Hi Matthew, thanks for the considerable amount of work you put into this review. As a result of your review I have purchased a used 400 DO ii and after a few days of testing, I am delighted with the lens. I can’t believe how (relatively) light and small the lens is and I am very pleased with image quality and bokeh. I can confirm your findings, image quality at f4 is pretty good but improves greatly at f5.6. I was pleasantly surprised at how well the lens works on my Canon R7. Various reviews are not very complimentary of this lens/camera combination. Once you start pixel peeping you can see that the image quality is not as good as on the R5 (which is to be expected) but it is quite acceptable and hardly noticeable until you zoom in to 100%. I also have a 100-500 lens but find the 400 DO is a decent step up in IQ and bokeh is far better. That said, you do of course lose the flexibility of the 100-500 range and close focusing ability. However, IMO the 400 DO ii is still a good lens in 2024 and an excellent used purchase!
I've been shooting wildlife with the Canon 400mm f4 DO ii for several years now. Formerly on a 5D4 now on an R5. I have to say I have been very happy with the results even with the 1.4x iii (which rarely comes off the lens!). I considered the RF 100-500 as a replacement but two things put me off, the loss of light and the fact that if I use the extender I lose even more light and a significant portion of versatility of the lens. Although still a relatively expensive lens here in the UK compared to any of the bigger primes it is a bargain and to my eye gives me results that , while not as pin sharp as them, are more than acceptable even in low light. I should perhaps add that the sweet spot for this lens is f5.6 to f8 in my hands.
love these tests, thanks for taking the time to do this properly! I've shot 2x different R7s, and both of them had a hard time producing a critically sharp image. whether its something with the AF, shutter slap, or wonky IBIS, I'll never rely on R7 again. The specs are absolutely great, but you shouldn't have to shoot 15-20 images in hopes to get one actual sharp one. Have used prob 10x different lenses on R7 (EF & RF) and came to the conclusion that it just requires immense overshooting to achieve the shot you want - and that just doesn't work for me. It's a shame really, that camera on paper has some tremendous specs imo. thanks again for the review here!
I could not agree more with your analysis and conclusion. Exactly how I feel about the R7. It could be the perfect wildlife camera but they needed to price it at $2000 with a faster sensor and better shutter and maybe better ibis. I suppose it would have reduced r5 sales though…
@@MatthewRaifman spot on here, slight price bump would have helped avoid this camera becoming one of Canon's biggest disappointments. It reinforces overshooting, and results in an *exponential increase in data mgmt/editing/culling time. This is a horrible standard practice for seasoned photogs, but hate it for noob shooters that are still solidifying their workflow. It's a really rough situ after a shoot, when you're begging for one shot in a sequence of ~30 images to be sharp, and rarely is the sharp one the image with the timing you want. This forces photog to publish either subpar timing or subpar IQ, at no fault of their own. I love Canon and forsee another great 30yr with them, but this body def a rough spot in their lineup/history. long rant here hahaa, seriously looking fwd to upcoming bodies from them. Very possible this R7 was a result of releasing a new body in the middle of COVID, possible they just had to proceed with these short-comings and move on. lets hope the new bodies aren't riddled with these similar issues! 🤞
HI Matthew, thanks for the video, very informative video. I currently have a canon R7 with Rf100-500mm lens. I always wanted to have a 300mm f2.8 II lens, but i can only afford one lens. Have you done the comparison between RF100-500mm with EF 300mm x 2.0TC image's quality? As i am not sure which one is better and not many reviewers cover video for canon 300mm f2.8. I love Canon R7, the image quality with with RF100-500mm is super sharp, but when the condition is very dark, especially birding in early morning forest, it really shows its weakness. Hope you can have this comparison video in the future, or, at least advice from you about the sharpness on EF300mm f2.8 with 2.0TC on it. Thanks.
Hey I really appreciate this review, not a lot out there like this 👌 While subtle, actually glad to see the contrast differences here. While I like a lens that has that great SOOC punch, def prefer the lower contrast of f4 here for better DR and ultimately better shadow/highlight control. Question: what situ you find to be the worst for AF performance? Sounds like it hangs in there decently in lower light when subject is backlit, but curious what you’re seeing in the field with it? I had the original DO back in the day, and while it had its shortcomings, there was a lot to love about this innovative & highly portable lens. Thanks much m8!
Hey! Yea man, I love these DO / PF lenses. They are super light and can be quite sharp and high performing. We need more of these on the market, particularly with Canon. Re: autofocus, the 100-500 is more reliable and faster. It’s close on speed. In the field, I found the 400mm cycles more often than the 100-500 and sometimes that is a little frustrating. I’d say that’s just reality using an adapter, but I feel that my 500mm f/4 is better performing in the field and that is adapted too. I would t let AF deter you from getting the 400 f/4 though! It’s very very good.
As for contrast your correct the rf glass is better but only when using extenders. When i compared the 100-400 ef to rf 100-500 the difference is so small 200 % was not enough some times i had to zoom in 400% Dustin abbot has some very good videos on this and Gordon lang of camera labs. As for the 100-300 2.8 rf lens I think its over priced as said in my videos. I think rf is ripping people off in terms of price your only getting maybe 2% better image quality. Maybe af and ca is better but I do think sticking with ef is better dont believe the rf hype.
Hey! Thanks for watching. Correct, you have to adapt the ef lens to rf mount using the ef-rf adapter. However it works perfectly and there are no issues. For the extenders, you must use EF extenders (and I would only get the mark iii versions). But they work great!
Really nice "lab" test.As good as any I have seen. LOL.Thanks. I have the 100-500 and it's a great lens. I just purchased the EF200-400L F4 w/1.4 built in to complement it. I'm going to get an R7 to interchange with my R5. I think it will be a great wildlife setup. I'll let you know.
Well I think the 70-300 DO and 400 DO we’re the “experiments”. 400 DO II is fantastic from what I have read and as this video highlights. Glad Matthew mentioned the budget trio as they are fab lenses in their own right.
I'd love to compare that 400 F4 DO "with" a 2 X's TC, to my 800 F11 > since IF I owned it, it would almost always have the 2 X's TC on it anyway. Both are DO lenses, so the only differences would be F8 vs. F11... and of course the weight and cost. I might have to rent one and see for myself.
Ah yes. I have had some good success with the 2x in but I don’t have the 800 f11 (I did for a brief period of time). I think you’re better off with the 800 f11 to be honest. The DO works with the 2x and you can get great shots but it takes more work (and costs a lot more) than the f11 and you need to stop down for optimal IQ anyways.
Hello Matthew I have the 100-500 and I am considering the DO ii for my canon R5. I tried the 400mm DO ii at a shop and i was on Electronic shutter and i noticed in some of the pictures i took a very strong rolling shutter effect even though I wasn't moving and I was shooting perfectly still subjects ( I saw some vertical lightposts going diagonal on the frame). Did u notice that at all? or it just the copy they had at the shop
Hi man, thanks for the comment. That sounds pretty odd. No, I did not experience any rolling shutter when the camera was not moving and I wouldn't think that is even possible. I suspect it is something else, maybe even something as simple as not being level (we've all done it...) If you can, maybe go back to the shop and try two different things: 1) make sure the foot is clicked into level setting and add the level to the EVF to make sure the camera is level and 2) separately shoot in EFCS and see if that resolves it based on the rolling shutter theory. I'd hate to have you miss out on a good lens because of a little issue, so would be great if you can check it out a second time.
@@MatthewRaifman Thank you so much, Yes I am planning to go back there and rent it for a longer period and test it thoroughly. Thanks a lot for your prompt response and for making this video.
Who knows how that algorithm works… I wish I could make a living doing nature photography, but I’ve struggled to envision how it might work especially as my wife and I are raising two kids. I make enough on the side and, perhaps more importantly enjoy it enough, to justify the time, energy, and opportunity cost to be in the field as much as possible
All older EF USM lenses are amazing..... I have a lens I purchased in 1999 a Canon EF 500mm 4.5L USM and it has no IS and that lens is badass to the bone and Tack sharp even at F4.5 ..... It's really the photographer that uses the equipment !
Nice video. Not surprised by the results. I’ve had the 400 DO II for 5 years now and it’s amazingly sharp. I think canon still sells them new for $9000 Canadian. So in canons pricing structure, they deem it to be in the same tier as the rest of the “big white super teles”.
Interesting video. A little apples to oranges comparing a $2700 zoom to a $6,000 prime but interesting comparison all the same. The fact the zoom was so close to the prime that cost 2X as much says a lot about the quality of the 100-500 zoom. It has performed well for me too. Life is too short to mess with bad lenses and I have sold a few but the 100-500 has been stellar right out of the box. Hope you get it straightened out. If I ran across one of the 400mm used, I may be interested if the price was right. Not currently in the market but if one fell in my lap... :)
Yeah, I agree. It shows you how sharp that rf100-500 is. I’m with you. When I spend hours with a lens every week, I was need to trust it will perform. Looking forward to more time with the 400 f4 DO
Appreciate the testing you've done on these lenses. I've struggled with a decision on a complimentary prime lens after working with the RF 100-500 for a couple of years. I know the 500 f4 ii is the sensible choice for bird photography, but there's just something really appealing about the size of the 400 f4 do ii.
This is tough. I feel exactly the same way. In fact, I ended up selling the 400 f4 for what I paid for it and buying a used 500 f4 ii for a bargain. Precisely because I wanted to augment my 100-500, not replace it. I use the 500 f4 as either a low light lens (bare) or as longer reach lens (with TCs). It’s an amazing kit but so much bigger than the 400 f4. I’m going to do a similar video comparing the 100-500 to the 500 f4 soon!
My copy of the DO mk 2 has been super sharp on every body I have used it on: 6D, 7DM2, 80D, 90D, 5DM4, 5DSR, R5, R3, and R7. As for focus speed and IS, I don’t think it is a match for my RF 100-500 or even my EF 500 mm f4 mk 2 prime, but not far from the 500 prime. The DO is a great lens and I’m keeping it for low light shooting from within my car, since I do a good amount of that and the 500 is hard to use inside my car.
@@MatthewRaifman My sense is that the 500 is better, but to be honest, it’s hard to say. I would need to actually do some testing as you did. But I always grab the 500 when I want the absolute best image I can get, and that extra 100 mm helps with that. I’m fortunate to have both.
at 13:08, you might have difficulty to distinguish the differences, but you have a TC on. I bet the result would have been much sharper on the F/4 lens if you had simply crop the image without the TC.
7:50 wouldn’t it be better to actually make the test objects the same size in the frame when comparing sharpness? Like I would adjust the 100-500 zoom so the end image is equal in size to the EF 400mm DO. I would’ve said the differences in sharpness could be due to how much larger the test objects are in the frame with the EF 400mm DO.
Yes, great question. I didn't check this formally with the 400mm f4, but i'm testing the 500mm f4 is ii right now and I will include a field of view comparison with the rf 100-500 at 500mm. That will be a useful comparison I think.
I've been hoping for an RF predecessor of the 400 DO ii after it was rumoured to be in the works. Been long wanting to upgrade from the EF 100-400 ii, main reason because I find f5.6 it's most limiting factor. So I can only see myself with the same problem only worse getting the rf 100-500. Great lens if you have a prime lens to go with it for low light situations
Yes, absolutely. An rf 400 f4 would be amazing and I had hoped for one too. However I also think it would be very expensive given RF prices to date. I have ended up with a 500 f4 and the 100-500 as you also suggest, it’s ideal to have a lighter weight a zoom for daily carry and the prime for special use.
@MatthewRaifman yeah it would be expensive. But they'd need it to be somewhere in the middle of the cost of a zoom and the rf 400 2.8. If it's not a great deal cheaper than the 2.8, I can imagine most people just saving some more for the 2.8 instead
@@jakecook716right, I think that’s correct. It would probably be in the 5-6k range. This is where I get frustrated because Nikon have the excellent 400 f/4.5 that weighs nothing for $3k. I short that lens and loved it. Alas, I don’t want to go now the canon vs Nikon rabbit hole, but it would be nice to see a follow up to the 400 f4 and not just the Uber expensive 200-500 f4
defractive optics are not very good in my opinion. why you may ask well they change the color wavelengths as such affect contrast. I would suggest when doing tests use the same aperture comparing f4 vs 6.3 is a bit pointless. I did look into getting a DO lens apart from the f11 ones I have tested alot. But the splicing and grating of glass to make a do lens puts me off them. Ive spent alot of time doing research on them the truth is pure L glass wins over DO glass. Second point in RF glass while canon makes a big point to make them sharp the problem is in the corners away from the centre. In this respect RF glass in zooms are not very sharp. RF primes may be different. As for RF lenses you will find AF and IS far better than ef glass.
Good question. I’ve tested the 300 f/2.8 ii, 400 f4 do ii, and 500 f4 is ii. It’s all about reach, particularly for a wildlife and bird photography. The 300 is amazing but it often requires very heavy crops for bird photography. I love that lens and I think it’s a great choice. I used the 400 f4 for a bit but found the 300 f/2.8 sharper with a 1.4 TC on than the 400 f4 bare. The 500 f/4 is optically on par with the 300 but has more reach. So personally I’ve kept the 500 f4 (bought used at a bargain) and sold the 300 and 400. If I didn’t do primarily bird photography, I’d use the 300 f/2.8. It’s perfect
I have the 100-500 and the EF 300 2.8 IS. The former is, as you say, very sharp and the latter produces jaw dropping separation. I have the EF 1.4 TC and it works extraordinarily well on the 300 making it effectively a 420 F4 but I believe the bokeh is still equivalent to 2.8. These all work well for day sports and wildlife. Under the lights it is the 300 2.8 alone. Also, hand holding these is doable and is partly why I got to 100-500 over a 600 F4. The 400 F4 DO has always been intriguing.
I used to own the ef 300 f/2.8 and went on a great white odyssey from the ef 300 f/2.8 is ii to the ef 400 f4 is do ii to the ef 500 f4 is ii. Fortunately the moves were lateral in price as they shifted and I waited for buyers so I didn’t lose much exploring them. I love the ef 300 f/2.8 and there are many days I miss it. As a 420mm f4 with the 1.4x I thought it performed better than the ef 400 f4 do ii. I know that isn’t consistent with everything I’ve read but that was my experience. The ef 500 f4 is ii is comparable with the ef 300 f/2.8 for sharpness. It works crazy well with the 2x TC too. It’s big and unwieldy though and for that reason I do miss the 300 on occasion. For wildlife and specially birds; though, the 500 f4 suits my needs better.
I would like to see 7.1 vs 7.1 to see which is sharper. I own the 300 2.8 ef ii and that will out perform your lens because depractive optics using plastics in the lens can never be sharper than pure glass as seen in my f11 reviews where the sigma 150-600 was sharper over the f11 rf 600. Pure glass is the way to go
Oh yes. See my video about that lens. Absolutely amazing. But at the same time, the extra 400mm vs 300mm is a pretty big benefit for wildlife. And at lighter weight. It’s all about trade offs of course!
Very beautiful analysis. Though I love my 100-500mm lens, I would have to agree 400 DO lenses are so well made. Love to take one to Africa 😂 but not enough savings to afford one
Thanks so much. The 100-500 is exceptional! Basically as sharp as the prime and that’s great. I still think the ef 300 f/2.8 is mk I is the best bargain
@@MatthewRaifman that is correct, new 300 2.8 is like $4900 about $2000 more compared to 100-500 but boy this prime lens is so good. Easily takes 1.4 and 2x converters. Hands down best combo with Canon R5.
I own both lenses and both cameras. I tend to agree on sharpness, they are very close. I think the RF is faster focusing, however. I also on the EF 500 f/4L mk 2. Of the 3, the 500 f/4 is the sharpest and fastest focusing when you compare wide open. It is also much heavier, too. Thanks for doing this comparison!
@@RogerZoul I am not sure why nobody is making RF versions of 500 f4. This is very interesting focal length for wildlife photography. Thrown in a 1.4x, it works so well with birds.
@@withvinayakIt’s a good question. We are hoping that Canon will release a 200-500 f4 with a built in 1.4x that will be the RF replacement of the EF 500 f4.
No way! The ef 300 f/2.8 is one of the best lenses ever made. Long story short, the R7 frustrations got the better of me and I sold the R7 to just use the R5. With a full frame, the 300 mm is too short for birding and most wildlife and I reluctantly sold it. I can’t afford to hold onto multiple super telephotos. I tried this ef 400 for a bit but decided to sell it and try the 500 f4 is ii. When you buy used and know a good deal, you can buy and sell these lenses without much loss (cheaper than renting).
Hi Matthew, thanks for the considerable amount of work you put into this review. As a result of your review I have purchased a used 400 DO ii and after a few days of testing, I am delighted with the lens. I can’t believe how (relatively) light and small the lens is and I am very pleased with image quality and bokeh. I can confirm your findings, image quality at f4 is pretty good but improves greatly at f5.6. I was pleasantly surprised at how well the lens works on my Canon R7. Various reviews are not very complimentary of this lens/camera combination. Once you start pixel peeping you can see that the image quality is not as good as on the R5 (which is to be expected) but it is quite acceptable and hardly noticeable until you zoom in to 100%. I also have a 100-500 lens but find the 400 DO is a decent step up in IQ and bokeh is far better. That said, you do of course lose the flexibility of the 100-500 range and close focusing ability. However, IMO the 400 DO ii is still a good lens in 2024 and an excellent used purchase!
Wonderful! I’m so happy the video was useful and even more so that you are happy with your purchase! Get out there and put it to use! Happy shooting
I've been shooting wildlife with the Canon 400mm f4 DO ii for several years now. Formerly on a 5D4 now on an R5. I have to say I have been very happy with the results even with the 1.4x iii (which rarely comes off the lens!). I considered the RF 100-500 as a replacement but two things put me off, the loss of light and the fact that if I use the extender I lose even more light and a significant portion of versatility of the lens. Although still a relatively expensive lens here in the UK compared to any of the bigger primes it is a bargain and to my eye gives me results that , while not as pin sharp as them, are more than acceptable even in low light. I should perhaps add that the sweet spot for this lens is f5.6 to f8 in my hands.
How's tracking and autofocus speed in the field? Quality wise, they're both fine. Thanks for your hard work.
love these tests, thanks for taking the time to do this properly!
I've shot 2x different R7s, and both of them had a hard time producing a critically sharp image. whether its something with the AF, shutter slap, or wonky IBIS, I'll never rely on R7 again. The specs are absolutely great, but you shouldn't have to shoot 15-20 images in hopes to get one actual sharp one. Have used prob 10x different lenses on R7 (EF & RF) and came to the conclusion that it just requires immense overshooting to achieve the shot you want - and that just doesn't work for me. It's a shame really, that camera on paper has some tremendous specs imo.
thanks again for the review here!
I could not agree more with your analysis and conclusion. Exactly how I feel about the R7. It could be the perfect wildlife camera but they needed to price it at $2000 with a faster sensor and better shutter and maybe better ibis. I suppose it would have reduced r5 sales though…
@@MatthewRaifman spot on here, slight price bump would have helped avoid this camera becoming one of Canon's biggest disappointments. It reinforces overshooting, and results in an *exponential increase in data mgmt/editing/culling time. This is a horrible standard practice for seasoned photogs, but hate it for noob shooters that are still solidifying their workflow. It's a really rough situ after a shoot, when you're begging for one shot in a sequence of ~30 images to be sharp, and rarely is the sharp one the image with the timing you want. This forces photog to publish either subpar timing or subpar IQ, at no fault of their own.
I love Canon and forsee another great 30yr with them, but this body def a rough spot in their lineup/history. long rant here hahaa, seriously looking fwd to upcoming bodies from them. Very possible this R7 was a result of releasing a new body in the middle of COVID, possible they just had to proceed with these short-comings and move on. lets hope the new bodies aren't riddled with these similar issues! 🤞
HI Matthew, thanks for the video, very informative video. I currently have a canon R7 with Rf100-500mm lens. I always wanted to have a 300mm f2.8 II lens, but i can only afford one lens. Have you done the comparison between RF100-500mm with EF 300mm x 2.0TC image's quality? As i am not sure which one is better and not many reviewers cover video for canon 300mm f2.8. I love Canon R7, the image quality with with RF100-500mm is super sharp, but when the condition is very dark, especially birding in early morning forest, it really shows its weakness. Hope you can have this comparison video in the future, or, at least advice from you about the sharpness on EF300mm f2.8 with 2.0TC on it. Thanks.
Hey I really appreciate this review, not a lot out there like this 👌
While subtle, actually glad to see the contrast differences here. While I like a lens that has that great SOOC punch, def prefer the lower contrast of f4 here for better DR and ultimately better shadow/highlight control.
Question: what situ you find to be the worst for AF performance? Sounds like it hangs in there decently in lower light when subject is backlit, but curious what you’re seeing in the field with it?
I had the original DO back in the day, and while it had its shortcomings, there was a lot to love about this innovative & highly portable lens.
Thanks much m8!
Hey! Yea man, I love these DO / PF lenses. They are super light and can be quite sharp and high performing. We need more of these on the market, particularly with Canon.
Re: autofocus, the 100-500 is more reliable and faster. It’s close on speed. In the field, I found the 400mm cycles more often than the 100-500 and sometimes that is a little frustrating. I’d say that’s just reality using an adapter, but I feel that my 500mm f/4 is better performing in the field and that is adapted too. I would t let AF deter you from getting the 400 f/4 though! It’s very very good.
As for contrast your correct the rf glass is better but only when using extenders. When i compared the 100-400 ef to rf 100-500 the difference is so small 200 % was not enough some times i had to zoom in 400% Dustin abbot has some very good videos on this and Gordon lang of camera labs. As for the 100-300 2.8 rf lens I think its over priced as said in my videos. I think rf is ripping people off in terms of price your only getting maybe 2% better image quality. Maybe af and ca is better but I do think sticking with ef is better dont believe the rf hype.
Are you using an ef Rf adapter with the 400 f4 Do Is II usm lens?
Does extender really work with an ef Rf adapter? Great tutorial video!
Hey! Thanks for watching. Correct, you have to adapt the ef lens to rf mount using the ef-rf adapter. However it works perfectly and there are no issues. For the extenders, you must use EF extenders (and I would only get the mark iii versions). But they work great!
Their is a know issue with r7 af missing focus at times. Very similar to what the sigma was doing so the RF 100-500 does miss focus at times.
Really nice "lab" test.As good as any I have seen. LOL.Thanks. I have the 100-500 and it's a great lens. I just purchased the EF200-400L F4 w/1.4 built in to complement it. I'm going to get an R7 to interchange with my R5. I think it will be a great wildlife setup. I'll let you know.
Sounds awesome! Glad the video was interesting. That 200-400 is supposedly super sharp. Doesn’t it weight a ton?! :-)
@@MatthewRaifman 8lbs. I don't have it yet but I used one of my 8lb dumbells and it's not too bad. I will mostly use it on a monopod or tripod.
Not as bad as I thought! My 500 f/4 is 7lbs. Totally fine
Oh, both the 800f11 and the 600f11 are DO lenses, so Canon has not abandoned the DO technology.
Yes, that’s right!
AND they are fantastic lenses ! I own both, but the 800 is my primary lens. 1280mm equivalent on my R7 is just about right ;)
Well I think the 70-300 DO and 400 DO we’re the “experiments”. 400 DO II is fantastic from what I have read and as this video highlights. Glad Matthew mentioned the budget trio as they are fab lenses in their own right.
I'd love to compare that 400 F4 DO "with" a 2 X's TC, to my 800 F11 > since IF I owned it, it would almost always have the 2 X's TC on it anyway. Both are DO lenses, so the only differences would be F8 vs. F11... and of course the weight and cost. I might have to rent one and see for myself.
Ah yes. I have had some good success with the 2x in but I don’t have the 800 f11 (I did for a brief period of time). I think you’re better off with the 800 f11 to be honest. The DO works with the 2x and you can get great shots but it takes more work (and costs a lot more) than the f11 and you need to stop down for optimal IQ anyways.
Hello Matthew I have the 100-500 and I am considering the DO ii for my canon R5. I tried the 400mm DO ii at a shop and i was on Electronic shutter and i noticed in some of the pictures i took a very strong rolling shutter effect even though I wasn't moving and I was shooting perfectly still subjects ( I saw some vertical lightposts going diagonal on the frame). Did u notice that at all? or it just the copy they had at the shop
Hi man, thanks for the comment. That sounds pretty odd. No, I did not experience any rolling shutter when the camera was not moving and I wouldn't think that is even possible. I suspect it is something else, maybe even something as simple as not being level (we've all done it...) If you can, maybe go back to the shop and try two different things: 1) make sure the foot is clicked into level setting and add the level to the EVF to make sure the camera is level and 2) separately shoot in EFCS and see if that resolves it based on the rolling shutter theory. I'd hate to have you miss out on a good lens because of a little issue, so would be great if you can check it out a second time.
@@MatthewRaifman Thank you so much, Yes I am planning to go back there and rent it for a longer period and test it thoroughly. Thanks a lot for your prompt response and for making this video.
latest update , i did rent it for a week and yes it was an amazing lens. However i did exactly like you and move the the 500 F4 ii for more reach
This video just showed up in my youtube feed and I'm wondering - do you do nature photography as a full-time job?
Who knows how that algorithm works… I wish I could make a living doing nature photography, but I’ve struggled to envision how it might work especially as my wife and I are raising two kids. I make enough on the side and, perhaps more importantly enjoy it enough, to justify the time, energy, and opportunity cost to be in the field as much as possible
All older EF USM lenses are amazing..... I have a lens I purchased in 1999 a Canon EF 500mm 4.5L USM and it has no IS and that lens is badass to the bone and Tack sharp even at F4.5 ..... It's really the photographer that uses the equipment !
I’ve wondered about that lens! So much lighter than the f/4 versions
Nice video. Not surprised by the results. I’ve had the 400 DO II for 5 years now and it’s amazingly sharp. I think canon still sells them new for $9000 Canadian. So in canons pricing structure, they deem it to be in the same tier as the rest of the “big white super teles”.
No question! I agree
Interesting video. A little apples to oranges comparing a $2700 zoom to a $6,000 prime but interesting comparison all the same. The fact the zoom was so close to the prime that cost 2X as much says a lot about the quality of the 100-500 zoom. It has performed well for me too. Life is too short to mess with bad lenses and I have sold a few but the 100-500 has been stellar right out of the box. Hope you get it straightened out. If I ran across one of the 400mm used, I may be interested if the price was right. Not currently in the market but if one fell in my lap... :)
Yeah, I agree. It shows you how sharp that rf100-500 is. I’m with you. When I spend hours with a lens every week, I was need to trust it will perform. Looking forward to more time with the 400 f4 DO
Appreciate the testing you've done on these lenses. I've struggled with a decision on a complimentary prime lens after working with the RF 100-500 for a couple of years. I know the 500 f4 ii is the sensible choice for bird photography, but there's just something really appealing about the size of the 400 f4 do ii.
This is tough. I feel exactly the same way. In fact, I ended up selling the 400 f4 for what I paid for it and buying a used 500 f4 ii for a bargain. Precisely because I wanted to augment my 100-500, not replace it. I use the 500 f4 as either a low light lens (bare) or as longer reach lens (with TCs). It’s an amazing kit but so much bigger than the 400 f4. I’m going to do a similar video comparing the 100-500 to the 500 f4 soon!
@@MatthewRaifman Hi Matthew, very useful video, do you find the 500mm f4 II to perform better than the 400mm f4 II in terms of autofocus?
Interesting video. Thanks, Matthew!
Thanks for watching!
My copy of the DO mk 2 has been super sharp on every body I have used it on: 6D, 7DM2, 80D, 90D, 5DM4, 5DSR, R5, R3, and R7. As for focus speed and IS, I don’t think it is a match for my RF 100-500 or even my EF 500 mm f4 mk 2 prime, but not far from the 500 prime. The DO is a great lens and I’m keeping it for low light shooting from within my car, since I do a good amount of that and the 500 is hard to use inside my car.
Sounds like we have similar findings! It’s a solid lens. How’s the IQ of the 400 f4 DO II vs the 500 f4 II. Haven’t shot that one yet.
@@MatthewRaifman My sense is that the 500 is better, but to be honest, it’s hard to say. I would need to actually do some testing as you did. But I always grab the 500 when I want the absolute best image I can get, and that extra 100 mm helps with that. I’m fortunate to have both.
at 13:08, you might have difficulty to distinguish the differences, but you have a TC on. I bet the result would have been much sharper on the F/4 lens if you had simply crop the image without the TC.
whats a TC ?
Our comparing a zoom to a prime so the prime with be sharper at certain apertures especially in the corners
I would be interested in interviewing you on one of my livestreams if you dont mind.
Perfect video - thanks for the effort & thoughtful delivery!
Thanks so much man!
What about when you take both in the field, which one nails more shots in similar situations?
Tricky to answer but I think the 100-500 because AF performance is a tad better and IS is noticeably better. But it’s not f/4 at 400mm so…
7:50 wouldn’t it be better to actually make the test objects the same size in the frame when comparing sharpness? Like I would adjust the 100-500 zoom so the end image is equal in size to the EF 400mm DO. I would’ve said the differences in sharpness could be due to how much larger the test objects are in the frame with the EF 400mm DO.
The video I have been looking for how would you compare the non mk II just the regular DO 400mm f4 is usm?
Ah! Haven’t shot the mark i before. Sorry!
A lot of times reach is not equal on zooms and primes. How does the 100-500 set at 400 match up to the 400 prime in this regard?
Yes, great question. I didn't check this formally with the 400mm f4, but i'm testing the 500mm f4 is ii right now and I will include a field of view comparison with the rf 100-500 at 500mm. That will be a useful comparison I think.
I've been hoping for an RF predecessor of the 400 DO ii after it was rumoured to be in the works. Been long wanting to upgrade from the EF 100-400 ii, main reason because I find f5.6 it's most limiting factor. So I can only see myself with the same problem only worse getting the rf 100-500. Great lens if you have a prime lens to go with it for low light situations
Yes, absolutely. An rf 400 f4 would be amazing and I had hoped for one too. However I also think it would be very expensive given RF prices to date. I have ended up with a 500 f4 and the 100-500 as you also suggest, it’s ideal to have a lighter weight a zoom for daily carry and the prime for special use.
@MatthewRaifman yeah it would be expensive. But they'd need it to be somewhere in the middle of the cost of a zoom and the rf 400 2.8. If it's not a great deal cheaper than the 2.8, I can imagine most people just saving some more for the 2.8 instead
@@jakecook716right, I think that’s correct. It would probably be in the 5-6k range. This is where I get frustrated because Nikon have the excellent 400 f/4.5 that weighs nothing for $3k. I short that lens and loved it. Alas, I don’t want to go now the canon vs Nikon rabbit hole, but it would be nice to see a follow up to the 400 f4 and not just the Uber expensive 200-500 f4
defractive optics are not very good in my opinion. why you may ask well they change the color wavelengths as such affect contrast. I would suggest when doing tests use the same aperture comparing f4 vs 6.3 is a bit pointless. I did look into getting a DO lens apart from the f11 ones I have tested alot. But the splicing and grating of glass to make a do lens puts me off them. Ive spent alot of time doing research on them the truth is pure L glass wins over DO glass. Second point in RF glass while canon makes a big point to make them sharp the problem is in the corners away from the centre. In this respect RF glass in zooms are not very sharp. RF primes may be different. As for RF lenses you will find AF and IS far better than ef glass.
Good example of prime lens vs zoom lens, and why unless I have to, I’ll always shoot a prime lens!!!
Yes. I am going to compare the 100-500 to the 500 f4 soon when I get a moment. That’s a good test with the same focal length.
Why get the 400/4 DOii instead of just sticking with the 300/2.8ii?
Good question. I’ve tested the 300 f/2.8 ii, 400 f4 do ii, and 500 f4 is ii. It’s all about reach, particularly for a wildlife and bird photography. The 300 is amazing but it often requires very heavy crops for bird photography. I love that lens and I think it’s a great choice. I used the 400 f4 for a bit but found the 300 f/2.8 sharper with a 1.4 TC on than the 400 f4 bare. The 500 f/4 is optically on par with the 300 but has more reach. So personally I’ve kept the 500 f4 (bought used at a bargain) and sold the 300 and 400. If I didn’t do primarily bird photography, I’d use the 300 f/2.8. It’s perfect
@@MatthewRaifman is that version 1 or 2 of the 500/4?
@@HokKan v2
@@MatthewRaifman wow, that is pretty sharp then
Me wrong am sure the 400 will be a nice light lens. I like to stick r7 on my 300 gets me a 480mm lens at around f3.3 not bad
Yeah no question. I’ve shot both and I would recommend the 300 f/2.8 too
Can u do reviews r7 400mm f4 do ii with 1.4 teleconverter and 2.0
Sure, I’ll add to my list.
I have the 100-500 and the EF 300 2.8 IS. The former is, as you say, very sharp and the latter produces jaw dropping separation. I have the EF 1.4 TC and it works extraordinarily well on the 300 making it effectively a 420 F4 but I believe the bokeh is still equivalent to 2.8. These all work well for day sports and wildlife. Under the lights it is the 300 2.8 alone. Also, hand holding these is doable and is partly why I got to 100-500 over a 600 F4. The 400 F4 DO has always been intriguing.
I used to own the ef 300 f/2.8 and went on a great white odyssey from the ef 300 f/2.8 is ii to the ef 400 f4 is do ii to the ef 500 f4 is ii. Fortunately the moves were lateral in price as they shifted and I waited for buyers so I didn’t lose much exploring them. I love the ef 300 f/2.8 and there are many days I miss it. As a 420mm f4 with the 1.4x I thought it performed better than the ef 400 f4 do ii. I know that isn’t consistent with everything I’ve read but that was my experience. The ef 500 f4 is ii is comparable with the ef 300 f/2.8 for sharpness. It works crazy well with the 2x TC too. It’s big and unwieldy though and for that reason I do miss the 300 on occasion. For wildlife and specially birds; though, the 500 f4 suits my needs better.
I would like to see 7.1 vs 7.1 to see which is sharper. I own the 300 2.8 ef ii and that will out perform your lens because depractive optics using plastics in the lens can never be sharper than pure glass as seen in my f11 reviews where the sigma 150-600 was sharper over the f11 rf 600. Pure glass is the way to go
Oh yes. See my video about that lens. Absolutely amazing. But at the same time, the extra 400mm vs 300mm is a pretty big benefit for wildlife. And at lighter weight. It’s all about trade offs of course!
Very beautiful analysis. Though I love my 100-500mm lens, I would have to agree 400 DO lenses are so well made. Love to take one to Africa 😂 but not enough savings to afford one
Thanks so much. The 100-500 is exceptional! Basically as sharp as the prime and that’s great. I still think the ef 300 f/2.8 is mk I is the best bargain
@@MatthewRaifman that is correct, new 300 2.8 is like $4900 about $2000 more compared to 100-500 but boy this prime lens is so good. Easily takes 1.4 and 2x converters. Hands down best combo with Canon R5.
I own both lenses and both cameras. I tend to agree on sharpness, they are very close. I think the RF is faster focusing, however. I also on the EF 500 f/4L mk 2. Of the 3, the 500 f/4 is the sharpest and fastest focusing when you compare wide open. It is also much heavier, too. Thanks for doing this comparison!
@@RogerZoul I am not sure why nobody is making RF versions of 500 f4. This is very interesting focal length for wildlife photography. Thrown in a 1.4x, it works so well with birds.
@@withvinayakIt’s a good question. We are hoping that Canon will release a 200-500 f4 with a built in 1.4x that will be the RF replacement of the EF 500 f4.
what happened to your 300mm f2.8, not good anymore? lol
No way! The ef 300 f/2.8 is one of the best lenses ever made. Long story short, the R7 frustrations got the better of me and I sold the R7 to just use the R5. With a full frame, the 300 mm is too short for birding and most wildlife and I reluctantly sold it. I can’t afford to hold onto multiple super telephotos. I tried this ef 400 for a bit but decided to sell it and try the 500 f4 is ii. When you buy used and know a good deal, you can buy and sell these lenses without much loss (cheaper than renting).
We have same strategy of buying lens lol. I'm using R5 with 300 f2.8 + 1.4TC. works great. @@MatthewRaifman
500 7.1 is crazy 😭
It’s better than you’d think. I have a number of portfolio images that were made with that lens.
@@MatthewRaifman I used to own one back with an R3, it was ok but not enough in UK weather.
@@frostybe3roh yes! I can definitely see that being an issue. Honestly I loved the 300 f/2.8. Not a lot of reach but such a great optic.
@@MatthewRaifman pretty sure the 300 GM is significantly different from the old canon one 🤣
Crazy situations eh???? What utter nonsense
Ooh, you seem nice