400mm DO question

Printable View

04-11-2009, 09:53 AM
Chris Brennan

400mm DO question

This is my first post so please be gentle!

I currently use a Canon 300mm f2.8L IS lens with either a 1.4x or 2x converter on a 40D as my primary birding lens. I've made some wonderful images with this combination but only with some kind of support: beanbag from the car; monopod or tripod in the field. The combination is just too heavy to handhold for me. I'm thinking about trading up to a (much lighter) 400mm DO as I've seen some stunningly crisp images made with this lens both with and without a 1.4x converter. However I don't recall seeing any images made with this lens and a 2x, and am wondering if the performance holds up. With my 300 + 2x, the results are very good and I retain AF... I know that I'll lose AF capability using the 40D but having the ability to get 800mm in a pinch albeit with manual focus would be a boon.

I look forward to hearing your comments and/or suggestions.
04-11-2009, 11:44 AM
Steve Canuel

1 Attachment(s)

Welcome to BPN Chris,
As you know, acceptable performance and IQ tolerance vary quite a bit among photographers but check out Artie's bulletins to see what the DO + 2xTC is capable of. If you want to see results from an amateur hobbyist, check out my recent post in the Avian forum (Mountain Bluebird Female). I used a tripod because I can't stand still and it was windy. Another reason I use a tripod with that combo most of the time is that it allows me to dial in focus with Live View. This hawk was also taken with the 40D, 400DO + 2xTC combo but I used a monpod for this one.
04-11-2009, 11:55 AM
Chris Brennan

Steve -

Thanks for responding! I'm convinced! Beautiful subject, and gorgeous crisp image! But you never know until you ask... might you know of Artie's bulletin number where he discusses the DO with the 2x?
04-11-2009, 12:08 PM
Steve Canuel

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Brennan

Steve -

Thanks for responding! I'm convinced! Beautiful subject, and gorgeous crisp image! But you never know until you ask... might you know of Artie's bulletin number where he discusses the DO with the 2x?

You're welcome. Sorry I can't reference a particular bulletin. He has sample images sprinkled throughout the archives (especially in the last year). Here's a link to a review he wrote a few years back. I can PM you some more links to various sites I found during my research prior to purchasing this lens last year if you're interested.

http://www.naturescapes.net/082006/am0806.htm
04-11-2009, 03:34 PM
Jay Gould

Quote:

I'm thinking about trading up to a (much lighter) 400mm DO as I've seen some stunningly crisp images made with this lens both with and without a 1.4x converter. However I don't recall seeing any images made with this lens and a 2x, and am wondering if the performance holds up. With my 300 + 2x, the results are very good and I retain AF... I know that I'll lose AF capability using the 40D but having the ability to get 800mm in a pinch albeit with manual focus would be a boon.

I too am getting ready to take the plunge and purchase the 400MM DO and both the 1.4 and 2X teles.

Currently have the 40D.

Apparently, from the post, you do have AF with the 1.4; you do not with the 2X.

What Canon bodies, if any, will give you AF with the 2X? I have a sneaky feeling what the answer is; I will wait to hear the verdict.

Thanks,
04-11-2009, 03:57 PM
Chris Brennan

Jay -

I believe that any of the Series 1 bodies will AF with the 400 DO with the 2x...
04-11-2009, 05:02 PM
Jay Gould

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Brennan

Jay -

I believe that any of the Series 1 bodies will AF with the 400 DO with the 2x...

Hi Chris, I think I smelled the answer from a mile away (all of the experts have been recommending the 400 DO + 1D3).

Quote:

From Jim Neiger: The 1D3 is by FAR the best camera I have used for BIF. The 1D2N is second, with the 50D a close third. The image quality, ISO capability, buffer size, and frame rate are all clearly best on the 1D3. All of these features are very important for BIF images. IMO, the 1D3 is the clear choice.

Rather than use your 400mm DO thread I will start another just discussing the 1DX bodies. :D
04-12-2009, 09:38 AM
Alfred Forns

Hi Chris Big Welcome to BPN !!!

Will not regret getting a 400 DO It is a fine performing lens and the IQ excellent. The only drawback you will have is the poor minimum focusing distance which will be overcome with extension tubes.
04-12-2009, 01:38 PM
Jay Gould

Al, please describe some of the circumstances when you would use extension tubes with a 400mm. Thanks, Jay
04-12-2009, 03:48 PM
Chris Brennan

Al -

Thanks for the welcome! Honestly, I'm not all that concerned about the minimum focusing distance but appreciate the feedback!

Chris
04-12-2009, 04:09 PM
Mike Gallo

I had this lens when I used the Mark 2n, it worked well with the 2x converter. It is the only lens that I missed when I switched to Nikon and sold off all of my Canon gear.
04-12-2009, 08:19 PM
Cliff Beittel

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alfred Forns

. . . The only drawback you will have is the poor minimum focusing distance which will be overcome with extension tubes.

Note that the long minimum focus distance, which I believe exactly matches that of the 400 f5.6L, is one reason the 400 DO performs so well for flight shooting.
04-13-2009, 02:33 AM
Jay Gould

Getting down to the short strokes, with the big lens what if any filters are shooters generally using? No need to further debate a UV; I will have one because we are at the beach a lot and if it is a high moisture day with a lot of spray in the air I will use it; otherwise I am going with the no UV unless necessary group. What about any other filters with this long lens? Might you use, for example, a polarizer if you were shooting something stationary at a great distance? i just as soon ask and be told "not necessary" than not to ask and not to buy and wish I had! :o Thanks, Jay
04-13-2009, 03:06 AM
beykirch

Hi Chris and Jay,

I am using the 400DO on both the 5D and the 5DII. The IQ of the 400DO is capable to deal with the 5DII sensor, no reason to step back from this lens.

The minimum focusing distance is 3.5m, the lens has a switch to limit it from 3.5m to infinity or from 7m to infinity. In Europe, I am happy when I must use the 3.5 - infinity setting, I never had a situation when 3.5m was not enough. That might be different in North America where the wildlife is much better approachable.

You cannot use a filter in front of the lens. All of the big telephoto lenses have the possibility to use drop-in filters (a plain one is included, because it is a part of the lens formula), Canon provides a polarizer.

Regards

Bernd
04-13-2009, 03:14 AM
Jay Gould

Quote:

Originally Posted by beykirch

Hi Chris and Jay,

I am using the 400DO on both the 5D and the 5DII. The IQ of the 400DO is capable to deal with the 5DII sensor, no reason to step back from this lens.

The minimum focusing distance is 3.5m, the lens has a switch to limit it from 3.5m to infinity or from 7m to infinity. In Europe, I am happy when I must use the 3.5 - infinity setting, I never had a situation when 3.5m was not enough. That might be different in North America where the wildlife is much better approachable.

You cannot use a filter in front of the lens. All of the big telephoto lenses have the possibility to use drop-in filters (a plain one is included, because it is a part of the lens formula), Canon provides a polarizer.

Regards

Bernd

Thanks Bernd. When you say that the lens comes with a plain one as part of the lens formula, I assume you are saying that you always use the plain filter because it is part of the optics. (?).

Do you use the Canon PL; seems to have good reviews on the net.

You are saying that most of the time you use the 7m setting because very little is shot between 3.5 and 7; at least where you are?!

Cheers, Jay
04-13-2009, 04:35 AM
Lance Peters

Jay - a extension tube is used - when the bird you are trying to photograph is closer to you than the minimum focusing distance of the lens - a extension tube will allow the lens to focus closer (However with the extension tube on - you cannot focus at longer distances).
You can stack extension tubes.

Think of it like the reverse of a tele-converter.
:)
04-13-2009, 01:24 PM
beykirch

Hi Jay,

yes, I have the polarizer but use it not quite often (don't like the effect for long telephotos). Therefore, the plain filter stays in the lens.

In Germany, even the squirrels are not tame enough in most cases to use the 3.5m setting very often :-).

Regards

Bernd
04-13-2009, 02:04 PM
David Kennedy

I've made images with the 400 DO and the 1.4x and 2x TC's stacked. You have to be careful, but you can still get (fairly) sharp images from this combo--no worse than with the 500 and stacked TC's.

Cheers,
David
04-14-2009, 06:31 PM
Jay Gould

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lance Peters

Jay - a extension tube is used - when the bird you are trying to photograph is closer to you than the minimum focusing distance of the lens - a extension tube will allow the lens to focus closer (However with the extension tube on - you cannot focus at longer distances).
You can stack extension tubes.

Think of it like the reverse of a tele-converter.
:)

Hi Mate, I understand its general use; and I can understand using it with an inanimate or stationary (if they will stay still long enough) critter.

But, by the time you put on the tube hasn't da birdie flown da coop? :D
04-24-2009, 08:39 PM
Christopher C.M. Cooke

Quote:

Note that the long minimum focus distance, which I believe exactly matches that of the 400 f5.6L, is one reason the 400 DO performs so well for flight shooting. 

The 5.6 has two focusing settings, 3.5 Metres to infinity and 8.5 Metres to infinity, for BIF at the second setting is super fasf.