I must admit I don't troll the BS board as much as I use to, but I have recently been kicking around the idea of selling my 400. I did a quick search to see what they were selling for on the BS forum. To my surprise there are some very low (IMO) listed or sold 400s on the board. I've alway felt like glass and especially premium glass held their value very well. My question is what has happened that I missed a 12k lens selling for 8k in excellent condition is ridiculously low for a high end lens. Is the camera economy that bad off? I could see these prices if a new V2 was around the corner but really don't see anything pushing the price down so much.
I personally know a lot of people who sold their 400s for the 300GM. May be a more of them on the market and less demand because of the price and performance of the 300GM.
That's an interesting point about the 300GM. I know it's a fantastic lens but I can't believe it could ever replace the 400 for IQ. Granted I don't have one or used one for that matter, but will never believe that it can replace a pure 400. Similarly I can't see a 400 + TC replacing a 600 F4.
Yeah, I would guess that if for example you own a 600mm f/4, then a 300 provides a clearer alternative role to it (in both framing and portability) than the 400 does, so some people with both might be offloading their 400s.
And I don't know that 12K --> 8K is such a shocking loss of value for one of these supertele primes. Is this not the kind of price that Canon's lenses fetch too? And didn't most of the people selling their 400s now buy them when they cost 1K less new (11k-ish?), pre-inflation? I don't know, but it's the impression I had. I am sure I saw prices around the 8k mark for used current-gen Sony and/or Canon 400 2.8s already a year or two ago, so I don't think it's just about the new 300 2.8. I think it's just that people expect a used lens to cost significantly less than a new lens.. I think they won't drop far below that 8K price, because they're powerful, capable lenses and that's a fair price... but there's usually a big bite taken out of the value of a lens once it has a previous owner, even if it's a very special lens. And thank heavens for that, because some of us would never own the fancier lenses without that difference! For me, a one-generation-older 400 2.8 was the best I could manage, and that was because it was one more significant step below in price: where the current-gen 400s are/were 8K used at the time, a Canon 400 2.8 IS II (which is only worse in weight than the current gen... IQ is fully identical) was under £5000 used.
GHarris wrote:
Yeah, I would guess that if for example you own a 600mm f/4, then a 300 provides a clearer alternative role to it (in both framing and portability) than the 400 does, so some people with both might be offloading their 400s.
And I don't know that 12K --> 8K is such a shocking loss of value for one of these supertele primes. Is this not the kind of price that Canon's lenses fetch too? And didn't most of the people selling their 400s now buy them when they cost 1K less new (11k-ish?), pre-inflation? I don't know, but it's the impression I had. I am sure I saw prices around the 8k mark for used current-gen Sony and/or Canon 400 2.8s already a year or two ago, so I don't think it's just about the new 300 2.8. I think it's just that people expect a used lens to cost significantly less than a new lens.. I think they won't drop far below that 8K price, because they're powerful, capable lenses and that's a fair price... but there's usually a big bite taken out of the value of a lens once it has a previous owner, even if it's a very special lens. And thank heavens for that, because some of us would never own the fancier lenses without that difference!...Show more →
Thanks for that perspective. My limited data point was 2.5 year ago when I purchased my 400 new from BH, I was looking for a used one and 10k was the absolute lowest I saw and frankly that lens was heavily used. I get your point on taking a hit on purchasing new though. When I first got into photography 8ish years ago, the overall sentiment was, glass will hold its value vs cameras. I still feel like that is for the most part true but the delta has narrowed much more than I expected.
People get bored with what have; the grass may be greener over there. Plus the 400 f2.8 is heavy and many of the folks which can afford it are aging out.
Most lenses seem to hold at 2/3 retail, across the board. And the 400 is waaay too heavy imo. The 300 is less than half the weight, which is a massive. That doesn't help the 400.
WOW. $8k for the 400GM is a STEAL. The 300/2.8 is too short for a full-size field, so it's not a replacement. Yes, you can use a TC but for night games every stop matters and f/4 is not an option. The only lens that may convince me to sell my 400/2.8 one day is a 400/2.8+TC, but I'm not sure if Sony will ever make one.
Resell of lenses in excellent condition from the first owner almost always brings about 30% loss in price nowadays.There are only a very few brands and single pieces of optics that do not follow this rule (like Leica M for example).
I used to own the 400mm and it was amazing. Such beautiful images, but even though it is light for a 400mm, it is still a big and heavy lens. If you don't need that reach (400mm is a compromise: too short for a lot of non-field sports subjects, and a little too long for others), the 300mm gives you 95% of the look of the 400mm for half the price, half the size, and most importantly, half the weight. I also find it to be even sharper. I can fit the 300mm in a regular camera backpack and still have room for another body and a few more primes. So I think the earlier posts about a lot of people shifting to the 300mm are probably accurate. Usually these big primes don't drop a lot in price until a newer version comes out, but I don't see Sony releasing a new 400mm any time soon. In comparison, the 600mm still seems to be holding its own.
Another very important difference is that the 300GM works great with both the 1.4 and 2x TCs...where the 400GM does not play nicely with the 2x taking away some value . With the 300GM you have a very nice 300 2.8, 420 f4, 600 5.6. all configurations produce excellent output with minimal image or AF degradation making this lens somewhat unique.
nhmorgan wrote:
I used to own the 400mm and it was amazing. Such beautiful images, but even though it is light for a 400mm, it is still a big and heavy lens. If you don't need that reach (400mm is a compromise: too short for a lot of non-field sports subjects, and a little too long for others), the 300mm gives you 95% of the look of the 400mm for half the price, half the size, and most importantly, half the weight. I also find it to be even sharper. I can fit the 300mm in a regular camera backpack and still have room for another body and a few more primes. So I think the earlier posts about a lot of people shifting to the 300mm are probably accurate. Usually these big primes don't drop a lot in price until a newer version comes out, but I don't see Sony releasing a new 400mm any time soon. In comparison, the 600mm still seems to be holding its own. ...Show more →
docusync wrote:
WOW. $8k for the 400GM is a STEAL. The 300/2.8 is too short for a full-size field, so it's not a replacement. Yes, you can use a TC but for night games every stop matters and f/4 is not an option. The only lens that may convince me to sell my 400/2.8 one day is a 400/2.8+TC, but I'm not sure if Sony will ever make one.
I am seeing used 400GMs for $12k CAD in Toronto. On MPB, they go for about $10k USD, but MPB and similar websites are marked up a bit.
Maxxus46 wrote:
Another very important difference is that the 300GM works great with both the 1.4 and 2x TCs...where the 400GM does not play nicely with the 2x taking away some value . With the 300GM you have a very nice 300 2.8, 420 f4, 600 5.6. all configurations produce excellent output with minimal image or AF degradation making this lens somewhat unique.
Can confirm. The 400 does not play well with the 2x for whatever reason.
I do think that the 300+600 combo is perfect. While I love the 400 I use(d) it a lot less than the 600 mainly because it was just as heavy and didn't do well with the 2x, so it was really just a 400/560 that had better close focus than the 600. The 300 has even better close focus and can be used as a 300/420/600 as you pointed out. Extremely versatile--and so much smaller and lighter.
Thanks for all the replies. Everything said above makes sense. For me the 300 is in a very weird range. I don’t see much need in a prime 300. Maybe if Sony came out with a 100-300 f2.8 I could agree with the tc argument. But for field sports 400 can actually be a little short depending on your shooting location.
Nate9982 wrote:
Thanks for all the replies. Everything said above makes sense. For me the 300 is in a very weird range. I don’t see much need in a prime 300. Maybe if Sony came out with a 100-300 f2.8 I could agree with the tc argument. But for field sports 400 can actually be a little short depending on your shooting location.
I just spent 5 days in Etosha, Namibia. Having both 300 and 420 was a fantastic asset. 420 was too much range for some of it. It is much smaller and less than half the weight. The 400 is a nonstarter to me.
I do this for enjoyment, not work. Photography is mostly hobbyists these days.
There are still some clear reasons why someone would want a 400 2.8 over the smaller lighter 300 2.8. The wide aperture for indoor sports or mammals or birds in the forest are a clear plus of the 400 2.8.The ability to shoot birds in flight at 800 5.6 whereas the 600 f/4 would be too long for some applications. The 400 2.8 is not crazy heavy can still carried on my shoulder for most of the day, its a lot lighter that the older Canon and Nikon lenses. If your going to own both the 300 2.8 and 600 4 I can see this being a winning combo but how many people would actually carry both, say on a safari trip, or international birding trip.
docusync wrote:
WOW. $8k for the 400GM is a STEAL. The 300/2.8 is too short for a full-size field, so it's not a replacement. Yes, you can use a TC but for night games every stop matters and f/4 is not an option. The only lens that may convince me to sell my 400/2.8 one day is a 400/2.8+TC, but I'm not sure if Sony will ever make one.
Pretty much agree. For college and pro sports, 400 is a better option. If you are shooting HS football and are able to follow the action up and down the field, the 300 is great for it's weight as you can shoot monopod free and probably follow the action a bit more accurately and quickly. The 300's probably also better for soccer if shooting from the endline and mostly shooting stuff inside the 18 where the 400 is often too tight unless you are shooting 2 bodies, etc. Anything outside the 18 and the 400 for the clear win. For baseball, 300 is barely enough depending on shooting locations but then again, sometimes, the 400 is too tight for some action. If you add in TC's, the 300 is probably fine for day games. For basketball, it might be a better option, especially considering the size of 300 is so nice for tight quarters on the baseline. I hate my 400 with TCs.
I don't see selling my 400 anytime soon, but I can see where the budget limited folks could make it work and it could even be a bit better in some situations. If Sony had a 120-300 2.8 that took TC's really well, the 400 could be in trouble.
maholyoak wrote:
There are still some clear reasons why someone would want a 400 2.8 over the smaller lighter 300 2.8. The wide aperture for indoor sports or mammals or birds in the forest are a clear plus of the 400 2.8.The ability to shoot birds in flight at 800 5.6 whereas the 600 f/4 would be too long for some applications. The 400 2.8 is not crazy heavy can still carried on my shoulder for most of the day, its a lot lighter that the older Canon and Nikon lenses. If your going to own both the 300 2.8 and 600 4 I can see this being a winning combo but how many people would actually carry both, say on a safari trip, or international birding trip. ...Show more →
Ha-ha I remember handheld shooting the EF 600/4 II which is 4.2kg+ alone I believe. Plus the 1dx2 which was another 1.5 kilo. That rig *was* heavy. Now, 3kg for the 400/2.8 + 700g for the camera is a very different story... I posted here already - a small carbon fiber vertical handle helps a lot. Just a couple of weeks ago I had to shoot 3 MLS Next games side by side, all handheld - no complains.
maholyoak wrote:
There are still some clear reasons why someone would want a 400 2.8 over the smaller lighter 300 2.8. The wide aperture for indoor sports or mammals or birds in the forest are a clear plus of the 400 2.8.The ability to shoot birds in flight at 800 5.6 whereas the 600 f/4 would be too long for some applications. The 400 2.8 is not crazy heavy can still carried on my shoulder for most of the day, its a lot lighter that the older Canon and Nikon lenses. If your going to own both the 300 2.8 and 600 4 I can see this being a winning combo but how many people would actually carry both, say on a safari trip, or international birding trip. ...Show more →
I have the 200-600 on one camera and 300 on another here. Again, the 400 is just not a comfortable weight to handhold for long periods of time. Are people going to use a tripod in the forest?
While driving for a week in Etosha, I had both of these lenses, with a camera each, on my lap, while being the driver.
The 600 makes sense for people staying near their home or doing road trips, oe use a tripod, for birding..but some people here on FM seem to prefer the 300 +2x tc. I stopped doing birding at home, and hate tripods.
