Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

  

Archive 2012 · Canon 400/2.8 NON IS mk I vs II
  
 
SunBlack
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · Canon 400/2.8 NON IS mk I vs II


Hi there, i found an "external well used" but with "glass is clean and clear" 400/2.8 mkI non IS at 3000usd here in Europe.
And a mkII at 5000usd in better external conditions but traces of use are still visible.
Are they right prices?
I think mkII is very overpriced. It should be sold at 3600-3700usd....no?

Everyone says mkII> mkI, but where can I find a decent test between the two versions? MTF, CA, vignetting? It 'was never done such a thing and published on the web?



Oct 02, 2012 at 10:36 PM
Pixel Perfect
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #2 · Canon 400/2.8 NON IS mk I vs II


sportshooter.com is a good source of info on the 400 mk I vs mk II (non IS). The mk II is by ALL reports much better optically. $3K for a mk I seems way over priced. A 300 f/2.8L IS + 1.4x will beat it for IQ easily. It's not much use having f/2.8 if you need to shoot f/4 to get great results. I'd search for a better priced mk II, as I've seen IS versions going for ~$5.7-6.5K


Oct 02, 2012 at 10:52 PM
EB-1
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · Canon 400/2.8 NON IS mk I vs II


The original 400/2.8 was really heavy as well. IIRC it was a repackging of the 1980 FD lens. Get the superior II.

EBH



Oct 02, 2012 at 11:58 PM
Andrew J
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #4 · Canon 400/2.8 NON IS mk I vs II


vII has florite so much less fringing. vI weighs one stone.


Oct 03, 2012 at 12:27 AM
Pixel Perfect
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #5 · Canon 400/2.8 NON IS mk I vs II


Andrew J wrote:
vII has florite so much less fringing. vI weighs one stone.


To be fair though v2 only weighs 200g less and at 5.9kg is a beast. I'd wouldn't be basing my decision on weight that's for sure. Also note both v1 and v2 have 4m mfd compared to 3m on v1 IS and 2.7m n v2 IS



Oct 03, 2012 at 01:39 AM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



SunBlack
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · Canon 400/2.8 NON IS mk I vs II


Pixel Perfect wrote:
A 300 f/2.8L IS + 1.4x will beat it for IQ easily.


Really? cant believe it.....

A right price for mkII? 3600-3700usd ok?



Oct 03, 2012 at 05:13 AM
Pixel Perfect
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #7 · Canon 400/2.8 NON IS mk I vs II


SunBlack wrote:
Really? cant believe it.....

A right price for mkII? 3600-3700usd ok?


I meant it will easily beat a v1 in IQ, not v2 which is on par with the IS version in IQ. Yeah I'd say under $4K for the v2 seems ok.



Oct 03, 2012 at 06:43 AM
Ian.Dobinson
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · Canon 400/2.8 NON IS mk I vs II


I don't know the prices that well, but it seems that $5k (ver2) is a little high. That's about 3.3k here and I've seen more than a couple of mk1 IS 400/2.8's go for only just oer that . All less than 4k

If your looking toward the ver2 then maybe set your sight slightly higher and get the IS



Oct 03, 2012 at 08:09 AM
Ralph Thompson
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #9 · Canon 400/2.8 NON IS mk I vs II


I shoot the non-IS vII, it is a very viable option. Remember that unless you're super human, you shoot it on a monopod which IMO greatly reduces the need for IS. The only downside to this version is the ability to get parts should it ever break.

I use mine for sports, it is an awsome tool. It is my most used lens in my kit. I'm a 55 year old man and I regularly shoot several football games daily and have no problem carrying the lens, is it heavy? Yep compared to other glass... If you can get a good deal on one, I'd do it in a heartbeat.



Oct 04, 2012 at 04:12 PM
Doctorbird
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #10 · Canon 400/2.8 NON IS mk I vs II


Please be aware that Canon warns that using the 1.4X III and 2.0X III extenders on the non IS 400mm f/2.8 lens " ...may result in incorrect autofocus..." and recommends MA with them. This applies to both the I and II versions of the lens.

Db



Oct 08, 2012 at 01:40 AM





FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Retrive password