Canon EF 400mm f/4 IS ii DO vs. EF 300mm f/2.8 IS ii L for Bird Photography: 4 Months of Experiments

In this video I will show you the results of 10 key experiments which will help you decide which one of these professional-quality, low-light, light-weight lenses is the best for bird photography. experiment topics included testing for sharpness, bokeh, focus speed, how the 400 DO handles teleconverters and responses to stopping down.

The results were a little surprising!

DETAILED TABLE OF CONTENTS COMING SOON:

10:15 - Experiments Start
59:02 - Conclusions

[frankanderson]

Not many recent detailed reviews of the 400 DO, so it was interesting to see this. For years I’ve thought about getting this and previously the first version but the sharpness alway was a concern.

I have the R6 & R7 and the 400 DO would seem to be ideal with R7 but this review puts doubt on that. I think a more detailed separate review with that combination would be very helpful. Currently using the 100-500 but miss the soft background I used to get with my 500 f4 which I sold because of the weight.

[kernzilla]

gotta say man, doing these types of tests are a real time-suck to do correctly. thank you for taking the time to not only do some side-by-sides, but really spell out a number of different real-world shooting situ in diffferent combos of config, along with showing 100-200% crops. it's exactly these types of videos that help photogs like me make better purchasing decisions, and wanted to drop a line and say your work not going unnoticed. 👏👏 thanks from many

[chantaljacques]

Great videos! Very interesting, useful and well planned and executed experiments. Will definitely keep this one in my favorite and watch it again. thanks for sharing this.

[bill]

I’m glad you did this. I own a 300 2.8 and was thinking of getting a 400 DO. I guess I’ll use the teleconverter in stead of a different lens.

[GavinVella]

Thanks for doing this video. I had the old 300 2.8 IS but having moved to full frame, I thought the extra focal length of the 400 DO ii would be more beneficial, so I took the plunge and I've been using the DO for some years now and I'm disappointed overall. The lens is smaller and lighter and that is beneficial for sure, but I've always been slightly disappointed with the results. I'm actually considering swapping it back out for a 300 2.8 ii and this video solidifies that decision for me. One thing I will say, in this video you said that there's no comparison between the bokeh, and this is where you've missed the mark I think. I consistently could see a huge difference in bokeh quality in your test images between the 300 2.8 and the 400 DO. The 300 seems to render the bokeh much smoother, with the DO having harsh edges. I see this in all my images in the past few years. It makes the lens feel more like a 5.6 or even 6.3 in terms of bokeh quality. Just go back to your initial tests of the Owl and look at the background.. there's no comparison, the 300 was better. Also felt that times you said there was a smidge difference in sharpness, to me it was night and day, the 300 2.8 always looked pin sharp. Whilst the owl test is always handy, even the slightest difference in focus point would have thrown the test off. The real life examples did a better Job at showing the differences and the charts at the end revealed why. Thank you for posting either way, it still really helped me decide. There are plenty of other things to consider when choosing between these lenses. If it's down to weight, it's obvious the 400 is the right choice but with the 300 you also get a whole meter closer focus distance, so you can fill the frame with closer subjects. Having to step back because the subject comes too close, will cost you shots. It's certainly cost me many with the 400 DO ii. Something else to consider is the size of the lens as the 300 is thicker and longer, so you will have to take that into account with your camera bag choices.

[quazisanjeed]

Thank you for the video.

What a coincidence! Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II is my beloved telephoto lens that I never want to part with. Only difference is; I use DSLRs. Pair this legendary lens with a legendary body 1D Mark IV and EF 2x III extender. This produces a reach of 780mm due to its 1.3 crop factor. Yes, it’s heavy so, always use it on sturdy tripod or monopod. I've seen my friend use EF 400 f/4L IS II DO version. Seems pretty good. But not good enough for me to replace my 300mm 2.8 with that glass.

May hand-holdable BIF combo is 7D + EF 400mm f/5.6L. Enjoy wildlife safaris in national parks and capture shots as per my choice with these combos. Being a hobbyist photographer, I’m completely satisfied with these gears.

Do not see compelling reasons to switch to the mirrorless system. Rather save money for safaris.

Thanks again.

[davepastern]

Still watching the video (will edit this comment and add more if needed), but the 2 images @ 33.30 - I suspect the R7 is less sharp due to diffraction. Remember, that R7 has 32mp APS-C, which is equivalent to ~82mp FF. I'm also very suspect on the DO optics absolute quality (and we see this in honest tests on the new RF200-800). I know some people swear by the R7, but I personally think it's a sub-average camera.

1st edit: I also suspect that the DO optics simply lack the resolution to take advantage of a 82mp FF sensor equivalent...they just can't resolve that fine of detail.

2nd edit: the 2nd BE shots - a bit of an unfair comparison - 400f4 +1.4x TC and 300f2.8 and 2x TC. That 2x TC is *always* going to be softer, especially wide open. Canon's EF 2x TC is renowned for well, being soft (even the mark 3 version). A better option for testing would have been the 1.4x TC for both, and crop into the 300mm/14x TC combo to match the 400mm +1.4x TC uncropped...

3rd edit: I think you'll find the CA on the 1st test chart for the 300mm and 1.4x TC is due to the TC. Again, shoot the 400 and 400 and the 300 at 300 and crop into the 300 and see if the CA exists on the 300 test shot still...I bet it doesn't.

I think you've hampered the 300mm f2.8's performance by using TCs. I know you wanted to match focal lengths, but I think that that has led you astray with regards to optical quality comparisons.

I have no interest in either of these lenses (too short imho) - I use a 1st gen 500f4 EF prime with a mark 3 1.4x TC on my R3 (birding photography here too). Like in sex size matters.

[guspath]

This is an incredible comparison and justified keeping my 300mm 2.8 ii. I just wanted to check whether you used electronic or mechanical shutter when testing the R7. I have both R5 and R7 they are equally sharp but I exclusively use the electronic shutter.

[michaellekas]

Excellent review on these great lenses....I have the 300mm f2.8is mk1 and curious how it would do compared to these 2 lenses..your thoughts

[RogerZoul]

On your r7 tests with the DO, which shutter option did you use? There is a lot of shutter slap on the r7 with the mechanical shutter. If you are doing perched birds then using the electronic shutter removes that slap. I get very sharp images from the r7 in ES, which the DO, for perched birds. For moving subjects, I use first curtain shutter with good results on the DO.

[TheXone]

Hi, great comparison video. Do you plan to do a similar one to Canon 200-400mm in the future or you do not have experience with that lens? Thank you!

[TexMex]

I had a 400mm DO II and love that lens. But I shoots sport and bought a 200-400, and could not justify having both.

[samgeddes]

That was a great comparison. I’m considering one or the other and leaning toward the 300 ii. You mentioned that the r7 did not take well to the 400 do, but does the r7 take well to the 300ii? With teleconverters?

[darinl]

interesting test. so are you saying there's no advantage of using a cropped sensor camera vs a high MP full frame camera?

[bill]

I’d like a comparison between the 300 2.8 version 1 and 2.
I also wondered why you chose the r7 when the r5 allows you to add a crop mimicking the r7.
Just courious

[kernzilla]

generally speaking, which one of these lenses had more consistent AF speed/lock with the 2x? on my 300 v1, I've only been using my 1.4 III. my prev 2x just pissed me off on a shoot while back and sold it lol. never loved what 2x does to the image quality and AF predictability, but now that i'm upgrading my 300 to one of the two lenses you reviewed here, trying to get better idea if the 2x III is viable option or not. Where the 2x failed me the most was with once AF on subject, and anything that wasn't perfectly lit. Backlit subjects were nightmare, and mostly unreliable for me. love to learn which of these two lenses excelled the most with 2x (if any lol) .. will say i was surprised by how well your 300+2x held up in your tests, the CA and chroma smear was far less than expected.

did watch a review couple weeks ago showing in some shooting situations on R5, that cropping + software utilization actually yielded better results with IQ/micro-detail, versus using the 2x TC. 🙃

[peterb.]

I have the R7 and that lens the DO II and I love the sharpness that it gives

[weaverrealestatephotograph]

The nice thing about the 300 is you still have a 300.

[epsonc]

I have 300mm MK II, best lens I have ever used. I use it with 1.4x, 2x and RF 1.4x + EF2x. I know, 2 TCs

[ferraphotography]

Which of the two lenses are you going to sell?