has anyone tried both of the Canon 400/4.0 DO (1.9kg) and 400/2.8 (5.3kg!) lenses? was there much of difference in quality? what about the 500/4 (3.9kg)?
Michael talks about 'boke' in one of his articles. does anyone know how each of these lenses' bokeh compares? I've seen some terrible boke when using my 70-200/2.8 non-IS + 2x.
from an extender point of view, the 400/2.8 would be the way to go so that even with a 2x extender, a maximum aperture of 5.6 would be possible.
I do a lot of nature/bird photography and am looking at buying one of these lenses. I have to consider my choices carefully because they're not cheap, and I'll spend much of my time free holding the camera even when using one of these lenses (sometimes with a mono-pod).
additionally, I'm looking at upgrading from a 350D to a 5D which means I lose the 1.6x multiplier. having become accustomed to 200 + 2x + 1.6x = 640mm, I wouldn't want anything too short.
comments and experiences from any of you would be greatly appreciated.
A few days ago Canon Germany posted a PDF file of their "Profile" newsletter. One of the sections featured the 400mm f/4 DO IS lens. But, at the bottom of the article was a mention that there were two more DO IS lenses coming — a 500mm f/2.8 DO IS and a 200-400mm f/4 DO IS zoom.
4 years later and we still haven't seen these rumoured lenses. what a shame. the 200-400/4 DO IS would have been especially interesting.
(Dear Michael, there are more than a few missing (404) images in your very educational 400 DO article