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?

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

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

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

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

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?

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.

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

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.

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