EF 400mm f/4 DO ii in 2025?

Nov 2, 2012
541
234
I regularly shoot water birds with a friend who shoots with a Sony A1 and 400/2.8 with 1.4x. This has tempted me to replace my RF 100-500L with an adapted EF 400/4 DO ii, probably most often with a 1.4x (either RF and modified adapter which I have or an EF 1.4x iii). I have an RF 70-200 to cover shorter focal lengths (albeit on a different body). I see the 400 DO as providing benefits in low light and in bokeh with cluttered backgrounds common in wetlands.
A 400/2.8 is outside my ideal budget, but is certainly too bulky for travel. An EF 200-400/4 (with inbuilt 1.4x) is too long and heavy. A Sigma EF 500/4 is similar in size to the 200-400.
Second hand EF 400/4 DO lenses are rare here in NZ and command a premium over the 200-400.
AlanF previously posted positively about his 400 DO lens.
So I'd appreciate thoughts on moving from an RF 100-500L to an EF 400 DO. Or maybe an EF 300/2.8 with 2x.
Thanks
 
Last edited:
From reviews i have read the EF 400 DO II is a wonderful sharp lens and it takes 1.4x III converters very well. I have not used one tho. (Don't buy the first version 400 DO). I shoot with a 300/2.8 II (I need a 2.8 for some venues I shoot in) and use EF 1.4x III and 2x III extenders with it regularly. The 1.4x III is very sharp on it, the 2x III is not quite as sharp but still very, very good. I have also recently purchases a ProMaster EF to RF adapter and filed it out to take RF converters, which I am testing the RF 1.4x and 2x with this lens. I am liking this combination. The advantage with the 400mm is it is shorter and 13 ounces lighter.
 
Upvote 0
I regularly shoot water birds with a friend who shoots with a Sony A1 and 400/2.8 with 1.4x. This has tempted me to replace my RF 100-500L with an adapted EF 400/4 DO ii, probably most often with a 1.4x (either RF and modified adapter which I have or an EF 1.4x iii). I have an RF 70-200 to cover shorter focal lengths (albeit on a different body). I see the 400 DO as providing benefits in low light and in bokeh with cluttered backgrounds common in wetlands.
A 400/2.8 is outside my ideal budget, but is certainly too bulky for travel. An EF 200-400/4 (with inbuilt 1.4x) is too long and heavy. A Sigma EF 500/4 is similar in size to the 200-400.
Second hand EF 400/4 DO lenses are rare here in NZ and command a premium over the 200-400.
AlanF previously posted positively about his 400 DO lens.
So I'd appreciate thoughts on moving from an RF 100-500L to an EF 400 DO. Or maybe an EF 300/2.8 with 2x.
Thanks
Hi Frodo
I currently own the EF 400f4 DO IS ii (I bought a perfect condition used one in Dec 2024) to use with my R5 Mark II, R3 and R1 camera bodies, via the EF-RF adaptor. I do also have the EF 1.4x III Extender. I owned an earlier EF 400 f4 DO IS ii bought brand new from about 2016 to 2022 that I used heavily with my Canon 1DX, 1DX Mark II, and 5D Mark 4 bodies sometimes with the EF 1.4x III Extender. I also own and use the RF 100-500L IS right now with my Canon R bodies. With my second time of owning the EF 400 f4 DO IS ii, I find the image quality is pretty good, though impacted a bit negatively with the 1.4 extender. I get obvious advantages using the 400 f4 in extreme low light when compared to my RF 100-500 L, usually before sunrise and for those minutes with some ambient light left after the sun goes down. However, when it comes to autofocus, I am getting a much higher keeper rate of properly sharp shots, from the RF 100-500L IS when compared to even the bare 400 f4 IS ii. The difference in autofocus becomes greater when the subjects are flying very fast so I have not been able to get any properly focused shots with the bare 400 of species like kingfishers which I sometimes do manage with the RF 100-500L IS. On the other hand I did manage to get some images of a leopard walking after sunset with the bare but adapted 400 f4 in Kenya that where not possible with the RF 100-500.
Some folk do have a dislike of some of the background structure of images taken with the 400 DO IS ii, specially when water and reflected highlights might come together but that has never affected my use.
Hope something there useful.
Grant
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
Like @Grant Atkinson, I've owned two copies of the EF 400mm DOii and sold the last one after buying the R5 and RF 100-500mm. I have to talk myself out of buying a third used one every time one comes up for sale cheap. Without an extender, the 100-500mm outresolves the bare 400mm and in terms of photons per duck (noise) is only one stop lower when cropping to the same size. At the longest end, the RF 200-800mm f/9 is as sharp as the the EF + 2xTC at f/8 and probably sharper. (I needed to stop down to f/11 with the prime). The AF of the 100-500mm is really great and the lens has all the advantage of being a zoom and much lighter. So, I never regret passing the cheap used ones by.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
Thanks justashooter, Grant and Alan for your detailed comments. Well, last night I bought a very good condition EF 400/4 DO ii at a very reasonable price. Woke up happy with purchase, but your comments have given me a little buyer remorse!
I pick it up on Tuesday and then will compare it to my 100-500 and post here.
Interesting comment from Alan about the EF lens being just a stop more than the zoom. True, but the 400/2.8 is also just a stop more than the 400/4, but is in a different league in terms of bulk and price. I hope that the 400/4 will hit a sweet spot in between.
I'm less concerned about the missing focal lengths, having a 70-200, though that doesn't help when the subject comes quickly towards you.
I guess I'm more concerned about Grant's comments on focus speed compared to the 100-500. I didn't realise the difference was that great. I don't do a huge number of BIF photos.
The 400 DOs are real scarce in New Zealand and I've never even seen one, let alone try one out. Well, the truth will be revealed next week!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
A recent photo of a white heron taken at a local pond with the 100-500, printed A2 size on my Canon Pro-1000 printer and mounted on MDF. I print (usually A2 / 16x24) and sell many of my images, so image quality is important.
 

Attachments

  • PSX_20250522_084939.jpg
    PSX_20250522_084939.jpg
    140.6 KB · Views: 21
Upvote 0
Thanks justashooter, Grant and Alan for your detailed comments. Well, last night I bought a very good condition EF 400/4 DO ii at a very reasonable price. Woke up happy with purchase, but your comments have given me a little buyer remorse!
I pick it up on Tuesday and then will compare it to my 100-500 and post here.
Interesting comment from Alan about the EF lens being just a stop more than the zoom. True, but the 400/2.8 is also just a stop more than the 400/4, but is in a different league in terms of bulk and price. I hope that the 400/4 will hit a sweet spot in between.
I'm less concerned about the missing focal lengths, having a 70-200, though that doesn't help when the subject comes quickly towards you.
I guess I'm more concerned about Grant's comments on focus speed compared to the 100-500. I didn't realise the difference was that great. I don't do a huge number of BIF photos.
The 400 DOs are real scarce in New Zealand and I've never even seen one, let alone try one out. Well, the truth will be revealed next week!
One has just come up for sale here and I am having to talk myself out of buying it again! Let us know how well you get on with it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Thanks for posting the stunning egret/heron image with those delicate feathers on display, you captured it beautifully, Frodo. I would hope you don't get buyers remorse, but if you are keeping both the RF 100-500 L IS and the EF 400 DO then no remorse needs to be felt :). Some further feedback on my two different EF 400 DO f4 IS ii lenses was that for birds in flight, so long as I could get close enough, the first lens was fantastic when I paired with either a 1DX, 1DX Mark II or 1DX Mark III. I attached an image here that comes from that lens with a 1DX taken in 2016 at 1/2500sec at f7.1, iso 1000 and obviously 400mm focal length. The raw file from the 1DX cropped from 5184 to 4200 on the long side. I have also attached an image taken with my recent 400 f4 DO IS ii in March 2025 of a leopard on a gloomy afternoon with hardly any light. EF 400 DO f4 IS ii with Canon R3, 1/400sec at f4.0, iso 6400. The raw file was cropped from 6000 px wide to 4400. I don't think I could have gotten the leopard with the RF 100-500L f7.1. It is useful having both lenses of course. I look forward to reading how it goes with your 400 DO.
 

Attachments

  • Birds-8-Southern-Carmine-Bee-eater-in-flight-with-prey.jpg
    Birds-8-Southern-Carmine-Bee-eater-in-flight-with-prey.jpg
    299.3 KB · Views: 19
  • Grant-Atkinson-Naboisho-20250327_0239.jpg
    Grant-Atkinson-Naboisho-20250327_0239.jpg
    280.1 KB · Views: 21
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Upvote 0
Thanks for posting the stunning egret/heron image with those delicate feathers on display, you captured it beautifully, Frodo. I would hope you don't get buyers remorse, but if you are keeping both the RF 100-500 L IS and the EF 400 DO then no remorse needs to be felt :). Some further feedback on my two different EF 400 DO f4 IS ii lenses was that for birds in flight, so long as I could get close enough, the first lens was fantastic when I paired with either a 1DX, 1DX Mark II or 1DX Mark III. I attached an image here that comes from that lens with a 1DX taken in 2016 at 1/2500sec at f7.1, iso 1000 and obviously 400mm focal length. The raw file from the 1DX cropped from 5184 to 4200 on the long side. I have also attached an image taken with my recent 400 f4 DO IS ii in March 2025 of a leopard on a gloomy afternoon with hardly any light. EF 400 DO f4 IS ii with Canon R3, 1/400sec at f4.0, iso 6400. The raw file was cropped from 6000 px wide to 4400. I don't think I could have gotten the leopard with the RF 100-500L f7.1. It is useful having both lenses of course. I look forward to reading how it goes with your 400 DO.
Not much chance of my seeing a leopard over here but if ever I do get to Africa, I'd love to take a trip with you to see one!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
Great shots, Grant.
a025.gif
 
Upvote 0
Thanks for posting the stunning egret/heron image with those delicate feathers on display, you captured it beautifully, Frodo. I would hope you don't get buyers remorse, but if you are keeping both the RF 100-500 L IS and the EF 400 DO then no remorse needs to be felt :). Some further feedback on my two different EF 400 DO f4 IS ii lenses was that for birds in flight, so long as I could get close enough, the first lens was fantastic when I paired with either a 1DX, 1DX Mark II or 1DX Mark III. I attached an image here that comes from that lens with a 1DX taken in 2016 at 1/2500sec at f7.1, iso 1000 and obviously 400mm focal length. The raw file from the 1DX cropped from 5184 to 4200 on the long side. I have also attached an image taken with my recent 400 f4 DO IS ii in March 2025 of a leopard on a gloomy afternoon with hardly any light. EF 400 DO f4 IS ii with Canon R3, 1/400sec at f4.0, iso 6400. The raw file was cropped from 6000 px wide to 4400. I don't think I could have gotten the leopard with the RF 100-500L f7.1. It is useful having both lenses of course. I look forward to reading how it goes with your 400 DO.
Fabulous photos, Grant. Would be great to photograph large mammals with you! Yes, you are right, the bird is a great egret, but called a white heron or kotuku (in Maori) in New Zealand. Although native, it is quite uncommon, but we have one resident in a local pond.
I use the RF 100-500 mainly st the long end, using my RF 70-200 for landscapes and when hiking. So hopefully the 70-200 and the 400 will replace the 100-500. But let's see!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
I picked up the 400 DO ii this morning have done some quick testing on it with my R5.
First impression is the small size and modest weight, although significantly larger than my RF 100-500L. But countering this is the huge lens hood. I will probably live with this, but would like to pack the lens without the hood in my backpack. However the silly soft lens cap only realistically attaches when the hood is reversed, so I am now looking for a Zemlin or Bioluminous lenscap.
I compared it to my RF 100-500L at 10m photographing a Bob Atkins test chart (like AlanF uses) outside using natural light and then inside using flash. Note that I am only looking at the centre, as for most wildlife subjects the sides and certainly the corners have little importance.
- At 400mm, both lenses resolve lines in the 6.3 target at apertures from wide open to f/8
- At 500mm the zoom resolves lines in the 7.1 target.
- It appears that to this point resolving ability depends on the sensor rather than the lens.
- I am happy with this as my zoom is very sharp.
- At 560mm with the EF 1.4x iii converter, lines in the 8.0 target are just resolved.
- At 560mm with the RF 1.4x converter (using a modified JJC EF-RF adapter) resolves the lines in the 7.1 target.
- So the EF 1.4x iii is slightly sharper than the RF 1.4x and has slightly more contrast. There is a chance that I have slightly miss-focused the RF 1.4x photos, so will check this.
- If I process the photos with DXO PureRaw4, there is a profile for the 400 DO plus EF 1.4x iii, but (not surprisingly) none for the 400 DO with the RF 1.4x, the difference is significant (I almost said dramatic!) and this is at ISO 100 and 200. This would be reason enough to swap the RF for the EF teleconverter.
Background blur at 400 f/4 is noticeably better than 500 f/7.1, and my limited testing shows no problem with out of focus bright objects
But the other critical test is focusing speed and I plan to photograph my dog running directly at me - but not today - its raining.
 
Upvote 0
I picked up the 400 DO ii this morning have done some quick testing on it with my R5.
First impression is the small size and modest weight, although significantly larger than my RF 100-500L. But countering this is the huge lens hood. I will probably live with this, but would like to pack the lens without the hood in my backpack. However the silly soft lens cap only realistically attaches when the hood is reversed, so I am now looking for a Zemlin or Bioluminous lenscap.
I compared it to my RF 100-500L at 10m photographing a Bob Atkins test chart (like AlanF uses) outside using natural light and then inside using flash. Note that I am only looking at the centre, as for most wildlife subjects the sides and certainly the corners have little importance.
- At 400mm, both lenses resolve lines in the 6.3 target at apertures from wide open to f/8
- At 500mm the zoom resolves lines in the 7.1 target.
- It appears that to this point resolving ability depends on the sensor rather than the lens.
- I am happy with this as my zoom is very sharp.
- At 560mm with the EF 1.4x iii converter, lines in the 8.0 target are just resolved.
- At 560mm with the RF 1.4x converter (using a modified JJC EF-RF adapter) resolves the lines in the 7.1 target.
- So the EF 1.4x iii is slightly sharper than the RF 1.4x and has slightly more contrast. There is a chance that I have slightly miss-focused the RF 1.4x photos, so will check this.
- If I process the photos with DXO PureRaw4, there is a profile for the 400 DO plus EF 1.4x iii, but (not surprisingly) none for the 400 DO with the RF 1.4x, the difference is significant (I almost said dramatic!) and this is at ISO 100 and 200. This would be reason enough to swap the RF for the EF teleconverter.
Background blur at 400 f/4 is noticeably better than 500 f/7.1, and my limited testing shows no problem with out of focus bright objects
But the other critical test is focusing speed and I plan to photograph my dog running directly at me - but not today - its raining.
Just the tests I do and with similar results! In my experience, the RF 1.4x on RF lenses is not as good as the EF 1.4xTC iii on EF 100-400mm ii. I have looked at 3 copies of the RF on the RF 100-500mm, and I had two copies of the EF TC. The one factor that is important to me now I am ten years older than when I first had the lens, is that with the 1.4xTC it weighs 2.846 kg as opposed with 1.61 kg for the zoom (working weights). The RF 200-800mm has now my upper limit of what I want to carry.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
AlanF, yes it is a chunky lens and heavier than my RF 100-500L. But it is much smaller than a 400/2.8. I turn 69 next week and the weight is acceptable for now. But I would like the lens to fit in my backpack without the bulky hood and so I want to replace the lens cap.
Will the Canon e-112 clip on lens cap fit the EF 400mm DO ii lens? This is the standard cap for the RF 100-300mm f/2.8L.
The Zemlin and Bioluminous lens caps will cost around NZD 180 to ship here, about 5x the cost of the e-112.
Thanks
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
AlanF, yes it is a chunky lens and heavier than my RF 100-500L. But it is much smaller than a 400/2.8. I turn 69 next week and the weight is acceptable for now. But I would like the lens to fit in my backpack without the bulky hood and so I want to replace the lens cap.
Will the Canon e-112 clip on lens cap fit the EF 400mm DO ii lens? This is the standard cap for the RF 100-300mm f/2.8L.
The Zemlin and Bioluminous lens caps will cost around NZD 180 to ship here, about 5x the cost of the e-112.
Thanks
You can also use a Lenscoat Hoodie to cover the front element of the lens in your bag. They come in different sizes.
 
Upvote 0
AlanF, yes it is a chunky lens and heavier than my RF 100-500L. But it is much smaller than a 400/2.8. I turn 69 next week and the weight is acceptable for now. But I would like the lens to fit in my backpack without the bulky hood and so I want to replace the lens cap.
Will the Canon e-112 clip on lens cap fit the EF 400mm DO ii lens? This is the standard cap for the RF 100-300mm f/2.8L.
The Zemlin and Bioluminous lens caps will cost around NZD 180 to ship here, about 5x the cost of the e-112.
Thanks
You youngsters can manage these lenses! Maybe not the 400/2.8. My style of opportunistic shooting means I don't use a backpack and I used to carry the 400/4 with its hood on attached to a body with a BlackRapid double breathe fixed to the tripod socket and bottom of the camera.
 
Upvote 0