# Canon 800mm vs 400mm f/2.8 II + 2X vIII Comparison



## mjhoward (Nov 28, 2011)

Thought I'd make a little thread for those interested in a *quick* comparison of the Canon 800mm f/5.6 IS and the new 400mm f/2.8 IS II/2X Extender III combo.  Here are a few crappy snapshots for size comparisons (full res, may take a min to load).  If I get more time later, I may takemy camera and get some better shots of the lenses.  I may also try resizing these :lmao:

Pictured is the 800mm f/5.6, 400mm f/2.8 II, 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 push/pull, and the 18-55 kit lens.






800mm f/5.6 and 400mm f/2.8 II with 2X III attached:





The 400mm f/2.8 with 2X III is 2-1/4" shorter and about 3/4 lb lighter.  The lens is also more balanced making it a bit easier to hand hold.  With the 800mm, the front element sits further forward of the mounting foot than on the 400mm and is much more front heavy.  I've used the 800mm for a while now but today was the first time being able to use the new 400mm f/2.8 so I don't have detailed first hand use.  I can safely make a few comments though...

AF is surprisingly fast and accurate with the new 2X III attached.  I have not done any side by side 'scientific' speed tests against the 800mm but they seem to be very close in focusing speed and accuracy.  I also cannot comment yet on the new IS mode, but the standard stabilizer mode 1 is very good.  I was able to take sharp handheld shots in low light with 1/200th shutter speeds.

And finally, the big question is IQ.  We all know what to expect with the primes as is, but what to make of the new 400mm f/2.8 II WITH the new 2X Extender on?!?  Well, in my very brief use with it, the answer is the combo performs VERY well.  It is certainly a viable option for someone that is concerned with size, weight, and of course cost, which comes in at just over $2,000 cheaper than the 800mm.  The purpose the following test for me was only to determine differences in sharpness and contrast, not to identify any differences in bokeh or other.  With that said, the test was a pretty crude one.  I needed something with sharp lines so I pointed each lens at a sign on a chain link fence that was approx. 80 meters out.  Camera body was 7D.

I think that even pixel peepers may be surprised:
Canon 800mm f/5.6 Prime:





Canon 400mm f/2.8 + 2X Extender III





I'll try to play around with it a bit more and make some better comparisons and test shots, but I'll be pretty busy during my time with it.



EDIT:  Oh I forgot to mention that both were taken at f/5.6 which is wide open for both setups.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 28, 2011)

How adorable! The two mated and had kids! The 100-400 looks like he'll be getting his driver's license any day now!!! And the little black lens....hmmm...cute, yes, but, uh....was the postman or the appliance repairman coming over all the time when junior was, uh, being "engineered"???


----------



## unpopular (Nov 28, 2011)

Us pixel peepers won't be happy until we see the 100% crop.


----------



## mjhoward (Nov 28, 2011)

Derrel said:


> How adorable! The two mated and had kids! The 100-400 looks like he'll be getting his driver's license any day now!!! And the little black lens....hmmm...cute, yes, but, uh....was the postman or the appliance repairman coming over all the time when junior was, uh, being "engineered"???



lol, we pulled a Brangelina and adopted the little whippersnapper!


----------



## mjhoward (Nov 28, 2011)

unpopular said:


> Us pixel peepers won't be happy until we see the 100% crop.



Right click on the pic and open in new tab.  It should open full res.
As a side note, it has been 'misty' here the past few days and the reflective sign probably wasn't the best target since the reflectivity adds a bit of flare but hopefully if the weather clears up I'll be able to get outside and aim at something else more useful for comparison.


----------



## penfolderoldo (Nov 29, 2011)

Interesting. For me, i'd have to go for the 400 / 2x combo, the jobs i'd use an 800 on (given that my papping days are, thankfully, well and truly over!) just wouldn't justify the £££'s, whereas the 400 opens up the options. Gotta say tho, that's a hell of an investment if you've sprung for both them - mafia? struck oil? lottery win? or sold a kidney? (in my case i'd have to sell both!):lmao:


----------



## mjhoward (Nov 29, 2011)

penfolderoldo said:


> Gotta say tho, that's a hell of an investment if you've sprung for both them - mafia? struck oil? lottery win? or sold a kidney? (in my case i'd have to sell both!):lmao:



Lol no, I wish I could afford those beasts.  The company I work for owns the 800 and we rented the new 400/2X to see how the combination compares.


----------



## Dao (Nov 29, 2011)

mjhoward said:


> penfolderoldo said:
> 
> 
> > Gotta say tho, that's a hell of an investment if you've sprung for both them - mafia? struck oil? lottery win? or sold a kidney? (in my case i'd have to sell both!):lmao:
> ...




No wonder ......  that answer the question when I looked at your signature.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 29, 2011)

Now why would anyone need an 800mm lens? Do we really need to know about the skin health of football players from the other side of the goal post


----------

