Canon 400/2.8 NON IS mk I vs II
/forum/topic/1154043/0



SunBlack
Registered: Nov 19, 2006
Total Posts: 239
Country: Italy

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?



Pixel Perfect
Registered: Aug 16, 2004
Total Posts: 19852
Country: Australia

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



EB-1
Registered: Jan 09, 2003
Total Posts: 22604
Country: United States

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



Andrew J
Registered: Mar 20, 2006
Total Posts: 3457
Country: United States

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



Pixel Perfect
Registered: Aug 16, 2004
Total Posts: 19852
Country: Australia

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



SunBlack
Registered: Nov 19, 2006
Total Posts: 239
Country: Italy

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?



Pixel Perfect
Registered: Aug 16, 2004
Total Posts: 19852
Country: Australia

SunBlack wrote:
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?


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.



Ian.Dobinson
Registered: Feb 18, 2007
Total Posts: 11745
Country: United Kingdom

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



Ralph Thompson
Registered: Jan 02, 2008
Total Posts: 1237
Country: United States

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.



Doctorbird
Registered: Jul 02, 2012
Total Posts: 651
Country: United States

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