Canon 400mm f4 DO IS USM protective filter

I wonder why most good lenses come with a lens hood then? Hummmm.....

Because the public asked for them en mass. Lenses didn't always come with lenshoods. For example the Nikkor AF 80-200 f/2.8 D still treats the lenshood as an optional extra. The old 105mm Macro did too.

I'm sure if nearly single person bought a protector filter for their lens they'd start getting bundled with lenses within a few years. But currently there are a lot of people like yourself why would be asking why because of simply a different attitude towards the lens.

Best leave something an option accessory unless you wish to polarise your customer base.
 
Looks like the filter thread is 105mm, so I'm going to try a B+W or Sigma UV filter. I agree that it's possibly spoiling such a lens to smother it with a filter, but the objective glass is convex so definitely not merely a protective plate and presumably not a cheaply replaceable piece of glass if damaged. I'd rather be safe than sorry.

I've taken a few test shots over the weekend but, given the poor weather, the opportunity was a brief one. Hmmmn, initial results show my EOS 7D was over-exposing and I couldn't get a really sharp pin-point focus despite a solid tripod mount. Turning off the image stabilizer gave little improvement. Obviously I need to review my set up and then try again. Wonder if I am expecting too much? Then again for the price of the camera body and lens I should surely be expecting near perfection!
 
Is it a new lens? Have you tried it before with another body? On the 7D, you can try the microfocus adjust, but I agree that you shouldn't need to do that.
 
Canon supertelephotos have a factory protective front element. Thats why you see the threads there. Its an easy service for canon to replace it if it gets screwed. I cannot seriously believe you would want to put something else in front of it. Now I understand why no one knew what you were talking about.
 
Hi Montana,

I think you'll find that unlike other Canon supertelephoto lenses, the 400 f4 DO does NOT have a protective front element factory fitted. The multi-layer diffractive optical element is infact the last piece of glass at the objective end of the lens. It's precisely because this very expensive set of glass (the vital part that makes this lens work) is so vulenrable that I'm looking to use a protective filter. Otherwise, I agree with you that it should be unnecessary.

I'm not sure anyone knew what I was talking about because this lens is so different and few people appear to have intimate knowledge of it.

Check out the diagrams towards the bottom of this page: New Canon 400mm f/4 DO IS USM: Digital Photography Review, and I think you'll see what I mean. My own inspection of the lens in my possession shows an exposed convex, compound lens at the objective end of the lens - which accords with the diagram of the DO lens.
 
Wow Neil, I stand corrected. I had always thought the DO had the protective glass too. Anyway, it should be recessed quite a ways into the lens. I wouldn't worry about it myself, but YMMV. Good luck. THats 7000 dollars worth of gear. I would just insure it and if something happens you are covered.
 
Last edited:
That reminds me - must chase up that response from the insurance company. Thanks for the prompt :)
 
I can only add that my 600 front protective glass is still spotless, and I have packed it all around the wilderness. I would recommend the lens coat hoodie. Its more convienent to use than the factory leather cover. And I would say if you are shooting sports, anything that is going to hit the front protection glass you purchase (i.e. a baseball) is going to keep coming into the lens. LOL I still recommend insurance. From what I have read about it from other users of DO lenses, another piece of glass is the last thing that lens needs in front of it.

That lens has to be a dream to carry around though. Do you have any sample images you can post from the lens?
 
I'm heading out over the weekend, weather permitting, so I'll post anything interesting by way of test pics etc. To be honest, I'm a little nervous about what I might discover given all the reservations about this lens but, as you say, portability was the over-riding motivation for buying it. Here's hoping...
 
Naw, its a great lens Neil. It seems it just needs some "punch" added in post processing from what I have read. The internet will drive a hobbiest crazy worrying about their gear. You have a fantastic lens to use at your disposal. And its light weight to boot! I would be estatic! My 600 f/4 IS sits in the closet more and more because its such a monster.
 
I've been out over the weekend. Photographed quite a few seagulls in sunshine and overcast conditions. The lens was a joy on three counts - ease of use (being very light to hold and handle); pin sharp; quick autofocus. On that score, I'm truly pleased with its performance. The only downside - and you can hear it coming - is that there really is a perceptible reduction in contrast.

I've compared this weekend's photos with those taken at the same place a month ago of the same sorts of birds using a borrowed Canon 100-400mm f5.6. While the latter is absolutely no match for sharpness, its pictures were better saturated and with stronger contrast. Although the difference is negligible in sunny conditions, once the clouds come over the difference is noticeable. There is a slight greyish cast to blacks and browns.

It's certainly not enough to put me off this lens. It proved its versatility over a whole day's use. And with a little help from Photoshop, most pictures can be adjusted appropriately - though shots that start off with burned out highlights (seagulls have a lot of white on them) are difficult to rescue. So on balance, I can see what people have been talking about regarding the contrast issue; but as a portable wildlife lens it behaved brilliantly!
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top