Annnnnd UPS screws me again. It's after 4:00, midstate closes at 4:00 today, and they never delivered the package. Tracking info still says "out for delivery."
%(*# YOU UPS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Will Patterson wrote:
Annnnnd UPS screws me again. It's after 4:00, midstate closes at 4:00 today, and they never delivered the package. Tracking info still says "out for delivery."
%(*# YOU UPS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
how was UPS supposed to know that they close at 4?
Has anyone tested the Mk I, Mk II, IS version, maybe the FD version against each other in a controlled test?
I see all these "the lens better/worse than" comments all the time. But are there any tests to support these claims? I find many such statements are made by guys who have paid extra for the newer version.
Look at all the fast 85/1.2 lenses since the old SSC version: there really is not a ton of IQ difference between them.
I set to upgrading my 16-35 from Mk I to Mk II. Before selling my Mk I I did some tripod tests, shooting a brick house at f/2.8 and f/11 and was surprised at how little difference there was in IQ.
Photo - I agree. I usually find that it is people trying to justify to themselves and others why they paid much more for a newer or different copy of the lens when there is very little to no difference in IQ.
Will Patterson wrote:
Photo - I agree. I usually find that it is people trying to justify to themselves and others why they paid much more for a newer or different copy of the lens when there is very little to no difference in IQ.
Sometimes the differences lie else where...AF or IS implementation for example. Factory servicing may be a good reason as well...
Too bad about the woes for the OP though. There must something major wrong with it, impact damage perhaps?
I have one of the latter EF 400/2.8 L mk I lenses. I have taken good care of it over the years. I have shot football, baseball, golf, tennis, track, hydro racing, gymnastics, eagles nesting etc with it. Its always been a great performer for me. I have owned two 400/2.8 lenses, the other being the Pentax A* 400/2.8 ED (fabulous glass), and love the look. I find the 400 snaps in focus faster than the 300's I have tried, less subject hunting I guess.
PhotoMaximum wrote:
Has anyone tested the Mk I, Mk II, IS version, maybe the FD version against each other in a controlled test?
I see all these "the lens better/worse than" comments all the time. But are there any tests to support these claims? I find many such statements are made by guys who have paid extra for the newer version.
Look at all the fast 85/1.2 lenses since the old SSC version: there really is not a ton of IQ difference between them.
I set to upgrading my 16-35 from Mk I to Mk II. Before selling my Mk I I did some tripod tests, shooting a brick house at f/2.8 and f/11 and was surprised at how little difference there was in IQ.
Not exactly as you request, but I have sequentially owned all three versions of the EF 400 2.8. Therefore my opinion is based on my results as I 'upgraded' from one to the next. My observation at each upgrade was that I saw the greatest difference going from the Mk I to the II. Between the II and IS there was very little optical difference. The Mk I can be OK, but it's not quite as sharp wide open and has somewhat less contrast. It really loses though once you add TCs.
By no means did I upgrade just because a Mk II version appeared. I upgraded from the Mk I to the II because the results I consistently got on slide film were technically inferior to what a friend produced at the time with the Nikon AF-I 400 2.8 at the same events. My upgrade from the II to the IS was forced due to an issue with mold growing in the II, otherwise I probably would have kept it a few years longer. I was not unhappy with the II.
While it should be possible to find 'good' copies of the Mk I, the issue seems to be greater inconsistency between copies than with the II or IS. I shoot a lot of pro sports, and have done so for over 15 years. Along the way I've talked to a lot of high calibre sports photographers and can't think of anyone who has ever complained of IQ issues with either the II or IS versions. But in regards to the Mk I, I know some who swear by it and others like me who were absolutely not impressed with it in comparison to the equivalent Nikkor at the time (or compared to the EF 300 2.8, 500 4.5, 600...). This to me, if I was in the market to buy a used Mk I, would be a warning sign...
You don't have to believe me because all I can offer is anecdotal evidence, just like so many others, but you shouldn't assume that because other Mk I to Mk II upgrades weren't that dramatic (and you quote the one that had probably the least changed optically), that it would apply to all Canon lenses. The 16-35 is one where I did see noticeable differences at f/5.6 to wide open, with better sharpness and micro contrast in the II. At f/8 and higher there is very little difference. Other examples of noticeable change (improvement): the 24 f/1.4 Mk I vs. II, the TS-E 24 Mk I vs. II and the 14L Mk I vs. II...
Regarding my earlier comment on the previous page: I must have missed the fact that the lens in question did at one point produce sharp results for the OP. My mistake. But I still stand by my opinion on the Mk I vs. II and IS as being generally an optically inferior option, especially considering that this type of lens will mostly be used at f/2.8, the weak point for the Mk I.
PhotoMaximum wrote:
Has anyone tested the Mk I, Mk II, IS version, maybe the FD version against each other in a controlled test?
I see all these "the lens better/worse than" comments all the time. But are there any tests to support these claims? I find many such statements are made by guys who have paid extra for the newer version.
Look at all the fast 85/1.2 lenses since the old SSC version: there really is not a ton of IQ difference between them.
I set to upgrading my 16-35 from Mk I to Mk II. Before selling my Mk I I did some tripod tests, shooting a brick house at f/2.8 and f/11 and was surprised at how little difference there was in IQ.
anyway between a 300 2.8 non-IS and IS there is a difference but it is very small and the non-IS is still better than almost any other lens out there
same for 400 2.8 MkII compared to the 2.8 IS, 2.8 IS is better but it is a minor little difference, more important are addition of IS, lighter weight, repairability, there are some claims the IS might focus a little better or faster on a top level 1 series i don't know, the non-IS certain seemed pretty fast
but again the difference is generally extremely minor and a 300 2.8 non-IS and 400 2.8 MkII should blow you out of the water and both are noticeably better than a sigma 120-300, etc.
where there is some more noticeable difference (and some MTF charts seem to bear this out) is between the 400 2.8 MkI and MkII (although even the MkI is hardly a bad lens and should NOT perform remotely like the samples provided above, it should still be in roughly at the bottom of the upper tier of lenses as opposed to at the top of the upper tier, but that still isn't bad)
Just spoke with Mark at Midstate, he says two things would cause this issue, one being the camera mount being out of alignment but mine is fine, and the second is the 2nd element just inside the lens which is part of the focusing group, sometimes a retaining collar ring comes loose, letting that element come out of alignment. He said that is also fine on my lens.
So, he is going to tighten a few other things, take out the front element and blow it out, but really he's saying that he can't figure out what the problem is and will be shipping it back to me. He did say that he definitely noticed the lens being blurry at f/2.8 and getting better as it was stopped down, too.
I guess if I get it back and it's no better I'll send it somewhere else. Otherwise it's a $2500 paper weight.
Will Patterson wrote:
Just spoke with Mark at Midstate, he says two things would cause this issue, one being the camera mount being out of alignment but mine is fine, and the second is the 2nd element just inside the lens which is part of the focusing group, sometimes a retaining collar ring comes loose, letting that element come out of alignment. He said that is also fine on my lens.
So, he is going to tighten a few other things, take out the front element and blow it out, but really he's saying that he can't figure out what the problem is and will be shipping it back to me. He did say that he definitely noticed the lens being blurry at f/2.8 and getting better as it was stopped down, too.
I guess if I get it back and it's no better I'll send it somewhere else. Otherwise it's a $2500 paper weight....Show more →
Sorry Will, that really sucks. Let us know if you find any resolution to this issue.
Thanks Beau. This is my first "big white", one I've wanted for a long time, I do hope it'll work out. If midstate can't do it, I'll try midwest camera, they had emailed me before I shipped it to midstate saying that they can work on it as well.
Will Patterson wrote:
This is my first "big white", one I've wanted for a long time, I do hope it'll work out.
So do we.
I'm still seeking a 400/2.8 - came close several times to clicking the button for this one. But unfortunately, I think I'm actually going to need to find a cheaper one that's even uglier and riskier to gamble on. So I appreciate all of the info, resources, and results that you're sharing.
how was UPS supposed to know that they close at 4?
