After a lot of thinking, I bit the bullet and sold my EF 400 f/2.8L IS & EF 600mm f/4L IS to afford the ludicrously expensive EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II. So far I am very impressed. It is noticeably sharper edge-to-edge than the previous version and is very hand hold-able. Something I also immediately appreciated is the rotation lens mount has been redesigned. Lens rotation is now butter smooth when a 1D body is attached.

Here are a few samples I've taken with it using a 1D Mk IV:

#1

Great shots. I guess the question is now what are you going to sell to get the 600II?

jcmedeiros wrote:
After a lot of thinking, I bit the bullet and sold my EF 400 f/2.8L IS & EF 600mm f/4L IS to afford the ludicrously expensive EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II.Jay Medeiros


Wow....two great lenses exchanged for one somewhat greater lens....
Jay, you must have wanted that 400 II real bad . Good looking pictures those are.

The unfortunate thing is that the demand for 400 f/2.8 IS MkI and 600 f/4 IS MkI has not been very good, compared to 500 f/4 IS MkI where the prices have scyrocketed lately.
I've been trying to sell my 400 f/2.8 IS MkI for some time now, and although the price is currently at the level I am not totally happy with, there are no local takers. It looks like I will either end up keeping the lens, or give it to Henry's as a trade in for something else.

What is the current level for the 400 2.8 IS Version 1?

PetKal wrote:
jcmedeiros wrote:
After a lot of thinking, I bit the bullet and sold my EF 400 f/2.8L IS & EF 600mm f/4L IS to afford the ludicrously expensive EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II.Jay Medeiros


Wow....two great lenses exchanged for one somewhat greater lens....
Jay, you must have wanted that 400 II real bad . Good looking pictures those are.


It was certainly a tough decision - a lot of hand-wringing. I'd liken the improvement in sharpness and IQ to the 70-200 IS II vs. 70-200 IS I. It is very noticeable to me. Also, the ability to hand hold the 400 II is something I really need. I do a lot of panning in my motorsports photography. The IS is also quite amazing in the 400 II.

Yaryman wrote:
What is the current level for the 400 2.8 IS Version 1?

See here.

Great shots , Jay! I enjoy mine as well although I don't shoot sport but I like the shallow depth of field that lens can deliver for wildlife. It is a little too short for small birds, I admit, but plenty for cranes, etc.

arbitrage wrote:
I guess the question is now what are you going to sell to get the 600II?

One of my kidneys.... I am not even sure about the price level for that. Still in working condition, too .

Peter, you are selling yours, I notice. What's up with that ?

Sorry for reposting the images .

PetKal wrote:
Yaryman wrote:
What is the current level for the 400 2.8 IS Version 1?

See here.

Try taking other forms of payment and shipping to N.A.!!!

I was referring to the Mark II version in my post above:
See here. Are you selling both or just one or the other, whichever sells first? I agree with John about accepting a different method of payment.

AGeoJO wrote:
Are you selling both or just one or the other, whichever sells first?

Joshua, I'd like to eliminate duplications in my lens collection, however, I can also live with keeping both of those superb lenses.

Caution :
Canon Upgrades are hazzardous to your health and wallet.
IS Mark 3 lenes are in the works ...

clicking on this thread was a bad idea.... great images Jay & Joshua!

I wasn't sure I needed/wanted this lens until I saw these pictures on my "new" (Mk III) iPad. That the difference in IQ is so evident even in this, compromised, format means that this is an exceptional lens.
It is, especially, notable that the OP doesn't regret his decision to exchange two ultimate Great Whites for just one Mk II. This is why I read the FM Forum!

will be interesting to see the results of a 400mkII with 2x teleconverter vs 500mkII with 1.4x teleconverter in a few months hopefully!

about to head to the Canon site to see exact specs, but i'm assuming the 500mkII + 1.4x will still be considerably lighter, but if the image quality is at all comparable, the 400mkII makes an interesting case..

kaycephoto wrote:
will be interesting to see the results of a 400mkII with 2x teleconverter vs 500mkII with 1.4x teleconverter in a few months hopefully!

about to head to the Canon site to see exact specs, but i'm assuming the 500mkII + 1.4x will still be considerably lighter, but if the image quality is at all comparable, the 400mkII makes an interesting case as the bare lens is still a more useful prime for me (and for most) than the 500f4


It looks like they've shaved 1.5 lb off the 500 IS II

A couple more from the 400 IS II - it really shines for baseball:

#1 Auburn signee Trey Wingenter deals in round one of the AHSAA Class 6A playoffs

Congrats on your new lens, Jay.
It really takes guts to sell a 400 v1 and 600 v1 for a 400 v2.
Glad to hear you are enjoying it.

You did, however, say something that surprised me.
You said that the new lens is "noticeably sharper edge-to-edge than the previous version".
Noticeably is a strong word, specially considering the previous lens was already incredibly sharp and, well, I was under the assumption that the improvements were in weight, handling, IS and AF, not much in terms of IQ. I guess a little improvement (perhaps more with TC) could be somewhat expected, but not a considerable one.

Could you please elaborate a little on that?
TIA.

fraga wrote:
Congrats on your new lens, Jay.
It really takes guts to sell a 400 v1 and 600 v1 for a 400 v2.
Glad to hear you are enjoying it.

You did, however, say something that surprised me.
You said that the new lens is "noticeably sharper edge-to-edge than the previous version".
Noticeably is a strong word, specially considering the previous lens was already incredibly sharp and, well, I was under the assumption that the improvements were in weight, handling, IS and AF, not much in terms of IQ. I guess a little improvement (perhaps more with TC) could be somewhat expected, but not a considerable one.

Could you please elaborate a little on that?
TIA.

Perhaps I used too strong a word, especially given the ridiculous cost delta. I've shot thousands of images with a 400 IS I and was never disappointed. I've certainly not done any exhaustive side-by-side scientific testing to validate my assertion.

If you have used a 70-200 IS I and II, the improvement to my eye at least is similar.

jcmedeiros wrote:
If you have used a 70-200 IS I and II, the improvement to my eye at least is similar.

That sort of a comparison hinges on the quality of particular lens copies we happen to own.
My old 70-200 f/2.8 IS MkI was mediocre at best, therefore the sharpness jump to 70-200 f/2.8 IS MkII was significant.

However, my 400 f/2.8 IS MkI is a beautifully performing lens, and I'd be hard pressed to sign on the statement that my 400 II has better IQ, although it is just possible that my 400 II has a very slight sharpness edge which in practice has little consequence. In addition, both lenses have a very fast AF drive, just that they are tuned differently, therefore a direct comparison is not straightforward.

PetKal wrote:
jcmedeiros wrote:
If you have used a 70-200 IS I and II, the improvement to my eye at least is similar.

That sort of a comparison hinges on the quality of particular lens copies we happen to own.
My old 70-200 f/2.8 IS MkI was mediocre at best, therefore the sharpness jump to 70-200 f/2.8 IS MkII was significant.

However, my 400 f/2.8 IS MkI is a beautifully performing lens, and I'd be hard pressed to sign on the statement that my 400 II has better IQ, although it is just possible that my 400 II has a very slight sharpness edge which in practice has little consequence. In addition, both lenses have a very fast AF drive, just that they are tuned differently, therefore a direct comparison is not straightforward.

My 70-200 I was the finest zoom lens I had ever used or owned prior to obtaining the 70-200 IS II. My 400 IS I was also very very good. It didn't focus as fast as my 300 2.8 IS and wasn't as sharp as my 200 1.8 or have the IQ of my 135 but that is no surprise to anyone who's used or owned these lenses.

It is hard for me to see how Canon could improve on what they have accomplished in the 400 IS II but I'm certain they will.