What is Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO IS USM used for? Any good for birds photography?

[limvo05]

Hi All,

Can someone please let me know what Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO IS USM is used for? Can it be used for Birds and Wildlife Photography?

Thanks.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@limvo05 wrote:

Hi All,

Can someone please let me know what Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO IS USM is used for? Can it be used for Birds and Wildlife Photography?

Thanks.

---

It can, as long as the birds and wildlife let you get close enough. Some in this forum, however, insist that 650mm is a better choice. A drawback of that argument is that Canon doesn't make a lens that long. Sigma and Tamron do, however.

[ebiggs1]

"Can it be used for Birds and Wildlife Photography?"

Of course it can.  Why not?  While a better choice might be the new  ef 100-400mm zoom. Zooms are better general purpose lenses because you are more than likely to shoot other stuff beside birds. The 400/4 DO is best for people who like to or need 400mm and they also shoot using tele-cons for 400mm plus FL.   It is a reasonably sized totally hand-holdable lens.

There is also the very outstanding ef 400mm f5.6L.

[limvo05]

I've been taking photos with my 70-200 f2.7 mark ii and 2x converter iii. The photos are pretty good, especially under good lighting conditions. That said, there are times I wished I a little more reach in terms of FL, thus I've been thinking of getting either a 300mm f2.8 IS i or 400mm f2.8 IS i. I believe both of the lenses are excellent quality and that are not that big to be carrying around, even when traveling on planes. Came across someone trying to sell the 400 f4 DO IS. Was not sure what this lens is designed for. Why the DO designation.

Thanks.

[limvo05]

Re the ef 100-400mm zoom lens. I believe the first generation is not very sharp. Also, I heard when using the 70-200 f2.8 IS mark ii with a 2x converter, the photos taken with this combo are shaper than that those with the 100-400mm mark ii, that said, I have not actually tested the 100-400 myself.

Thoughts? Thanks

[Waddizzle]

---

@limvo05 wrote:

Re the ef 100-400mm zoom lens. I believe the first generation is not very sharp. Also, I heard when using the 70-200 f2.8 IS mark ii with a 2x converter, the photos taken with this combo are shaper than that those with the 100-400mm mark ii, that said, I have not actually tested the 100-400 myself.

Thoughts? Thanks

---

What camera body are you using?  I have used the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM + EF 1.4x III with a few bodies, including the 1D4, 7D2, 6D, and 6D2.  I have also used those bodies with the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM both with and without the extender.  Ditto for a Sigma 150-600mm "C".

I get the best results with the 100-400mm without the extender.  The shot below is the 7D2 and the 100-400mm

I get fairly good results using the 100-400mm + 1.4x, but the Sigma 150-600 is a hair better.  The only time that I carry the 1.4x is when I want to bring multiple lenses, and do not want to carry just the Sigma 150-600.

[Waddizzle]

Here is another shot with the 7D2 and the 100-400mm.

[ebiggs1]

"Why the DO designation."

DO refers to Canon's name for "Diffractive Optics," This lens uses fresnel elements to reduce weight. But there's nothing diffractive about it. It is one of Canon's sharpest lenses.

"I've been taking photos with my 70-200 f2.7 mark ii and 2x converter iii."

If you are happy with what comes out of that combo, you will be in hog heaven with the ef 400mm f4 DO.  IMHO, the ef 70-200mm f2.8L holds up well with the 1.4 tel-con but not so well with the 2x.  I would never use that combo.

[ebiggs1]

"... I've been thinking of getting either a 300mm f2.8 IS i or 400mm f2.8 IS i."

You don't seem to be scared of the hefty prices of these giants.  Last time I looked the DO was about sever grand. I think there are better, cheaper choices. But the DO is a great lens.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@limvo05 wrote:

I've been taking photos with my 70-200 f2.7 mark ii and 2x converter iii. The photos are pretty good, especially under good lighting conditions. That said, there are times I wished I a little more reach in terms of FL, thus I've been thinking of getting either a 300mm f2.8 IS i or 400mm f2.8 IS i. I believe both of the lenses are excellent quality and that are not that big to be carrying around, even when traveling on planes. Came across someone trying to sell the 400 f4 DO IS. Was not sure what this lens is designed for. Why the DO designation.

Thanks.

---

I can't see a good reason for the 300mm f/2.8. You'd get almost as much reach less expensively with your 70-200 and a 1.4x teleconverter. You'd lose a stop; but that combination would rarely be used indoors, and outdoors f/4 is usually fast enough.