that looks much better now. Hope that's the end of travels for the lens.
Out of interest how much has it cost you to get the lens upto this point (repairs & transport not the purchase of the lens)?
Well I was shipping it from where I work so it'd be more expensive if I walked into a UPS store or something with it but shipping through our system was $6.50 (x2), Mark waived the initial $50 repair invoice, but I'm a little surprised that he has now sent an invoice along with the lens for $200. Seems a little steep to me, but atleast it's fixed.
I now have to decide if it's worth hauling the lens around at races for a 100mm advantage over the 300 2.8 IS I just bought. I feel like every time I pick up the 400 with the camera on it I'm surprised just how heavy the thing is.
That certainly looks like it's fixed now. The original shots (when it was broken) are very similar to the results my 600/4 is giving me. I'd more or less written it off after Canon tech send it back with a PNLA note but maybe it's worth me sending it to an independant service centre in the UK.
PierreB wrote:
That certainly looks like it's fixed now. The original shots (when it was broken) are very similar to the results my 600/4 is giving me. I'd more or less written it off after Canon tech send it back with a PNLA note but maybe it's worth me sending it to an independant service centre in the UK.
Most definitely!
I'm not sure what it's like in the UK, but I found MANY many shops that work on these lenses across the US.
Will Patterson wrote:
I'd put money on a loose/dislodged lens group or element like mine.
The images certainly look very similar to your duck shots. Kinda in focus but with a fuzzy shift. I haven't used it in ages - I've been 'making do' with a 400/2.8 + 1.4X but if it ever stops raining here, I'll take a few test shots and post them up here.
Will I'm really glad you got that squared away. As to whether to bring your 300/f2.8 or the 400/f2.8, the way I look at it is if there's a LOT of walking to be done then I bring the 300. Otherwise the 400 is the shizzle.
Will Patterson wrote:
I now have to decide if it's worth hauling the lens around at races for a 100mm advantage over the 300 2.8 IS I just bought. I feel like every time I pick up the 400 with the camera on it I'm surprised just how heavy the thing is.
5 years ago I switched from the 300/2.8 to the 400/2.8 for all field sports. Yes, the 400 seemed a bit heavy at first and framing was tigher. Is it worth it for 100mm? Absolutely yes! Despite the added weight I would never go back to the 300 for field sports. The images from the 400 are in a completely different league.
John--G wrote:
5 years ago I switched from the 300/2.8 to the 400/2.8 for all field sports. Yes, the 400 seemed a bit heavy at first and framing was tigher. Is it worth it for 100mm? Absolutely yes! Despite the added weight I would never go back to the 300 for field sports. The images from the 400 are in a completely different league.
While I would most definitely use it for field sports, I will be using it mostly for racing, I'm aiming next for the Daytona 24 Hour event in January, and that's a 3 day event basically that I'd have to haul stuff around at. And it's a very big track. This past January we did a TON of walking and I'm not sure how well I'd deal with having the 400mm anchor with me. I'm definitely not in one spot the whole time, I'll spend maybe a 15-20 minutes in each position.
It's something I do need to consider. Plus, I'll be using one or the other at other races coming up where again I'd be doing a lot of walking. Maybe I just need to buy a scooter, heh.
Well as far as weight. The original 400 mkI weighs 13.44lbs the mkII weighs 13lbs so barely any difference, and the latest IS version comes in at 11.83lbs so a pretty noticeable weight savings in my opinion.
I'm glad to see that you did finally get everything figured out, and frankly I'm a little surprised canon wasn't even willing to offer suggestions of what to do, they basically just told you to piss off.
If you find that the 100mm you gain from the lens suits your shooting style, then it makes the most sense to keep that bad boy (especially since it's super sharp and accurate now) If not. save your back and shoulders and keep your 300 f/2.8
