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.
a buddy has that 500 f4 and same thing, just far too much of a beast to stay light on your feet with. gorgeous image quality though. that first DO was ahead of it's time, but def came with some ugly trade-offs. for the folks who have the specific need of portable 400, the II seems like such a great option. esp last couple years with iso12800/25600 being very usable (when used correctly) in combination with software like Topaz/LR Denoise, you can really make some images happen that decade+ ago came with higher degree of difficulty. where i'm tore (hence watching this video) is choosing between one of these two lenses, or throwing an extra $1000 at it and going with the EF 200-400 with the 1.4 built-in. the 200-400 seems like the ultimate in versatility with fantastic AF speed. too many good choices to choose from lol!
gotta say man, doing these types of tests are a real time-suck to do correctly. thank you for taking the time to not only do some side-by-sides, but really spell out a number of different real-world shooting situ in diffferent combos of config, along with showing 100-200% crops. it's exactly these types of videos that help photogs like me make better purchasing decisions, and wanted to drop a line and say your work not going unnoticed. 👏👏 thanks from many
Hello Doug from Gilroy, CA We just moved from Santa Clara, CA Bay Area to a mountain property Sierra foothills and I am loving the wildlife here. There are birds I have never seen or heard before. Lots of birds of prey and even a turkey vulture I saw down the road. I have a Canon R6 MK II and some lenses. I am new to photography and would love to learn more. I am glad I found your videos. You are a great teacher. Thank you formally Angel from the Bay now, MountainAngel
That's a great camera to start with. It has an amazing autofocus system, if you set it up right:-) See my setup video on the R6 Mark ii if you need help:-)
Great videos! Very interesting, useful and well planned and executed experiments. Will definitely keep this one in my favorite and watch it again. thanks for sharing this.
Even though the 300 2.8 very slightly edged out the 400 DO, with regard to sharpness at the periphery of the bird for short to medium distances, I just can't give up that 400 DO! It has been my go to lens this entire Eagle season. Its more than 15% lighter and its bokeh is magical. Plus, it autofocuses is like a champ.
@@lets_go_birding9096 I already have the 300 2.8 Mk ii often with the 1.4x Mk3 and like you its been my favourite. I have only just moved to having mirrorless, initially alongside DSLR and waited for the R5 Mk2. I've tried the 100-500 and I like it and the weight, but have been missing the shallow DoF and the bokeh. I'd tried the 400 DO Mk 1 back in 2012 and gave it back because of the doughnut bokeh that the DO 100-300 had suffered from. But from what I'd seen on other, less comprehensive videos than yours, was this appeared to have been improved or removed. An hour before I found your video I took the plunge and ordered a 2nd hand DO ii. Thankfully your experiments and assessments have echoed what I was hoping for, i.e. very close and occasionally better. You have definitely saved me several hours when I get the lens as several of the things I would have tested you have done already. So many thinks. What I will be checking out is one of my old experiments on a UK £10 at 30 feet with my F2.8. On the note there are what look like brown lines to the naked eye. But if you get them under a magnifying glass they actually say TEN TEN TEN. With micro focus adjustment on 5D Mk3 and 1D bodies you can actually see that when you pixel peep and its a smaller detail than i've seen on any test chart. I will be interested to see if the 400 DO ii can pick that up. One of the factors for me was the weight especially as previously I was using 1D bodies and I was hoping they would be close enough that I would want to use this when I was hand holding. I think from what you have said I will. So again thank you and I hope my copy is a good one!
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.
If someone needs light weight, middle price prime lens - should go to Nikon pf glasses. I am also was canon guy for many years, but now I have Nikon and vary happy for quality and price.
Thank you for the video. What a coincidence! Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II is my beloved telephoto lens that I never want to part with. Only difference is; I use DSLRs. Pair this legendary lens with a legendary body 1D Mark IV and EF 2x III extender. This produces a reach of 780mm due to its 1.3 crop factor. Yes, it’s heavy so, always use it on sturdy tripod or monopod. I've seen my friend use EF 400 f/4L IS II DO version. Seems pretty good. But not good enough for me to replace my 300mm 2.8 with that glass. May hand-holdable BIF combo is 7D + EF 400mm f/5.6L. Enjoy wildlife safaris in national parks and capture shots as per my choice with these combos. Being a hobbyist photographer, I’m completely satisfied with these gears. Do not see compelling reasons to switch to the mirrorless system. Rather save money for safaris. Thanks again.
I'm glad you're happy with your 300 ISii. There's no question about it, that lens is amazing… Even with mirrorless bodies. For bird photography, I really need the faster a body with high shutter speeds (for birds in flight), an advanced autofocus system (birds in flight) and better video capabilities than a DSL can offer. I'm never going back to DSL:-)
@@lets_go_birding9096 I agree with all the advantages of the mirrorless system. However, lag-free real time view, battery life and form factor keep me glued to DSLRs. Moreover, I'm not into videos. Use my smartphone for casual purposes when I feel like. Own a high-end point & shoot mirrorless system Canon G5X. It is pretty good for anytime use and accompanies me wherever I go.
On your r7 tests with the DO, which shutter option did you use? There is a lot of shutter slap on the r7 with the mechanical shutter. If you are doing perched birds then using the electronic shutter removes that slap. I get very sharp images from the r7 in ES, which the DO, for perched birds. For moving subjects, I use first curtain shutter with good results on the DO.
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.
I bought the EF 300mm f4 recently, I find it is sharper than any of the EF 100-400’s, but it’s still a little lacking in sharpness compared to modern RF telephotos, for the price it’s still a steal. I’ve been curious about the 400mm f4 DO and the 300mm f2.8, this video was wonderful.
I'm glad the video was helpful:-) I've had some requests for a shootout involving that EF 300 f/4, but the R5 Mark ii came out and is now consuming time. Look for that EF 300 f/4 shoot out to come in the future.
That was a great comparison. I’m considering one or the other and leaning toward the 300 ii. You mentioned that the r7 did not take well to the 400 do, but does the r7 take well to the 300ii? With teleconverters?
I'm working on another video where the R7 is the star of the show; however, based on the experiments I did run with it, it just did not perform well compared to the R5, so I just don't use it anymore with these lenses - especially in low morning light. I am getting a lot of questions about its performance so, so I will properly do experiments with it just to make sure it really is inferior.
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.
Hello, although the EOS R7 was not the main camera that I tested in this video, it performed poorly compared to the R5 in all of the tests that I used it in. I am working on a video comparing these lenses and the RF 100 - 500, where the R7 is the star of the show. I never use my R7 with either of these lenses anymore because its product is just inferior to that of the R5 - at least in my testing.
with the 400 DO, what was your real-world experience like shooting it handheld? good for short amount of time, but cumbersome after 15-20 min? or is it pretty manageable for entire shoot? i can get by with 300 handheld for decent amount of time, but starts to become PIA after a while. specs indicate this 400 to be about a pound lighter, curious how that translate to real-world shooting, it looks to be a bit more balanced than 300 as well. thanks for the input!
@@kernzilla Depending on the sport, I often use the lens on a monopod. I have used it handheld, and it does get heavy after a while. But it's about 1/3 the weight of my old 400mm f2.8 which it replaced.
The 400 DO IS ii is definitely more handholdable, compared to the 300 L IS ii. its about 15% lighter and even more than that if you have to put the 2X tele-converter on the 300. This entire Eagle season I use the 400 DO with a 1.4 tc and did handhold it at times during the session. Most of the time, however, I have it on a very lightweight monopod with a RRS ball head on top of that. Works like a dream! If the Eagle is coming in high, I can easily lift the whole rig up and still get some decent shots, which is something I could not do with the 300 L + 2x tc + monopod. So for me, a 63-year-old with a bad back and bad knees and bad wrist, I can still handhold the 400 DO, but I would never take it out on a 2-3 mile hike without the monopod. Hope that helps:-)
@@lets_go_birding9096 that's pretty incredible! certainly pretty tempting to go with the 400 in this regard, but have a feeling i'll go with the 300 II for this upcoming upgrade. ideally, I'll end up with both and can choose the right lens when the time comes. for context: I've been booking a lot more high-profile concerts and using my legacy 300L has proven to be cumbersome for these. It's an intense shoot in a short amount of time, with 10x other photogs fully kitted out trying to get the same shots. Staying lightweight and on my feet for these is crucial, and the times i've used monopod in the pit is PIA and kind of a liability lol. it can be rough, but handholding my 300 for 10-12 min works barely good enough for now, but def looking fwd to upgrading. other issue with my current 300L is the min focusing distance, just often enough, the talent ends up too close to me and the shot is ruined 😿 fortunately, the newer versions are ~6' whereas mine is 10' away. small detail, but have seen some larger impacts with this (and another reason the 400 isn't quite the right fit) granted, not a lot of folks use a 300 in the pit, but me being me lol, I have to make things difficult hahahaaa. Planning on continuing to use these longer focal lengths though. great way to stand out amongst the 10x other photogs shooting 70-200s. Gotta say: even tho the RF70-200 AF with dual nano motors is great, the AF lock/confidence of the 300 is far superior in these horribly lit situations, and can't wait to upgrade. to come back full circle here: I've learned SOOO much from the birding photography channels on these super-tele primes. there's not a lot of content on the 300-600s otherwise; most of the sports guys do not post a lot of in-depth info, and i'm yet to find a concert photog doing pros and cons of tele primes lol. so, long-winded thank you for deep diving into this incredible gear and helping me make an informed decision 👌 ofc, glad to hear any input as to what you think would be best in this shooting scenario! my next big show is taylor swift next month, and might rent the RF 100-300 and shoot that alongside whatever i upgrade to. never a dull moment!
generally speaking, which one of these lenses had more consistent AF speed/lock with the 2x? on my 300 v1, I've only been using my 1.4 III. my prev 2x just pissed me off on a shoot while back and sold it lol. never loved what 2x does to the image quality and AF predictability, but now that i'm upgrading my 300 to one of the two lenses you reviewed here, trying to get better idea if the 2x III is viable option or not. Where the 2x failed me the most was with micro-corrections/indecisiveness once AF on subject, and anything that wasn't perfectly lit. Backlit subjects were nightmare, and mostly unreliable for me. love to learn which of these two lenses excelled the most with 2x (if any lol) .. will say i was surprised by how well your 300+2x held up in your tests, the CA and chroma smear was far less than expected. did watch a review couple weeks ago showing in some shooting situations on R5, that cropping + software utilization actually yielded better results with IQ/micro-detail, versus using the 2x TC. 🙃
Last eagle season, before I had the 400 DO IS ii, I use the 300L IS ii with the 2.0 iii tele-converter all the time. I had no problems with shooting birds in flight with it and it lost very little image quality. This season, I almost exclusively used the 400 DO but never with the 2.0 tc, because there was, in my opinion, significantly more image quality loss with that set up. With regard to autofocusing, I really didn't have much problem with birds in flight. Both of these lenses struggle when shooting small birds in a noisy background. I constantly have to focus on the ground in front of the small bird and then refocus on the bird because the autofocus gets locked out into the distance and just always doesn't see the bird. Even the 100-500 rf f/7.1 has this problem, but not nearly as bad. Hope that helps:-)
@@lets_go_birding9096 appreciate the detailed response, and fantastic to hear the 300 does so well with 2x, i wouldn't have expected that. 1.4x is the max IQ deterioration i'm comfortable with on my v1 (this applies to AF confidence too). hear you on the small object AF; not sure what your setting are, but have found these couple things helps t his situ: turning off Continous AF, initial subject for priority, and both tracking sensitivity+accel/decel at -1. dialing those down has been a big win for me, for animals or humans, to avoid the unwanted searching/twitch. having BBF setup and toggling between the two AF options has been a legit combo for me. i was initially concerned with my mirrorless system, felt like my keeper ratio was lower than it should be, but once i started paying more attention to these settings, really renewed my faith in the RF system. regardless, thanks again for the vid here. likely going to proceed with the 300, seems to be the most versatile and portable, though either one of them likely be fantastic! appreciate it
@@lets_go_birding9096 oh, i do have another question, that might also be relevant to the small subject aspect of this convo: you find using the Focus Preset an invaluable feature on these lenses? or one of those things you can live without? my 300mm being older, this feature does not communicate with my mirrorless bodies and haven't actually utilized it before 😿 wondering if using PF button to initially lock on to smaller subject to get the focus 'most of the way there' would help counter some of this AF hunting? quite often, I'll just spin my MF ring when AF seems to get totally lost, and will say this is pretty helpful to point the AF in right direction and let it finalize focus (for context, it's prob my 100 Macro I do this the most). curious if in the field you find yourself using PF quite a bit, or just not a great way to mitigate this problem. sidenote: will say managing my minimum focusing distance options on my current 300 is perhaps an underestimated way to speed up/lock in your AF performance. i don't remember to fine-tune it every time, but there is def a notable difference in speed/lock if your shooting situ is favorable for specifying distances. (additionally, just wanted to spell this out for anyone researching these lenses at 2am with 20 tabs open lol, have found this to be more impactful than expected) thanks m8! and omg sorry for the long comments here, but getting pretty excited to finally make this upgrade and having hard time containing myself hahahaaa
Grab yourself a R5mkii (I did). My R5 had inconsistent and sometimes non--sticky focus tracking in bif using the 100-500+ 1.4x My R5mkii tracks and just sticks to the bif eye with the 1.4x on.
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.
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.
I’d like a comparison between the 300 2.8 version 1 and 2. I also wondered why you chose the r7 when the r5 allows you to add a crop mimicking the r7. Just courious
That would be a good comparison and I might just do it. 90% of the comparisons between these two lens were done with the R5, which is my go-to camera for birding:-) Also, the R5 in crop mode dose not mimic the 1.6 crop factor of the R7. APSC sensors (R7) do not lose pixels with the crop factor, but putting the R5 in crop mode is the same as cropping in post, so pixels are lost--completely different forms of magnification:-)
and having the 2.8 for not only speed but a bit more separation/bokeh is always impactful on your final image. even though these mirrorless bodies perform exponentially better than DSLRs at higher iso, more often than not has the 2.8 really made the shot happen for me 👌
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!
ah interesting!, that would put it at 800mm+! 👀 what body do you use it on, and how badly is the AF/IQ affected using both TCs? never loved the performance & image quality deterioration from TCs, but sounds like the 300 II really does a good job of minimizing TC damages to IQ.
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:-)
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.
I'm glad that's working for you. In my initial experiments, the R5 kicked the R7's butt with regard to sharpness, but that wasn't the thrust of my lens comparison video. I am working a video that will specifically compare the R7 and R5 using the 400DO.
i wanted to love the R7, it has great specs on paper. Rented one to test-drive it, and just couldn't enjoy it. The body was little smaller than expected and had a funny effect on my muscle memory. Shooting the R5/R6 so much, I didn't realize how dependent I'd become on having 3rd wheel for camera control. these ergonomic factors weren't a deal-breaker but certainly noticeable. Where it became obvious I wouldn't purchase one was the image quality. didn't expect this, but anything beyond about iso 1600 had far more deterioration than i was comfortable with, and it wasn't anything that Topaz or LR Denoise could rectify. Perhaps it was just the copy of it i was using, but the concerns floating around the internet about the unexplained softness/shutter slap were very real for me. found myself hyper-overshooting to make sure I got 1 sharp one out of a burst of 20. I've always been sensitve to overshooting anyways, for it just creates such a waste of editing time along with hard drive management. Hopefully your R7 better than the one I rented, it was really rough in this regard. for a pure daylight camera with reasonable expectations, will say it's an attractive body for ~$1000. Goal of this rental was to see if it was a good fit as my 3rd body, and ultimately bought another R6 for about the same money. Just wasn't quite comfortable enough to bring some of these variables into my workflow. Hoping to see the R7 II firm up some of these details, for historically, the 7-series bodies from Canon have always punched above their weight imo.
I'm glad the 400 DO IS ii is working out so well for you. Even though I threatened to sell my 400 DO ( because it is not quite as sharp around the periphery of close-up birds ), I still just can't put it down and love it. I really don't see that much difference between the two (especially on birds that are further away) and because it is significantly lighter and shorter, I can't imagine ever getting rid of it:-)
there are none lighter in the pro Canon lineup. The RF 100-300mm f/2 ($10,000) and RF 400mm f/2 ($12,000) are close to the same weight but crazy out-of-reach expensive, for most.
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.
Dear, sir, about your statement about using you fine Canon EF 400mm f/f II DO with a crop-factor camera (1.6x) Btw (according to: Tony & Chelsea Northrup and this RUclips video: ruclips.net/video/f5zN6NVx-hY/видео.html about 3.00 minutes into the video) about the crop factor of 1.6 X when using a fullfram lens will also affect the real flow of light to the smaller sensor and in practical results f/4.0 will be an effective light transmission about f/6.4. (Does the APS-C sensor affect the aperture? Answer is of course, yes! “Putting a full-frame lens on a camera with an APS-C sensor is like using a teleconverter, reducing the light reaching the sensor by 1.5 or 1.6. This turns your f/4 lens into something like f/6.”
Sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say. However, if you put a full frame lens on a crop censored camera (like the EOS R7) the aperture remains the same and does not change unless you have to move back from the target (because of increase magnification) and increase the focal length. Only then does the aperture narrow but of increased focal distance from the target. In bird photography, you almost never have to physically move back from a bird, so an F4 lens on a crop censored body still has an F4 aperture. Not true, however, if you put a tele-converter on the lens. Then, your aperture is going to narrow, depending on the tele-converter. E.g. Put a 1.4 tc on an f4 lens and it becomes f5.6. Put a 2.0 tc on the f/4 lens, and now it becomes an f/8 lens.
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.
a buddy has that 500 f4 and same thing, just far too much of a beast to stay light on your feet with. gorgeous image quality though.
that first DO was ahead of it's time, but def came with some ugly trade-offs. for the folks who have the specific need of portable 400, the II seems like such a great option. esp last couple years with iso12800/25600 being very usable (when used correctly) in combination with software like Topaz/LR Denoise, you can really make some images happen that decade+ ago came with higher degree of difficulty.
where i'm tore (hence watching this video) is choosing between one of these two lenses, or throwing an extra $1000 at it and going with the EF 200-400 with the 1.4 built-in. the 200-400 seems like the ultimate in versatility with fantastic AF speed. too many good choices to choose from lol!
gotta say man, doing these types of tests are a real time-suck to do correctly. thank you for taking the time to not only do some side-by-sides, but really spell out a number of different real-world shooting situ in diffferent combos of config, along with showing 100-200% crops. it's exactly these types of videos that help photogs like me make better purchasing decisions, and wanted to drop a line and say your work not going unnoticed. 👏👏 thanks from many
My pleasure :-) it was a lot of fun making the video, and I'm glad you found it helpful.
Hello Doug from Gilroy, CA We just moved from Santa Clara, CA Bay Area to a mountain property Sierra foothills and I am loving the wildlife here. There are birds I have never seen or heard before. Lots of birds of prey and even a turkey vulture I saw down the road. I have a Canon R6 MK II and some lenses. I am new to photography and would love to learn more. I am glad I found your videos. You are a great teacher. Thank you formally Angel from the Bay now, MountainAngel
That's a great camera to start with. It has an amazing autofocus system, if you set it up right:-) See my setup video on the R6 Mark ii if you need help:-)
Fantastic informative review. Thanks.much appreciated.
Thanks for watching! I'm glad the video was helpful:-)
Great videos! Very interesting, useful and well planned and executed experiments. Will definitely keep this one in my favorite and watch it again. thanks for sharing this.
Glad you enjoyed it!
I’m glad you did this. I own a 300 2.8 and was thinking of getting a 400 DO. I guess I’ll use the teleconverter in stead of a different lens.
Even though the 300 2.8 very slightly edged out the 400 DO, with regard to sharpness at the periphery of the bird for short to medium distances, I just can't give up that 400 DO! It has been my go to lens this entire Eagle season. Its more than 15% lighter and its bokeh is magical. Plus, it autofocuses is like a champ.
@@lets_go_birding9096 wonder how the 400 DO stacks up to the 400 2.8.
@@lets_go_birding9096 I already have the 300 2.8 Mk ii often with the 1.4x Mk3 and like you its been my favourite. I have only just moved to having mirrorless, initially alongside DSLR and waited for the R5 Mk2. I've tried the 100-500 and I like it and the weight, but have been missing the shallow DoF and the bokeh. I'd tried the 400 DO Mk 1 back in 2012 and gave it back because of the doughnut bokeh that the DO 100-300 had suffered from. But from what I'd seen on other, less comprehensive videos than yours, was this appeared to have been improved or removed. An hour before I found your video I took the plunge and ordered a 2nd hand DO ii. Thankfully your experiments and assessments have echoed what I was hoping for, i.e. very close and occasionally better. You have definitely saved me several hours when I get the lens as several of the things I would have tested you have done already. So many thinks. What I will be checking out is one of my old experiments on a UK £10 at 30 feet with my F2.8. On the note there are what look like brown lines to the naked eye. But if you get them under a magnifying glass they actually say TEN TEN TEN. With micro focus adjustment on 5D Mk3 and 1D bodies you can actually see that when you pixel peep and its a smaller detail than i've seen on any test chart. I will be interested to see if the 400 DO ii can pick that up. One of the factors for me was the weight especially as previously I was using 1D bodies and I was hoping they would be close enough that I would want to use this when I was hand holding. I think from what you have said I will. So again thank you and I hope my copy is a good one!
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.
Thank you for your thoughtful and helpful reply. I'm glad the video helped you with your decision.
If someone needs light weight, middle price prime lens - should go to Nikon pf glasses. I am also was canon guy for many years, but now I have Nikon and vary happy for quality and price.
Thank you for the video.
What a coincidence! Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II is my beloved telephoto lens that I never want to part with. Only difference is; I use DSLRs. Pair this legendary lens with a legendary body 1D Mark IV and EF 2x III extender. This produces a reach of 780mm due to its 1.3 crop factor. Yes, it’s heavy so, always use it on sturdy tripod or monopod. I've seen my friend use EF 400 f/4L IS II DO version. Seems pretty good. But not good enough for me to replace my 300mm 2.8 with that glass.
May hand-holdable BIF combo is 7D + EF 400mm f/5.6L. Enjoy wildlife safaris in national parks and capture shots as per my choice with these combos. Being a hobbyist photographer, I’m completely satisfied with these gears.
Do not see compelling reasons to switch to the mirrorless system. Rather save money for safaris.
Thanks again.
I'm glad you're happy with your 300 ISii. There's no question about it, that lens is amazing… Even with mirrorless bodies. For bird photography, I really need the faster a body with high shutter speeds (for birds in flight), an advanced autofocus system (birds in flight) and better video capabilities than a DSL can offer. I'm never going back to DSL:-)
@@lets_go_birding9096 I agree with all the advantages of the mirrorless system. However, lag-free real time view, battery life and form factor keep me glued to DSLRs. Moreover, I'm not into videos. Use my smartphone for casual purposes when I feel like.
Own a high-end point & shoot mirrorless system Canon G5X. It is pretty good for anytime use and accompanies me wherever I go.
On your r7 tests with the DO, which shutter option did you use? There is a lot of shutter slap on the r7 with the mechanical shutter. If you are doing perched birds then using the electronic shutter removes that slap. I get very sharp images from the r7 in ES, which the DO, for perched birds. For moving subjects, I use first curtain shutter with good results on the DO.
Hello, with the R7, I almost always use electronic first curtain (EFC) to avoid rolling shutter and shutter shock. All tests were doing in EFC.
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.
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!
Thanks! No, I don't have that lens in the shoot-out line currently. Maybe in the future though.
I bought the EF 300mm f4 recently, I find it is sharper than any of the EF 100-400’s, but it’s still a little lacking in sharpness compared to modern RF telephotos, for the price it’s still a steal. I’ve been curious about the 400mm f4 DO and the 300mm f2.8, this video was wonderful.
I'm glad the video was helpful:-) I've had some requests for a shootout involving that EF 300 f/4, but the R5 Mark ii came out and is now consuming time. Look for that EF 300 f/4 shoot out to come in the future.
That was a great comparison. I’m considering one or the other and leaning toward the 300 ii. You mentioned that the r7 did not take well to the 400 do, but does the r7 take well to the 300ii? With teleconverters?
I'm working on another video where the R7 is the star of the show; however, based on the experiments I did run with it, it just did not perform well compared to the R5, so I just don't use it anymore with these lenses - especially in low morning light. I am getting a lot of questions about its performance so, so I will properly do experiments with it just to make sure it really is inferior.
@@lets_go_birding9096 look forward to that video. Thanks!
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
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.
interesting test. so are you saying there's no advantage of using a cropped sensor camera vs a high MP full frame camera?
Hello, although the EOS R7 was not the main camera that I tested in this video, it performed poorly compared to the R5 in all of the tests that I used it in. I am working on a video comparing these lenses and the RF 100 - 500, where the R7 is the star of the show. I never use my R7 with either of these lenses anymore because its product is just inferior to that of the R5 - at least in my testing.
I had a 400mm DO II and love that lens. But I shoots sport and bought a 200-400, and could not justify having both.
with the 400 DO, what was your real-world experience like shooting it handheld? good for short amount of time, but cumbersome after 15-20 min? or is it pretty manageable for entire shoot? i can get by with 300 handheld for decent amount of time, but starts to become PIA after a while. specs indicate this 400 to be about a pound lighter, curious how that translate to real-world shooting, it looks to be a bit more balanced than 300 as well. thanks for the input!
@@kernzilla Depending on the sport, I often use the lens on a monopod. I have used it handheld, and it does get heavy after a while. But it's about 1/3 the weight of my old 400mm f2.8 which it replaced.
The 400 DO IS ii is definitely more handholdable, compared to the 300 L IS ii. its about 15% lighter and even more than that if you have to put the 2X tele-converter on the 300. This entire Eagle season I use the 400 DO with a 1.4 tc and did handhold it at times during the session. Most of the time, however, I have it on a very lightweight monopod with a RRS ball head on top of that. Works like a dream! If the Eagle is coming in high, I can easily lift the whole rig up and still get some decent shots, which is something I could not do with the 300 L + 2x tc + monopod. So for me, a 63-year-old with a bad back and bad knees and bad wrist, I can still handhold the 400 DO, but I would never take it out on a 2-3 mile hike without the monopod. Hope that helps:-)
@@lets_go_birding9096 that's pretty incredible! certainly pretty tempting to go with the 400 in this regard, but have a feeling i'll go with the 300 II for this upcoming upgrade. ideally, I'll end up with both and can choose the right lens when the time comes.
for context: I've been booking a lot more high-profile concerts and using my legacy 300L has proven to be cumbersome for these. It's an intense shoot in a short amount of time, with 10x other photogs fully kitted out trying to get the same shots. Staying lightweight and on my feet for these is crucial, and the times i've used monopod in the pit is PIA and kind of a liability lol. it can be rough, but handholding my 300 for 10-12 min works barely good enough for now, but def looking fwd to upgrading. other issue with my current 300L is the min focusing distance, just often enough, the talent ends up too close to me and the shot is ruined 😿 fortunately, the newer versions are ~6' whereas mine is 10' away. small detail, but have seen some larger impacts with this (and another reason the 400 isn't quite the right fit)
granted, not a lot of folks use a 300 in the pit, but me being me lol, I have to make things difficult hahahaaa. Planning on continuing to use these longer focal lengths though. great way to stand out amongst the 10x other photogs shooting 70-200s. Gotta say: even tho the RF70-200 AF with dual nano motors is great, the AF lock/confidence of the 300 is far superior in these horribly lit situations, and can't wait to upgrade.
to come back full circle here: I've learned SOOO much from the birding photography channels on these super-tele primes. there's not a lot of content on the 300-600s otherwise; most of the sports guys do not post a lot of in-depth info, and i'm yet to find a concert photog doing pros and cons of tele primes lol. so, long-winded thank you for deep diving into this incredible gear and helping me make an informed decision 👌 ofc, glad to hear any input as to what you think would be best in this shooting scenario! my next big show is taylor swift next month, and might rent the RF 100-300 and shoot that alongside whatever i upgrade to. never a dull moment!
generally speaking, which one of these lenses had more consistent AF speed/lock with the 2x? on my 300 v1, I've only been using my 1.4 III. my prev 2x just pissed me off on a shoot while back and sold it lol. never loved what 2x does to the image quality and AF predictability, but now that i'm upgrading my 300 to one of the two lenses you reviewed here, trying to get better idea if the 2x III is viable option or not. Where the 2x failed me the most was with micro-corrections/indecisiveness once AF on subject, and anything that wasn't perfectly lit. Backlit subjects were nightmare, and mostly unreliable for me. love to learn which of these two lenses excelled the most with 2x (if any lol) .. will say i was surprised by how well your 300+2x held up in your tests, the CA and chroma smear was far less than expected.
did watch a review couple weeks ago showing in some shooting situations on R5, that cropping + software utilization actually yielded better results with IQ/micro-detail, versus using the 2x TC. 🙃
Last eagle season, before I had the 400 DO IS ii, I use the 300L IS ii with the 2.0 iii tele-converter all the time. I had no problems with shooting birds in flight with it and it lost very little image quality. This season, I almost exclusively used the 400 DO but never with the 2.0 tc, because there was, in my opinion, significantly more image quality loss with that set up. With regard to autofocusing, I really didn't have much problem with birds in flight.
Both of these lenses struggle when shooting small birds in a noisy background. I constantly have to focus on the ground in front of the small bird and then refocus on the bird because the autofocus gets locked out into the distance and just always doesn't see the bird. Even the 100-500 rf f/7.1 has this problem, but not nearly as bad.
Hope that helps:-)
@@lets_go_birding9096 appreciate the detailed response, and fantastic to hear the 300 does so well with 2x, i wouldn't have expected that. 1.4x is the max IQ deterioration i'm comfortable with on my v1 (this applies to AF confidence too).
hear you on the small object AF; not sure what your setting are, but have found these couple things helps t his situ: turning off Continous AF, initial subject for priority, and both tracking sensitivity+accel/decel at -1. dialing those down has been a big win for me, for animals or humans, to avoid the unwanted searching/twitch. having BBF setup and toggling between the two AF options has been a legit combo for me. i was initially concerned with my mirrorless system, felt like my keeper ratio was lower than it should be, but once i started paying more attention to these settings, really renewed my faith in the RF system.
regardless, thanks again for the vid here. likely going to proceed with the 300, seems to be the most versatile and portable, though either one of them likely be fantastic! appreciate it
@@lets_go_birding9096 oh, i do have another question, that might also be relevant to the small subject aspect of this convo: you find using the Focus Preset an invaluable feature on these lenses? or one of those things you can live without? my 300mm being older, this feature does not communicate with my mirrorless bodies and haven't actually utilized it before 😿 wondering if using PF button to initially lock on to smaller subject to get the focus 'most of the way there' would help counter some of this AF hunting? quite often, I'll just spin my MF ring when AF seems to get totally lost, and will say this is pretty helpful to point the AF in right direction and let it finalize focus (for context, it's prob my 100 Macro I do this the most). curious if in the field you find yourself using PF quite a bit, or just not a great way to mitigate this problem.
sidenote: will say managing my minimum focusing distance options on my current 300 is perhaps an underestimated way to speed up/lock in your AF performance. i don't remember to fine-tune it every time, but there is def a notable difference in speed/lock if your shooting situ is favorable for specifying distances. (additionally, just wanted to spell this out for anyone researching these lenses at 2am with 20 tabs open lol, have found this to be more impactful than expected)
thanks m8! and omg sorry for the long comments here, but getting pretty excited to finally make this upgrade and having hard time containing myself hahahaaa
Grab yourself a R5mkii (I did). My R5 had inconsistent and sometimes non--sticky focus tracking in bif using the 100-500+ 1.4x
My R5mkii tracks and just sticks to the bif eye with the 1.4x on.
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.
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.
I’d like a comparison between the 300 2.8 version 1 and 2.
I also wondered why you chose the r7 when the r5 allows you to add a crop mimicking the r7.
Just courious
That would be a good comparison and I might just do it. 90% of the comparisons between these two lens were done with the R5, which is my go-to camera for birding:-) Also, the R5 in crop mode dose not mimic the 1.6 crop factor of the R7. APSC sensors (R7) do not lose pixels with the crop factor, but putting the R5 in crop mode is the same as cropping in post, so pixels are lost--completely different forms of magnification:-)
The nice thing about the 300 is you still have a 300.
and having the 2.8 for not only speed but a bit more separation/bokeh is always impactful on your final image. even though these mirrorless bodies perform exponentially better than DSLRs at higher iso, more often than not has the 2.8 really made the shot happen for me 👌
I wish I could get a 300mm series 2 f2.8 but they have been out of stock at canon for years? Canon has a void in the 300 range for a long time. Wth
Which of the two lenses are you going to sell?
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!
Price
What price ?
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
Agreed! I never thought of trying it with two teleconverters! I'll give it a try:-)
ah interesting!, that would put it at 800mm+! 👀 what body do you use it on, and how badly is the AF/IQ affected using both TCs? never loved the performance & image quality deterioration from TCs, but sounds like the 300 II really does a good job of minimizing TC damages to IQ.
@@kernzilla I tried RF 400mm F2.8 with 2x and the 300mm + 2x + 1.4x is clearly sharper. I'm not joking.
@@epsonc882009 thats rather awesome! and speaks to the legendary IQ of this 300.
drastic difference in AF lock/speed or not too bad with double TCs?
@@kernzilla Not bad actually, don't feel much slow down
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).
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:-)
@@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.
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.
@@korkutdemirbasit could be possible since the optics are different in the 400 DO.
I have the R7 and that lens the DO II and I love the sharpness that it gives
I'm glad that's working for you. In my initial experiments, the R5 kicked the R7's butt with regard to sharpness, but that wasn't the thrust of my lens comparison video. I am working a video that will specifically compare the R7 and R5 using the 400DO.
i wanted to love the R7, it has great specs on paper. Rented one to test-drive it, and just couldn't enjoy it. The body was little smaller than expected and had a funny effect on my muscle memory. Shooting the R5/R6 so much, I didn't realize how dependent I'd become on having 3rd wheel for camera control. these ergonomic factors weren't a deal-breaker but certainly noticeable. Where it became obvious I wouldn't purchase one was the image quality. didn't expect this, but anything beyond about iso 1600 had far more deterioration than i was comfortable with, and it wasn't anything that Topaz or LR Denoise could rectify. Perhaps it was just the copy of it i was using, but the concerns floating around the internet about the unexplained softness/shutter slap were very real for me. found myself hyper-overshooting to make sure I got 1 sharp one out of a burst of 20. I've always been sensitve to overshooting anyways, for it just creates such a waste of editing time along with hard drive management. Hopefully your R7 better than the one I rented, it was really rough in this regard.
for a pure daylight camera with reasonable expectations, will say it's an attractive body for ~$1000. Goal of this rental was to see if it was a good fit as my 3rd body, and ultimately bought another R6 for about the same money. Just wasn't quite comfortable enough to bring some of these variables into my workflow. Hoping to see the R7 II firm up some of these details, for historically, the 7-series bodies from Canon have always punched above their weight imo.
👍
I had the 300 IS , 300 IS II, now the 400 DO II. Only use crop sensor. 7DII. I got rid of the 300 permanently. Never again.
I'm glad the 400 DO IS ii is working out so well for you. Even though I threatened to sell my 400 DO ( because it is not quite as sharp around the periphery of close-up birds ), I still just can't put it down and love it. I really don't see that much difference between the two (especially on birds that are further away) and because it is significantly lighter and shorter, I can't imagine ever getting rid of it:-)
Get a Lumix FZ300/300 with its 25-600mm F2.8 lens for 95% of SLR quality at a fraction of the weight and price!
Respectfully, that setup can NOT produce even close to professional quality images and would be blown away by either the 400DO or 300L for wildlife:-)
Why so heavy? There are lighter choices with the same image quality
there are none lighter in the pro Canon lineup. The RF 100-300mm f/2 ($10,000) and RF 400mm f/2 ($12,000) are close to the same weight but crazy out-of-reach expensive, for most.
@@lets_go_birding9096 Yes sorry, I was thinking of other brands
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.
Thanks for the information. To bad they don't make an EF mount--that would be a good shootout video:-)
Dear, sir, about your statement about using you fine Canon EF 400mm f/f II DO with a crop-factor camera (1.6x) Btw (according to:
Tony & Chelsea Northrup and this RUclips video: ruclips.net/video/f5zN6NVx-hY/видео.html about 3.00 minutes into the video) about the crop factor of 1.6 X when using a fullfram lens will also affect the real flow of light to the smaller sensor and in practical results f/4.0 will be an effective light transmission about f/6.4. (Does the APS-C sensor affect the aperture? Answer is of course, yes!
“Putting a full-frame lens on a camera with an APS-C sensor is like using a teleconverter, reducing the light reaching the sensor by 1.5 or 1.6. This turns your f/4 lens into something like f/6.”
Sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say. However, if you put a full frame lens on a crop censored camera (like the EOS R7) the aperture remains the same and does not change unless you have to move back from the target (because of increase magnification) and increase the focal length. Only then does the aperture narrow but of increased focal distance from the target. In bird photography, you almost never have to physically move back from a bird, so an F4 lens on a crop censored body still has an F4 aperture. Not true, however, if you put a tele-converter on the lens. Then, your aperture is going to narrow, depending on the tele-converter. E.g. Put a 1.4 tc on an f4 lens and it becomes f5.6. Put a 2.0 tc on the f/4 lens, and now it becomes an f/8 lens.
hi would you be interested in joining one of my livestreams ?
I appreciate the offer, but I am not interested.
Then there's the canon (or nikon) 500mm f4 lenses..
Yes! But then comes the extra weight:-(
Hardly much, a kilo or so more. The old 600mm f4s are 6 kilos, now that's quite heavy and impractical.
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.
DO looks awful