If I were you, I would either: (A) go with the new 300 F2.8L IS USM; or (B) save some more money and buy a new 400 F2.8L IS USM. Should the 400 you are looking at break down, you may not be able to get it repaired, and thus will have lost your investment altogether.
Bought one of these about a year ago this time...think I paid $2400 and it came with a nice monopod. It was a great lens and served its purpose. But way too heavy for everyday use, and after using the IS version I was blown away. The IS version consistently produced sharp images and had a much higher "keeper rate". I no longer have either of these lenses (no need), but if I was buying one again would go for the mkII or IS version. I recommend the same to you.
Here is an image from the 400. It is a very capable lens...just old! I would not want to mess around with trying to get it repaired anywhere.
If you need the reach and speed, and can't afford the IS version, then there really is no choice, is there?
Personally, I'd get the 300/2.8IS and couple it with a 1.4x for a 420/4IS. Combined with one of the newer cameras and their ultra-high ISOs, it will make a better setup than the 400: lighter, sharper (most likely - my 300/2.8 non-IS is sharper than my 400/2.8 Mark I ) and with the possibility for repairs in case something happens.
I had the version one 400 2.8 for a number of years - I made a lot of money from it and got heaps of covers with it. The basic answer is that it was and still is an excellent peice of glass but the weight was always an issue for me. I now have the 300 f2.8IS and it is SO light in comparison and with a 1.3 crop it is around the same length. I'd go for the 300 and as was said above there is less chance of repairs.
I own version One of the 400/2.8 EF. Its a great lens. The cost difference between the IS version and these samples is huge. If you need a long tele and you need 2.8 and want great IQ & performance then any variation of the 400/2.8 is going to get the job done. Odds are you will be using a monopod with these lenses so the weight difference is not critical. If you shoot golf then the lighter IS version is nice after walking eighteen holes.
Bottom line is if you need this lens and you are on a "budget" then looking at a quality cared for sample of the version One is not a bad way to go. In all the years I have owned mine I have had zero problems with it. These are very well made "rock star" lenses in my book.
EDIt: some of these lenses have had a hard life. Its best to get one that was babied and well cared for by the previous owner: spend the extra. They will also have resale appeal if you decide to sell.
You get the right mm filter and screw it in the adapter. I had one and just got any filter on ebay and screwed it on. I forget the size.
The lens is very good but weighs one stone. The vII is 2 pounds lighter. vI is one of the few L lenses that does not have fluorite, so CA can be bad on sky shots.
Midstate in RI works on that model lens every day and they are a real pleasure to deal with. Cleaned and calibrated mine for under $150.
Get the IS version if you can swing it. The mkI version of the 400/f2.8 no longer has serviceable parts in production and from anecdotal evidence, it is going to be ugly if you need to get it repaired if/when that time comes. Canon didn't accept for repair a 400/f2.8 mkI owned by an associate and it was an AF issue. YMMV
Bmeister wrote:
Get the IS version if you can swing it. The mkI version of the 400/f2.8 no longer has serviceable parts in production and from anecdotal evidence, it is going to be ugly if you need to get it repaired if/when that time comes. Canon didn't accept for repair a 400/f2.8 mkI owned by an associate and it was an AF issue. YMMV
Andrew J wrote:
.....The mkI version of the 400/f2.8 no longer has serviceable parts in production......snip
----------------------------------------
Good grief. That statement aplies to more than a dozen models of non IS l lenses.
Most of which will work for the next 20 years with out a hitch.
--------------------------------------------
I stated that information because there are two people I know of who dropped a couple thousand dollars on this lens and now have a nice boat anchor. It isn't to say the big white lenses won't last (I have a very old mint 200/f1.8 - still perfect), but it's reasonable to inform potential buyers the risk in case they measure risk when making a substantial (for some) expenditure. Other reasons include what's been stated: the IS version is lighter, sharper, focuses faster and of course has the bonus of having IS.
Bmeister wrote:
I stated that information because there are two people I know of who dropped a couple thousand dollars on this lens and now have a nice boat anchor.
I know of at least two US shops that would work on it and they carry many brand new parts for the lens. There are risks, no doubt about that, but where there is a will, there is a way too.
