass. Freakingly light for this length/aperture combination. But unless somebody buys it for you, it doesn't make much sense (unless you're drowning in money) to pay 12 grand for it compared to the alternatives you might find. Overall, both of these lens are amazing, I'd love to test the DO more than I've had. Great explanatory video Rob! Thank you!
I just recently purchased the 400mm f4. Firstly this video was beneficial and it's an intelligent purchase not just because of the value for money but because it saves you so much more without the hassle. Yes, you may be at a disadvantage when it comes to not having an f2.8 but if you're on a budget and feel you can get the very most out of your f4 you'll find the 400mm f4 just right for I've got my first game this weekend and I can't wait to test this out along with my Sigma 70-200 f2.8. the fact you save £6000 from one to another I feel people tend to miss judge the use of a 400mm f4
Hi! How did your test went? I’m also looking for a 400mm lens to pair with my Tamron 70-200 2.8 for football photography and I am really curious to know if you were happy with the f/4 lens. And would it be possible to see some pictures that you take in your test somewhere?
I used the sigma 100-300 f4 you mentioned combined with the sigma 500m f4. 5 for a number of years and they were great for my purposes (wildlife). Cost is a huge factor in photography but what is often overlooked with Sigma is the fact that they are a very innovative company. I believe they were the first to make standard zooms which started at 24mm rather than the usual 28mm. The 100-300mm f4 you mentioned is, to the best of my knowledge, unique as every other 300mm zoom would have a max f5. 6 aperture. Except of course sigma's superb 120-300 f2. 8 (currently on my list of wants for my late evening, low light badger photography). Who else makes a 500mm f2.8? Having said that however, I totally agree that the top Canon lenses are superb. If you never get to use one then the independent manufacturers models will no doubt satisfy all your needs but once you have used a Canon super tele.... well I'm afraid you are doomed to a life of poverty, or just constant dreaming 😊 Good video Rob although I'm a bit surprised that you were surprised by the fact that a one stop decrease in aperture requires a one stop increase in exposure.
Also had the 500 f4.5, sticky diaphragm lens to start with... AF accuracy with 7D markii was hit and miss, i olny understood i was working with a sub par lens when i bought a used Canon 500 F4 Marli, a world apart
Subjects in this video were not harmed and social distance was observed.... lol Well done on a good vlog with examples. The new mark 3 400mm f2.8 from Canon is exceptionally brilliant. Very fast focus speed and light in weight. A good bank manager is required. The f.4 lens is also a great lens and also does the job. The f.4 has its own statement and narrative to its performance and likewise for the new f2.8 and again it all depends on what you are using these lenses for and what is it that you as the user are hoping to achieve. The other day I posted an image of what happened when a shinty ball hit my 300mm f/2.8 IS did and luckily I was insured and was replaced with the mark 2 as the mark 3 was only a month away from release. However, I also own and use the f/2.8 IS mark 2 along with 1DX mark 2. The weight alone with the two requires a fair bit weight lifting. Cost is like anything in life, as you become better, more experienced and gain more financially as time goes on, then the tools of trade become more in reach. The new, I keep saying new, the 400mm f2.8 mark 3 is a bank account in itself, a mortgage, but its an investment. The lens will outlast and out perform the camera and in years to come shall still be in use whereas a camera is like a mobile phone, it gets updated almost every year or so. Good luck on the rugby match shoot, keep warm and stay safe and well. Us press togs up here in Scotland had part of the rug pulled from under us yesterday as both Scottish government and the Scottish Football Association curtailed the lower leagues and the Scottish Cup playoffs from playing for three weeks. But hey ho such is life, keep plodding along and keep clicking at the camera.... Best regards Paul Paterson Photography
Thanks Paul, great input. Sorry to hear the situation in Scotland, several of my booked events are getting called off a covid cases increase unfortunately
are you surprised that there is 1 stop of light from 2.8 to 4 and that it means from 3200 to 6400 (1 stop as well) ? If no, I don't understand your thought from 9 to 10 minutes.
I think i have the first 400 DO II sold as refurb... had it maybe five years now?? great lens. so portable, so useful. two downsides to be aware of... bokeh formed by background at a certain distance (especially) has a weird pattern to it. so if the fence behind the soccer play is at the "wrong" distance, backgrounds will be a bit more distracting than the 2.8 lens shot at f/4. also, though this doesn't pertain to sports... the minimum focus distance is... pretty far. 10 feet? other than those, I love my baby 400.
@@RobGoldstein butterflies, insects, small close-in critters... like I said, not sports but still. 100-400 II is its opposite in this regard... lose a stop, gain a bunch of other things. dunno about 400 2.8 but I'm pretty sure the bad MM of the DO is due to the DO
Oooh. Thanks for posting that. Re. the background anomalies: I wonder if you're picking up some anomalies from the fresnel pattern of that design. Is the background pattern similar to what large foggy concentric circles might give you overlaid on the area? Do you get a similar effect aiming it at a bright patch of blank sky? Also, did you have the lens hood on when you got these affects? The cost, light weight and opportunity to stay with Canon still make this attractive to me, but it's good to know about the chance of background effects.
Great video Rob, something good to point out is that at least here in the USA all of the Football games are played in the early evening where lighting is very poor so the 2.8 is a MUST and even using the 2.8 version 3 most of the time my ISO needs to be above 10,000 to get proper exposure at the night games. On the other hand for wildlife, and any daytime activities the 4.0 will work just perfectly so it really depends on need of each photographer.
I've had a 7D for 11 years and a 7D2 for 4 years. A week ago I got an R6. I'm excited to see what the autofocus and high ISO will be like when I resume real shooting in early April. I have a Canon 70-200 2.8 L II, but I don't have good lenses for ~24-70 or over 200. Given the improved ISO performance in cameras like the R6, is it really still essential to have 2.8 vs 4 for gym and outdoor night sports? I don't have much budget for 2.8 lenses. So, I'm hoping that used, 3rd party, 4.0, EF lenses would be sufficient (I could still have 2 cams with EF). That's mostly a matter of personal preference. But, I'm also looking to get on with maxpreps who say that they expect pro equipment. They don't specify what that means. I've asked them, but I'm not sure they'll want to say that.
You don’t mention minimum focus distance in this comparison. I tested a 400/f4 DO mk1 only to find minimum focus distance was about 20ft. That was no good for my use case
Very good and informative video Rob, well done. I have the Canon 400mm f2.8 IS MKI that weighs a ton! I have my eye on the 400 DO to replace it. I do sports photography like you do and in well-lit stadiums , which all the premier league in the UK and Europe are ( I travel to Europe for CL & EL games), the f4 is good enough to get the 1/1250. The 1Dx MKII does very well at ISO4000-ISO 6400. The main advance to me for the 400DO is weight , size ( I can take one hand luggage when traveling by air ). DoF is actually better for me at f4 as for footballers side by side the f4 will get both in focus (often I shot at 3.2 / 3.5 with the 400/2.8 to get both players sharp). As for the IQ, the difference of the image size we send to the agency ( 2.0-2.5MB) and printed on newspapers or on the web is negligible. Oh and I forget the 6K price difference . Therefore, when we are back to 'normal' I plan to sell the 400/2.8 IS MKI (almost 6kg) and buy the 400 DO (just over 2Kg). In addition, if I need an F2.8 lens I have a Sigma 300/2.8 that is a good performer. The Sigma 100-300/f4 was my first sports lens too on a 10D & 40D
The problem with these lenses for my typical purposes (small perched birds from 20-30ft) is that "wide open" they just don't give me enough Depth of Focus. Oh sure, I could stop them down to F9 or F11.... but at that point, what would be the point of using a super expensive, heavy, potentially fast lens ? Also, even on a crop body, 400mm is almost never enough, so I'd be using a 1.4 or 2 X's TC most of the time... I suppose if I had a sherpa to carry it, and I was shooting in a dark rainforest, it would be better to get a "sharp eye ball" than it would be, to get no shot at all. But in the end, the new "slow" lenses like the 800 F11, and 200-800 have pretty much cured my lust for a Big White lens.
Struggling to decide between these 2 as an upgrade from the 100-400 mk ii. Which is a fantastic lens, but shooting at f5.6 is quite often limiting. As a hobbyist photographer I'd be happy with the f4 but from what I've read the 100-400 ii is almost on par with the 400 f4 DO ii in terms on sharpness and image quality. So it's difficult to decide between a big upgrade for a small difference in performance, or a massive upgrade in the f2.8 mk iii. And I shoot handheld which is why the f2.8 mk 1 or 2 isn't on my radar
Any idea which you would choose between the 400 f4 v2 and the canon f2.8 but version 2 instead of 3? I can find version 2 of the 2.8 lens used cheaper than the 400 f4 lens used. I shoot college football in the USA. Thanks!
Really useful video thank you Rob. I am intending purchasing a used f4 DO II lens for around £2000. Do you know if Canon still support this lens in terms of repairs etc? I know there are not too many parts on a fixed aperture lens but obviously the auto focus and motors could go wrong. If Canon no longer support it are there third-party workshops who would be able to carry out such a repair? Thanks.
I think the 400 is best if you pair it with a 70-200, and ideally a 2nd camera body to go back and forth quite easily. This is the standard of many pro football (American and European) photographers. If you can only have one lens and body, then the 300 is the better option. Sigma's 120-300 f2.8 was a great lens for sports if you only wanted on lens.
Awesome video Rob ! I’m filming an aviation videos with GH5 and Canon 100-400 II USM lens. If I will upgrade my lenses to Canon 400mm f4 the image on the video will be sharper ?
Did you end up upgrading? The 100-400mm II version is fantastic, small, lightweight, and versatile. I have a lot of trouble justifying the ridiculous expense for a single stop, so I’m very slowly saving up for the 2.8 version.
@@AlexOvechkinSucks No ! I did not! I bought the Sigma 150-600mm sport version. Canon lenses had a bad stabilisation and they produced lots of jitter when in video mode. After lots lots of tests I did realise that Sigma lens is much better.
Great video Rob, shame it's all Canon and not Nikon, but can't have everything!! As a comparison, Nikon do a 500mm F4 and a F5.6 with similar price points to your Canon lenses. However, there is only £10 a weekend difference to hire them.
@@RobSambles I wasn't suggesting you go and get some Nikon stuff! your Canon fans would go mad!! Even though this review was of Canon lenses, it 100% relevant even to Nikon users as the difference would probably be exactly the same.
I do not have experience with the 400/4 for but my understanding is that the biggest issue with this lens has always been the lack of sharpness for the money.
The 400 f4 DO version I which Canon released in 2004 had problems with sharpness. Yet, this lens was unique because of the technique of diffractive optics. The lens was shorter and lighter than the normal telephoto lens construction. Canon came up with the version II of this 400mm f4 DO in 2014. This version, which I own myself, is very sharp and is comparable with the 300 f2.8 L version II in size, weight and build quality. I use the 400 DO II mainly in combination with the 1.4 teleconverter for wildlife photography. A 560 f5.6 which is handholdable and relatively light.
You know that one stop of light means double or half the amount of light, right? Never seen anyone with such expensive equipment struggle this hard with explaining that. Why would you be surprised about having to double the ISO? That's exactly what you should expect with one stop of light less. Half the amount of light means you need to double the sensors sensivity in order to shoot at the same speed. Also, what camera did you shoot this on? 8:20 the image is basically useless at ISO3200. I don't get that much grain/noise when shooting at ISO 12800 out of cam.
Excellent comparison of the key points Rob. I invested in a 2nd had f2.8 not the latest version last year and it’s quite simply the best for image quality. Is it £6k better no way but pick up a decent 2nd hand example and it can work out. They also hold the value really well 2nd hand. Buying new is like buying. New car you lose 25 to 30% taking it out the showroom. 2nd hand they hold that value great for years.
Great points on them holding value John. Before now I've bought a used lens, used it for 9 months and sold it on for roughly the same price that I got it for.
I shoot a 500 F4, and I would absolutely trade it for an equal quality 400 2.8. 80% of what I shoot (football/soccer) is perfectly fine in the daytime, often even at F5, but as the day drags on, and night matches start, I would happily lose some reach for F2.8.
Well explained Rob.......definitely out of range.....but would probably suffer with the weight of the lens....some money around the side of pitch at Premier league football match......stay safe........thanks for sharing
Great video! 👍 A lot to consider as I asked myself some of the same questions when considering these 2 lenses. I have no experience with either and was wondering if there is much of a depth of field difference in the real world when photographing sports and would a speed booster on the R7 with the F4 lens make a difference in equalizing the two lenses ? Thanks 😊
You do not need a 2.8 these days, I have the 1st 400 2.8 but as I had a max ASA of 400 [film] and was shooting motorsport it was essential, now it is just too heavy. The advantage is that as it lets in so much light the autofocus is faster. The f4 lens you need to double the ISO, obviously, and being diffractive optics you lose a little quality but you should always buy a lens within your budget. Now I shoot a lot of wildlife, my 7Dii used to be a waste of time, but now, with Topaz software I can get acceptable results.
@@RobSambles f stop is equal to focal length divided by appature... so an f4 400mm lens has an appature opening of 100mm. It is also why f numbers are often written as f/x.x. f is your focal length. If you use the example of that 400 2.8 you have an opening of 142.9. Side not a stop is a stop. If you change by 1 stop of av you are going to have to change by 1 stop of is or shutter speed. (Hence 3200-6400).
ISO seems the weak link in this review. If the captured light is half the needed value (F4 vs F2.8), and the shutter is constant, it makes sense the ISO needs to double. Even under YT compression the F4 lens images in all shots appear grainy by comparison. Some of that can be cleaned up in post but time is money. Save 6k on the lens and invest in a body that manages high ISO better? ... sigh.
Good video, but I'm a bit confused as your target audience for the video. Anyone considering these lenses damn well better understand aperture, exposure and fully know how to operate their camera. If not, they're just pissing away their money. A lot of your discussion seems to explain differences that anyone buying the lenses would know just by hearing 2.8 vs 4. I'd be more interested in ghosting/flaring/AF performance, etc.
@@RobSambles I mean, if someone is spending 6 grand on a lens they don't understand, they've gotta be either rich or financially irresponsible. But I suppose there could be a niche buyer that I'm not seeing who doesn't understand his own use case.
My Canon lenses .. EF 8-15 mm F4L Fisheye USM .... EF 11-24 mm F4L USM .... EF 24-70 mm F4L IS USM .... EF 24-105 mm F4L IS II USM .... EF 70-200 mm F4L IS USM .... EF 100 mm F2.8L Macro IS USM .... EF 180 mm F3.5L Macro USM .... EF 300 mm F4L IS USM ... and I'm planning to buy ... EF 200-400 mm F4L IS USM with Extender 1.4x ....
Who are you making this video for? Anyone watching a video about a $12,000 camera lens is gonna know what aperture and f-number are, and the basics of exposure.
You need the Canon R5! You can get the Canon 300mm f2.8 II and shoot in crop mode on the R5 putting you at 420mm and still have the instant option to shoot at 300mm full frame. If they ever make a speed booster for the R5 then that would make the 400mm DO a F 2.8 but would have to shoot in crop mode. A very light weight option. 😉 IMHO
@@RobSambles yes it’s expensive and I sold my 2 5D cameras to pay for it, well almost. Lol I’m so happy I did! Do you possibly think it could replace your 1DX?
I think for those on a tighter budget and the iso capabilities of modern camera's, there's definitely a place for the 400mm f4
Or a 300mm f/2.8 with a 1.4 extender ;-)
@@pascalkesselmark7529 That would be a great test/comparison
It makes sense that you would have to double the ISO from 3200 to 6400 in order to get that exposure right, as that is increasing the exposure by one stop. f/4 is one stop less than f/2.8. Lose a stop because the smaller aperture, gain it back by doubling the ISO. Great vid, really enjoyed it!
Ikr?. I was like "wait, is this guy a photographer?", but I'm an amateur myself, so I wouldn't exactly know if that was right.
Great Video! I’m very fortunate to own the Canon 400mm f2.8L IS Mark I and it is just a spectacular lens. Previously I was using a 70-200mm IS M2 with a 2x converter and the difference is night and day.
The 400mm was bought 3rd hand, but it was owned by two very experienced professional football photographers before me and it was in very good condition.
The biggest and warning I could say for anyone looking to buy the Mark I in 2021 is beware that Canon no longer repair these lenses due to their age.
My lens toppled over in late 2019 at a Scottish Championship match and the contact came away from the end of the lens and was stuck onto my camera. Canon suggested two repair centres in England. One promised me they had a warehouse in China full of old spare parts but ten minutes after they had received it after I had used an expensive delivery firm to get it to them they told me they were unable to fix it.
Thankfully I found a place in Glasgow who had a very experienced engineer who fixed it perfectly, so whilst they are coming down in price you really have to be careful that you don’t end up with a lens which may break or needs a repair and you are left with nobody to fix it and a loss of £3000!
The Mark 1 paired with the R5 is great in a straight line shooting, but if you are trying to quick find a moving subject it does seem to hunt for a split second, which can mean you miss the shot.
It has kept its value in the 4 years I have owned it, and I could sell it today for more than I paid for it.
Still my favourite lens I’m fortunate enough to own!
Thanks Graham, great insight. Yes I think a purchase of a mark 1 needs to be paired with some good insurance!
Thanks for the information. What is the name of the repair shop in Glasgow?
@@premierestudios6639 A. J. Johnstone & Co Ltd they are in Central Chambers, 93 Hope St, Glasgow G2 6LD
@@premierestudios6639 I've had my lens in there 3 times now. Sadly Scottish Football weather wise and distance between grounds has meant my lens has been through a lot, but they have always found ways to bring her back to life!
As the father of a high school marching band student who just won a state championship in her freshman year, with three more seasons of performance down the road, the often suboptimal lighting, rapid motion, and distances involved in shooting from the bleachers, this decision weighs heavily on my mind. I debate standing on the sidelines but then you miss the flag corps and drum corps on the far side of the field. I’ve considered the f4 telescopic lenses but experience has taught me that in the extremes, when the color guard flings their flags around in an evening performance an f4 just cannot capture things sharply and without unacceptable graininess of an excessively high ISO. Ultimately the dilemma then comes down to affordability, and as a private practice anesthesiologist, your highlighting the quicker focus of an f/2.8 closed the door on the decision for me.
I’ll be purchasing an RF 400mm f/2.8 for my R5 for next season.
The 400DO II is popular for surveillance. We use a package that consists of the 400DO II with the new 1dx markIII coupled with a 2x teleconverter and hardwired ethernet for remote control and image captured.
One custom setup is attached to a custom RF detector that picks up the Garage opener remote burst.
Interesting. When I bought my 500 F4, the guy selling it said that he was surprised it wasn't someone into surveillance that wanted it. I'd never thought about that until then.
When China hires you to surveil dissidents living in the US... a couple private eyes are going to jail for espionage and it needs to happen more often. Your deliberate ignorance regarding who your employers are is no excuse.
What are you looking at from so far away???
Rob @9.27 a 1 stop change in aperture would surely demand exactly the same, a one stop change in iso 🙃shouldn't be surprised mate!
I just found out yesterday on the Metabones website that they just updated the firmware for their speedbooster to be compatible with the R5 and R6. This means you can now shoot the R5 in crop mode and gain an extra stop of light, granted at 17 megapixel. Imagine the Canon 200-400 f4 now 200-400 f2.8. Etc. I will be definitely picking up one ASP. ;)
All day long I prefer the 400mm 2.8 III. Especially for bird photography early in the morning or later afternoon the 1 stop really comes in handy.
f2.8-f4 is 1 stop....ISO 3200 to 6400 is one stop....not sure why you were surprised you needed to go a whole stop to keep the same exposure :D
He's a noob. That's why.
my thoughts exactly
excellent explanation on a different settings, I'm just starting to get back into photography after several years of taking a break . Definitely will be signing up to your RUclips channel to learn a lot more . thank you 🙏
I own a 400mm f4.0 DO II, and a 400mm f2.8 IS. The 2.8 I've had for 15 years, the f4 I just bought a year ago. I loved the 2.8 for a long time, but as I've passed 50 in age, the weight is just too much and the f4 IS takes amazing photos. With the f4 I am much more mobile on the side of the field.
That weight makes a difference 100%
Still love mine 2.8 MKI but the weight is a killer.. so the 400 DO MKII will be the next purchase.
Well, the physical size (length) of f/4 version is mostly achieved by the inner construction (diffractive optics). But it's an amazing lens still. Crazy short and light for a 400mm. I was honestly surprised by it's focusing speed, I've expected much worse response from what I've learnt about the lens from the reviews.
You shouldn't be surprised by the bump up to ISO6400 in the image, you've lost a stop of light in the aperture, have to compensate for it with the sensitivity of the sensor... I know, sometimes it's not that exact and 2/3 of a stop would suffice. These are pro grade lens, I'd rely on the numbers on them.
The 2.8 Mark III is a beast. First time I had it in my hand I thought they gave me some mockup, or that it's missing a big portion of the glass. Freakingly light for this length/aperture combination. But unless somebody buys it for you, it doesn't make much sense (unless you're drowning in money) to pay 12 grand for it compared to the alternatives you might find.
Overall, both of these lens are amazing, I'd love to test the DO more than I've had. Great explanatory video Rob! Thank you!
Thank you for the additional input. It is definitely a great lens, I was sad to give it back!
yeah, that was kind of funny... "I was a bit surprised I had to add a full stop of ISO to compensate for the lost full stop of aperture." ???
Thank you. I’ve been debating the Nikon version of this lens (f4 vs 2.8) for weeks. You gave me the perspective I needed. I’m going with the F4.
Ah awesome thanks
I just recently purchased the 400mm f4. Firstly this video was beneficial and it's an intelligent purchase not just because of the value for money but because it saves you so much more without the hassle. Yes, you may be at a disadvantage when it comes to not having an f2.8 but if you're on a budget and feel you can get the very most out of your f4 you'll find the 400mm f4 just right for I've got my first game this weekend and I can't wait to test this out along with my Sigma 70-200 f2.8. the fact you save £6000 from one to another I feel people tend to miss judge the use of a 400mm f4
Hi! How did your test went? I’m also looking for a 400mm lens to pair with my Tamron 70-200 2.8 for football photography and I am really curious to know if you were happy with the f/4 lens. And would it be possible to see some pictures that you take in your test somewhere?
I used the sigma 100-300 f4 you mentioned combined with the sigma 500m f4. 5 for a number of years and they were great for my purposes (wildlife). Cost is a huge factor in photography but what is often overlooked with Sigma is the fact that they are a very innovative company. I believe they were the first to make standard zooms which started at 24mm rather than the usual 28mm. The 100-300mm f4 you mentioned is, to the best of my knowledge, unique as every other 300mm zoom would have a max f5. 6 aperture. Except of course sigma's superb 120-300 f2. 8 (currently on my list of wants for my late evening, low light badger photography). Who else makes a 500mm f2.8?
Having said that however, I totally agree that the top Canon lenses are superb. If you never get to use one then the independent manufacturers models will no doubt satisfy all your needs but once you have used a Canon super tele.... well I'm afraid you are doomed to a life of poverty, or just constant dreaming 😊
Good video Rob although I'm a bit surprised that you were surprised by the fact that a one stop decrease in aperture requires a one stop increase in exposure.
Also had the 500 f4.5, sticky diaphragm lens to start with... AF accuracy with 7D markii was hit and miss, i olny understood i was working with a sub par lens when i bought a used Canon 500 F4 Marli, a world apart
Happy new year & good explanation
Thanks Nic, Happy New Year
@@RobSambles no worries 👍
Subjects in this video were not harmed and social distance was observed.... lol
Well done on a good vlog with examples.
The new mark 3 400mm f2.8 from Canon is exceptionally brilliant. Very fast focus speed and light in weight. A good bank manager is required. The f.4 lens is also a great lens and also does the job.
The f.4 has its own statement and narrative to its performance and likewise for the new f2.8 and again it all depends on what you are using these lenses for and what is it that you as the user are hoping to achieve.
The other day I posted an image of what happened when a shinty ball hit my 300mm f/2.8 IS did and luckily I was insured and was replaced with the mark 2 as the mark 3 was only a month away from release. However, I also own and use the f/2.8 IS mark 2 along with 1DX mark 2. The weight alone with the two requires a fair bit weight lifting.
Cost is like anything in life, as you become better, more experienced and gain more financially as time goes on, then the tools of trade become more in reach. The new, I keep saying new, the 400mm f2.8 mark 3 is a bank account in itself, a mortgage, but its an investment. The lens will outlast and out perform the camera and in years to come shall still be in use whereas a camera is like a mobile phone, it gets updated almost every year or so.
Good luck on the rugby match shoot, keep warm and stay safe and well.
Us press togs up here in Scotland had part of the rug pulled from under us yesterday as both Scottish government and the Scottish Football Association curtailed the lower leagues and the Scottish Cup playoffs from playing for three weeks. But hey ho such is life, keep plodding along and keep clicking at the camera....
Best regards
Paul Paterson Photography
Thanks Paul, great input. Sorry to hear the situation in Scotland, several of my booked events are getting called off a covid cases increase unfortunately
I am an old retired scoofe, i love my 400DOV2,the weight allows me be acting, jumping to fotografing doves, birds near my garden
are you surprised that there is 1 stop of light from 2.8 to 4 and that it means from 3200 to 6400 (1 stop as well) ? If no, I don't understand your thought from 9 to 10 minutes.
Great Video Rob, keep up the awesome work.
Thanks Jon
At 7:28 you said that the f/2.8 lets in "a little more light". It is just one stop more... but that's 2X as much light.
I think i have the first 400 DO II sold as refurb... had it maybe five years now?? great lens. so portable, so useful. two downsides to be aware of... bokeh formed by background at a certain distance (especially) has a weird pattern to it. so if the fence behind the soccer play is at the "wrong" distance, backgrounds will be a bit more distracting than the 2.8 lens shot at f/4. also, though this doesn't pertain to sports... the minimum focus distance is... pretty far. 10 feet? other than those, I love my baby 400.
how often are you within 10 feet at 400m?
@@RobGoldstein butterflies, insects, small close-in critters... like I said, not sports but still. 100-400 II is its opposite in this regard... lose a stop, gain a bunch of other things. dunno about 400 2.8 but I'm pretty sure the bad MM of the DO is due to the DO
Oooh. Thanks for posting that. Re. the background anomalies: I wonder if you're picking up some anomalies from the fresnel pattern of that design. Is the background pattern similar to what large foggy concentric circles might give you overlaid on the area? Do you get a similar effect aiming it at a bright patch of blank sky? Also, did you have the lens hood on when you got these affects?
The cost, light weight and opportunity to stay with Canon still make this attractive to me, but it's good to know about the chance of background effects.
Great video Rob, something good to point out is that at least here in the USA all of the Football games are played in the early evening where lighting is very poor so the 2.8 is a MUST and even using the 2.8 version 3 most of the time my ISO needs to be above 10,000 to get proper exposure at the night games. On the other hand for wildlife, and any daytime activities the 4.0 will work just perfectly so it really depends on need of each photographer.
Great shout Tom yes the lighting in lots of venues makes that 2.8 so important!
I've had a 7D for 11 years and a 7D2 for 4 years. A week ago I got an R6. I'm excited to see what the autofocus and high ISO will be like when I resume real shooting in early April. I have a Canon 70-200 2.8 L II, but I don't have good lenses for ~24-70 or over 200. Given the improved ISO performance in cameras like the R6, is it really still essential to have 2.8 vs 4 for gym and outdoor night sports? I don't have much budget for 2.8 lenses. So, I'm hoping that used, 3rd party, 4.0, EF lenses would be sufficient (I could still have 2 cams with EF). That's mostly a matter of personal preference. But, I'm also looking to get on with maxpreps who say that they expect pro equipment. They don't specify what that means. I've asked them, but I'm not sure they'll want to say that.
The cameras know a days they are so good at high iso's that f4 is a good investment instead of the f2.8.
You don’t mention minimum focus distance in this comparison. I tested a 400/f4 DO mk1 only to find minimum focus distance was about 20ft. That was no good for my use case
I didn't really feel it was relevant enough i. this comparison to be honest. 20ft is real close, can't imagine I'd ever use 400mm that close in
400domk2 is the fastest fokusing on my R3
Very good to know. In that way + ISO + more keepers if you master the AF, the R3 starts to pay for itself.
if you hand hold you get sharper picture with the DO ii, even though the lens is not as sharp.
Very clear video! Main subjects well addressed! Definitely the decision relies with the user! Great gear, if not the best of best!!! Cheers
Thank you Carlos
Very good and informative video Rob, well done. I have the Canon 400mm f2.8 IS MKI that weighs a ton! I have my eye on the 400 DO to replace it. I do sports photography like you do and in well-lit stadiums , which all the premier league in the UK and Europe are ( I travel to Europe for CL & EL games), the f4 is good enough to get the 1/1250. The 1Dx MKII does very well at ISO4000-ISO 6400. The main advance to me for the 400DO is weight , size ( I can take one hand luggage when traveling by air ). DoF is actually better for me at f4 as for footballers side by side the f4 will get both in focus (often I shot at 3.2 / 3.5 with the 400/2.8 to get both players sharp). As for the IQ, the difference of the image size we send to the agency ( 2.0-2.5MB) and printed on newspapers or on the web is negligible. Oh and I forget the 6K price difference . Therefore, when we are back to 'normal' I plan to sell the 400/2.8 IS MKI (almost 6kg) and buy the 400 DO (just over 2Kg). In addition, if I need an F2.8 lens I have a Sigma 300/2.8 that is a good performer. The Sigma 100-300/f4 was my first sports lens too on a 10D & 40D
Thanks for sharing your insight it's appreciated. Hopefully 'normal' isn't too far off!
The problem with these lenses for my typical purposes (small perched birds from 20-30ft) is that "wide open" they just don't give me enough Depth of Focus. Oh sure, I could stop them down to F9 or F11.... but at that point, what would be the point of using a super expensive, heavy, potentially fast lens ? Also, even on a crop body, 400mm is almost never enough, so I'd be using a 1.4 or 2 X's TC most of the time...
I suppose if I had a sherpa to carry it, and I was shooting in a dark rainforest, it would be better to get a "sharp eye ball" than it would be, to get no shot at all. But in the end, the new "slow" lenses like the 800 F11, and 200-800 have pretty much cured my lust for a Big White lens.
Great video! Easy to understand for a novice but enough detail for the pros.
Thank you mate
Good video. Ask the pro sports guys or look on the field. No f4 lenses. All 2.8
I've actually seen a couple of 200-400 f4's pitchside but mostly yes you're correct
Struggling to decide between these 2 as an upgrade from the 100-400 mk ii. Which is a fantastic lens, but shooting at f5.6 is quite often limiting. As a hobbyist photographer I'd be happy with the f4 but from what I've read the 100-400 ii is almost on par with the 400 f4 DO ii in terms on sharpness and image quality. So it's difficult to decide between a big upgrade for a small difference in performance, or a massive upgrade in the f2.8 mk iii. And I shoot handheld which is why the f2.8 mk 1 or 2 isn't on my radar
I've made a seperate video about the 100-400 on my channel. Check it out
why not the rf 100-500?
Any idea which you would choose between the 400 f4 v2 and the canon f2.8 but version 2 instead of 3? I can find version 2 of the 2.8 lens used cheaper than the 400 f4 lens used. I shoot college football in the USA.
Thanks!
For me the version 2 of the 2.8 because I need the low light capability
@@RobSambles thanks rob. Much heavier though!!!
Really useful video thank you Rob. I am intending purchasing a used f4 DO II lens for around £2000. Do you know if Canon still support this lens in terms of repairs etc? I know there are not too many parts on a fixed aperture lens but obviously the auto focus and motors could go wrong. If Canon no longer support it are there third-party workshops who would be able to carry out such a repair? Thanks.
great vid - thank you. Question, you have the 300 2.8 - if you had a choice, the 300 2.8 or 400 DO f4 - which would you choose knowing what you know?
I think the 400 is best if you pair it with a 70-200, and ideally a 2nd camera body to go back and forth quite easily. This is the standard of many pro football (American and European) photographers.
If you can only have one lens and body, then the 300 is the better option. Sigma's 120-300 f2.8 was a great lens for sports if you only wanted on lens.
@@bradleyrex2968 thanks. I have R7 and 70D - bought 300 2.8 and 100‐400. Great pics
The price and size are all about one stop difference. All seems to check out.
In fact, the F2.8 lens let's in twice as much light as F4 lens.
Good luck using the F4 for sport under lights. During the day just use the 400mm F5.6 prime
Awesome video Rob ! I’m filming an aviation videos with GH5 and Canon 100-400 II USM lens. If I will upgrade my lenses to Canon 400mm f4 the image on the video will be sharper ?
Not necessarily - that could depend on a few variables. It's a great lens though
@@RobSambles Thank you for your fast reply Rob
Did you end up upgrading? The 100-400mm II version is fantastic, small, lightweight, and versatile.
I have a lot of trouble justifying the ridiculous expense for a single stop, so I’m very slowly saving up for the 2.8 version.
@@AlexOvechkinSucks No ! I did not! I bought the Sigma 150-600mm sport version. Canon lenses had a bad stabilisation and they produced lots of jitter when in video mode. After lots lots of tests I did realise that Sigma lens is much better.
Great video Rob, shame it's all Canon and not Nikon, but can't have everything!!
As a comparison, Nikon do a 500mm F4 and a F5.6 with similar price points to your Canon lenses. However, there is only £10 a weekend difference to hire them.
I'd do some Nikon stuff for sure, I just don't own any Nikon gear. Maybe I'll try and get hold of a body and 70-200 for some comparisons at some point
@@RobSambles I wasn't suggesting you go and get some Nikon stuff! your Canon fans would go mad!! Even though this review was of Canon lenses, it 100% relevant even to Nikon users as the difference would probably be exactly the same.
TLDW -
YES.
I do not have experience with the 400/4 for but my understanding is that the biggest issue with this lens has always been the lack of sharpness for the money.
Ah ok interesting. I didn't get to use it for a sports event unfortunately but in my little test here it was fine
The 400 f4 DO version I which Canon released in 2004 had problems with sharpness. Yet, this lens was unique because of the technique of diffractive optics. The lens was shorter and lighter than the normal telephoto lens construction. Canon came up with the version II of this 400mm f4 DO in 2014. This version, which I own myself, is very sharp and is comparable with the 300 f2.8 L version II in size, weight and build quality. I use the 400 DO II mainly in combination with the 1.4 teleconverter for wildlife photography. A 560 f5.6 which is handholdable and relatively light.
@@b.a.d5418 Thanks for the info 💯
Is the f4 noticeably better than the 100-400L zoom though?
You know that one stop of light means double or half the amount of light, right? Never seen anyone with such expensive equipment struggle this hard with explaining that. Why would you be surprised about having to double the ISO? That's exactly what you should expect with one stop of light less. Half the amount of light means you need to double the sensors sensivity in order to shoot at the same speed.
Also, what camera did you shoot this on? 8:20 the image is basically useless at ISO3200. I don't get that much grain/noise when shooting at ISO 12800 out of cam.
The canon 400 MM EF F 2.8 L is very good
Excellent comparison of the key points Rob. I invested in a 2nd had f2.8 not the latest version last year and it’s quite simply the best for image quality. Is it £6k better no way but pick up a decent 2nd hand example and it can work out. They also hold the value really well 2nd hand. Buying new is like buying. New car you lose 25 to 30% taking it out the showroom. 2nd hand they hold that value great for years.
Great points on them holding value John. Before now I've bought a used lens, used it for 9 months and sold it on for roughly the same price that I got it for.
I shoot a 500 F4, and I would absolutely trade it for an equal quality 400 2.8. 80% of what I shoot (football/soccer) is perfectly fine in the daytime, often even at F5, but as the day drags on, and night matches start, I would happily lose some reach for F2.8.
Well explained Rob.......definitely out of range.....but would probably suffer with the weight of the lens....some money around the side of pitch at Premier league football match......stay safe........thanks for sharing
Cheers Ian
In bird fotography f2.8 is a winer because the isolation of the subject, and now the Canon 400mm f2.8 weights 2.8kg not like the old times, 5.6kg.
When u carry a big 28 , people just get out of your way , is it worth it ,well if u have the money go for it , it’s a pure beast .
Great video! 👍 A lot to consider as I asked myself some of the same questions when considering these 2 lenses. I have no experience with either and was wondering if there is much of a depth of field difference in the real world when photographing sports and would a speed booster on the R7 with the F4 lens make a difference in equalizing the two lenses ? Thanks 😊
Hey I’m back! Those lenses look like nasa rockets 🚀
They are massive!
They do live by far longer!
You could probably buy a nasa rocket for less 🤣
The question should be; do you really need it to be a Canon Brand lens?
You do not need a 2.8 these days, I have the 1st 400 2.8 but as I had a max ASA of 400 [film] and was shooting motorsport it was essential, now it is just too heavy. The advantage is that as it lets in so much light the autofocus is faster. The f4 lens you need to double the ISO, obviously, and being diffractive optics you lose a little quality but you should always buy a lens within your budget. Now I shoot a lot of wildlife, my 7Dii used to be a waste of time, but now, with Topaz software I can get acceptable results.
you don't really need anything, but if one should be delivered to my door step, I would definitely not throw it away.
Aperture numbers are fractions. F/2.8. 1/4 is bigger than 1/8 which is why the hole is bigger too. Blew my mind when that was pointed out to me. 🤯
Haha - yep it is now you point it out! Comment of the week here
@@RobSambles f stop is equal to focal length divided by appature... so an f4 400mm lens has an appature opening of 100mm. It is also why f numbers are often written as f/x.x. f is your focal length. If you use the example of that 400 2.8 you have an opening of 142.9.
Side not a stop is a stop. If you change by 1 stop of av you are going to have to change by 1 stop of is or shutter speed. (Hence 3200-6400).
The funny thing is that these individual lenses cost more than my car.
sure you need the 2.8 in certain scenarios! you loose one stop of light! which is unforgiving in some circumstances! for sports for example!
ISO seems the weak link in this review. If the captured light is half the needed value (F4 vs F2.8), and the shutter is constant, it makes sense the ISO needs to double.
Even under YT compression the F4 lens images in all shots appear grainy by comparison. Some of that can be cleaned up in post but time is money.
Save 6k on the lens and invest in a body that manages high ISO better? ... sigh.
Good video, but I'm a bit confused as your target audience for the video. Anyone considering these lenses damn well better understand aperture, exposure and fully know how to operate their camera. If not, they're just pissing away their money.
A lot of your discussion seems to explain differences that anyone buying the lenses would know just by hearing 2.8 vs 4. I'd be more interested in ghosting/flaring/AF performance, etc.
Very naive to suggest that anyone buying these lenses understands it to that extent in my opinion
@@RobSambles I mean, if someone is spending 6 grand on a lens they don't understand, they've gotta be either rich or financially irresponsible. But I suppose there could be a niche buyer that I'm not seeing who doesn't understand his own use case.
@@falxonPSN Not sure the video is restricted to only buyers of $6000 lenses.
My Canon lenses .. EF 8-15 mm F4L Fisheye USM .... EF 11-24 mm F4L USM .... EF 24-70 mm F4L IS USM .... EF 24-105 mm F4L IS II USM .... EF 70-200 mm F4L IS USM .... EF 100 mm F2.8L Macro IS USM .... EF 180 mm F3.5L Macro USM .... EF 300 mm F4L IS USM ... and I'm planning to buy ... EF 200-400 mm F4L IS USM with Extender 1.4x ....
U are smooth talker!?? 👍
So good and so funny :)
Legend 🤠👍
And I’m sat here using a 55-200 f4-5.6 wishing I could afford to spend £1k on a 2.8 :(
Who are you making this video for?
Anyone watching a video about a $12,000 camera lens is gonna know what aperture and f-number are, and the basics of exposure.
Soon as I saw your first shot with the f2.8, I stopped watching haha
I rent the f4 when I need one. I don't think a 2.8 is even worth renting
A great lens
It's mind boggling someone using these lenses doesn't understand how to set the exposure and how stops of light work. rofl.
I need kurwa 400 mm 2.8 that's all
You need the Canon R5! You can get the Canon 300mm f2.8 II and shoot in crop mode on the R5 putting you at 420mm and still have the instant option to shoot at 300mm full frame. If they ever make a speed booster for the R5 then that would make the 400mm DO a F 2.8 but would have to shoot in crop mode. A very light weight option. 😉 IMHO
I'd love an R5 but it's out of my budget unfortunately
@@RobSambles yes it’s expensive and I sold my 2 5D cameras to pay for it, well almost. Lol I’m so happy I did! Do you possibly think it could replace your 1DX?
@@jamesseward9263 Yeah if I got one it would replace my 1dx and I'd shoot the R5 and R6 together. If my budget ever allows I'll pick one up 100%
Get a mic!
You mean which one do I use? The Rode Videomicro
@@RobSambles nevermind.
He means the voice looks far?!? Either u don’t have a mic or its far from u!!?
What kind of question is this? Of course we all need F2.8😂😂😂 we are photographers, we work with light!!