# 400 mm f/2.8 L Mk I



## charlesa (Jul 1, 2012)

Would like to enquire whether a 5 year old 400 mm f/2.8 L make I (not II) which is in excellent condition is a good deal at 4000 euro, and what is its performance with a 2x TC III on a 1DX, whether images are still sharp.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 1, 2012)

I'd have to think that it's worth it. That is still a very, very good lens if in excellent condition. 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-400mm-f-2.8-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx


----------



## Kernuak (Jul 1, 2012)

charlesa said:


> Would like to enquire whether a 5 year old 400 mm f/2.8 L make I (not II) which is in excellent condition is a good deal at 4000 euro, and what is its performance with a 2x TC III on a 1DX, whether images are still sharp.


That sounds very cheap to me, the cheapest 300 f/2.8 I've seen secondhand in the UK in the last few months was 3300. I can only compare with my 300 f/3.8 with a 2x extender. I've only used the combination a few times, the IQ is definitely reduced, but there is still some sharpness there. It ultimately depends on usage. For prints it should be fine, but I wouldn't want to try using the images commecially (from my 7D anyway). That said, I have never got around to microadjusting and the 1D X IQ should be better also.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 1, 2012)

I don't know the IQ between version I and version II, but if you played it right, you could actually buy the 300 v1 and 400 v1 together for about $9k, vs. both newest versions for $20k. Somehow that has to be worth it, if you can afford it. Saving $11k for possibly marginal savings of IQ?


----------



## Bombsight (Jul 2, 2012)

That is what I'm shooting with.... 400 f2.8 w/2x II .... its sharp!

Search flickr .... there is a "group" with really sharp shots there.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 2, 2012)

Bombsight said:


> That is what I'm shooting with.... 400 f2.8 w/2x II .... its sharp!
> 
> Search flickr .... there is a "group" with really sharp shots there.



Well I'm doing football this fall and I can tell you two things for sure: 1. I am going to have a 400mm f/2.8L IS lens and 2. I'm NOT going to pay $11,400 for one. Those two things are assured.


----------



## eli72 (Jul 2, 2012)

One thing that you may want to check into is the compatibility of the 400 f2.8 MkI and the 2x MkIII converter. Unless I am reading the 2x MkIII manual (http://gdlp01.c-wss.com/gds/8/0300004658/01/extender-ef-2x-iii-en.pdf) wrong, it says "Using an Extender with this lens may result in incorrect autofocus." The 2x MkII manual (http://gdlp01.c-wss.com/gds/0/0300003490/01/extenderef2xii-en.pdf) contains no such warning.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 2, 2012)

eli72 said:


> One thing that you may want to check into is the compatibility of the 400 f2.8 MkI and the 2x MkIII converter. Unless I am reading the 2x MkIII manual (http://gdlp01.c-wss.com/gds/8/0300004658/01/extender-ef-2x-iii-en.pdf) wrong, it says "Using an Extender with this lens may result in incorrect autofocus." The 2x MkII manual (http://gdlp01.c-wss.com/gds/0/0300003490/01/extenderef2xii-en.pdf) contains no such warning.



eli72,

You are absolutely correct in the information you posted. Thanks.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Jul 2, 2012)

First, I have to ask: is this with or without IS? There've been lots of versions of the 400 f/2.8 over the years, and not all have had IS. That's mostly of interest to know whether or not the price is fair.

That writ, even the oldest ones had phenomenal image quality. Of course, it's evolved from phenomenal to magical over the years, but you're certainly not going to be disappointed nor missing out by going with an older model.

What the latest version primarily brought, aside from the higher price tag, is a significantly reduced weight. You can actually hand-hold the new version, though not for a long time. Not so with any other 400 f/2.8, period (unless you're Arnold Schwarzenegger). While you wouldn't want to get the new version with the thought of hand-holding it, it makes a huge difference when hauling it all over the place.

(It's also even better optically and has better IS, but that's just gilding the lilly. The older versions were as close to perfection in those regards as makes no difference.)

But people have been shooting with lead-baloon 400 f/2.8s for as long as there have been 400 f/2.8s, so it's not like it's something that can't be dealt with. The new version is absolutely worth the extra money, but that value is meaningless unless the money is in the budget to consider it as an option in the first place.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 2, 2012)

It's the Mark I, with IS. The previous version prior to the Mark II. 5999 vs. 11,400 is a no brainer. I shoot with a monopod, so I don't need to hand-hold it. But thanks for your insight. Always good to see another perspective.


----------



## pwp (Jul 2, 2012)

At five years old it's going to have IS. But check first. Just remember that until just a few months ago when the 400 f/2.8 II shipped, the 400 f/2.8 MkI was the holy grail of 400mm glass in the Canon Universe. It's a truly fabulous lens. The major benefit of the MkII is a radical weight loss. The MkI is a substantial 11.83lb / 5,370g vs the MkII at a svelte 8.48lb / 3,850g is a whole lot more manageable. But for the price I'd be jumping on it, subject to being in reasonable condition. If the lens does not work for you, you won't lose a penny re-selling it.

PW


----------



## TexPhoto (Jul 2, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> eli72 said:
> 
> 
> > One thing that you may want to check into is the compatibility of the 400 f2.8 MkI and the 2x MkIII converter. Unless I am reading the 2x MkIII manual (http://gdlp01.c-wss.com/gds/8/0300004658/01/extender-ef-2x-iii-en.pdf) wrong, it says "Using an Extender with this lens may result in incorrect autofocus." The 2x MkII manual (http://gdlp01.c-wss.com/gds/0/0300003490/01/extenderef2xii-en.pdf) contains no such warning.
> ...



I have The Mark I IS lens and extender III (1.4X and 2X). They work great together.

Note, there was a Mark I and Mark II version of this lens before the IS versions. I assume your talking about the mark I IS lens because you said 5 years old... Also, The "Mark I" is only called that because the mark II is called/labeled a Mark II. The Mark I does not say Mark I on it.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 2, 2012)

Cool. There were some problems with some lenses, hence the warning. It doesn't mean it WON'T autofocus correctly, it says it MIGHT NOT autofocus correctly. I'm glad that yours works b/c it's a heck of a lot cheaper using an extender than buying the new 600mm lens


----------



## briansquibb (Jul 2, 2012)

I bought a used 400 f/2.8 IS to use on my 7D (now 1D4). It is as good as you get. I have even used it for shows (from the back), shooting wide open - an amazing experience.

It is heavy to use handheld but with care it is possible.

With extenders a tripod/monopod is (realistically) needed. I use a Manfrotto 055PROB with Manfrotto 393 gimbal from 200mm upwards


----------



## mb66energy (Jul 2, 2012)

This is a link to the lens comparison tool of the-digital-picture.com - old 2.8 400 vs new one with 2x TC mk iii :

http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=327&Camera=453&Sample=0FLI=4&API=2&LensComp=741&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0

You can play with parameters like TCs and aperture

These formalized tests are not always the best method to compare two lenses but these reflect my experience with my lenses (just a 5.6 400 in the super tele land) very well.

Best - Michael


----------



## xROELOFx (Jul 2, 2012)

charlesa said:


> Would like to enquire whether a 5 year old 400 mm f/2.8 L make I (not II) which is in excellent condition is a good deal at 4000 euro, and what is its performance with a 2x TC III on a 1DX, whether images are still sharp.


4000 euro seems a good deal to me. perhaps too good. just make sure you test the lens thoroughly, check if the IS still works etc. and you will have a really great lens for a relatively cheap price!

the new version III extenders work really really great. yesterday i used the 2.0X on my 500 f/4 and the images are just amazing. perhaps a little IQ is lost, but with a total reach of 1300mm (500 x 2 x 1.3 cropfactor) it was well worth it! i can imagine the 2.0X would work even better on the 400 f/2.8 because you still have full autofocus.


----------



## FarQinell (Jul 2, 2012)

charlesa said:


> Would like to enquire whether a 5 year old 400 mm f/2.8 L make I (not II) which is in excellent condition is a good deal at 4000 euro, and what is its performance with a 2x TC III on a 1DX, whether images are still sharp.



If the lens is the 400mm f2.8L IS I lens (ie the one behind the latest current version) it looks like good value to me particularly if its from a reputable dealer who should give you 6 months warranty with it. Watch ebay auctions for current valuations!

Downside is the weight but I guess you have already taken this into account.

Upside is that - with the 300mm f2.8 IS I - it is sharp wide open ie better wide open than either the 500/4 I or the 600/4 I - see the ISO 12233 test charts by Brian Carnahan.

It also takes the 1.4XTC II exceptionally well ie a sharp 560mm - surely that's long enough!

Finally when the IS eventually packs in you still have a very useful long lens - because of the extra stop.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jul 2, 2012)

There's a lot of mis-information here in this thread, I'm not pointing the finger at anyone specifically.
There's a number of versions of the Canon 400mm about. The current model is the ef 400mm f2.8 L IS mkII. It's the best of the breed, and the lightests. It has the newest Image Stabiliser.
The old version was the ef 400mm f2.8 L IS and this is optically equal to the current mk II version, but it's a big and heavy beast. Both of these lenses are listed on The Digital Picture lens test web site and can be compared. This lens has an Image Stabiliser. 
The previous version to this was the ef 400mm f2.8 L mk II. This lens doesn't have an image stabiliser and is heaver than the newer versions. It has a Flourite lens element that puts it's IQ into the same league as the latter two lenses. This is an optical peach (as are the other two lenses) but it is a heavy beast and no IS. It's min focus distance isn't as close either.
The oldest version of this lens is the ef 400mm f2.8 L. This lens is the oldest and heaviest 400mm in the Canon EF linage. I can't comment on the optics because I've not used one. Given a choice, I would buy the newest I could afford and I would look for near mint condition. Especially look at the the rear lens mount. If you can see brass, then it's had a hard life.


----------



## xROELOFx (Jul 2, 2012)

GMCPhotographics said:


> There's a number of versions of the Canon 400mm about. The current model is the ef 400mm f2.8 L IS mkII. It's the best of the breed, and the lightests. It has the newest Image Stabiliser.
> The old version was the ef 400mm f2.8 L IS and this is optically equal to the current mk II version, but it's a big and heavy beast. Both of these lenses are listed on The Digital Picture lens test web site and can be compared. This lens has an Image Stabiliser.
> The previous version to this was the ef 400mm f2.8 L mk II. This lens doesn't have an image stabiliser and is heaver than the newer versions. It has a Flourite lens element that puts it's IQ into the same league as the latter two lenses. This is an optical peach (as are the other two lenses) but it is a heavy beast and no IS. It's min focus distance isn't as close either.
> The oldest version of this lens is the ef 400mm f2.8 L. This lens is the oldest and heaviest 400mm in the Canon EF linage


true, but as the OP stated it's a 5 year old 400mm. so i guess it's pretty save to assume he's talking about the EF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM. the 400 f/2.8 non-IS lenses are from 1991 (mk. I) and 1996 (mk. II).


----------



## charlesa (Jul 2, 2012)

I can confirm it is the 400 mm f/2.8 L IS, it is 5 years old so no guarantee with just some wear and tear on the hood and body (it was in use by a sports photographer), the rear mount and front elements are still pristine and the IS works fine, even tested it with the 2x III TC. For 4000 euro it is a no brainer, if it malfunctions I can still get it serviced via CPS I would presume, no? Or since Canon have discontinued the lens now that the Mk II is out, the lens would be difficult to get serviced?


----------



## TexPhoto (Jul 3, 2012)

CPS will fix it for a number of years after it goes out of production, though i don't know how many years that is. And of course other shops will fix it long after that if they can find parts.


----------



## briansquibb (Jul 3, 2012)

I believe that in the EU that have to support it for 7 years after the final production date.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 3, 2012)

I too found a used 400mm f/2.8L IS I lens in pretty decent shape for 5999. Looking forward to using it. There wasn't much brassing if any at all on the mount.


----------



## charlesa (Jul 3, 2012)

Proud owner of 400 mm of prime glass ;D

Can anyone suggest a suitably sturdy monopod.. no way anyone can hand hold such a beast and get half decent shots!


----------



## Joes Dad (Jul 3, 2012)

Gitzo GM5541 with RRS head.


----------



## xROELOFx (Jul 3, 2012)

charlesa said:


> Proud owner of 400 mm of prime glass ;D
> 
> Can anyone suggest a suitably sturdy monopod.. no way anyone can hand hold such a beast and get half decent shots!


congrats!


----------



## charlesa (Jul 3, 2012)

Joes Dad said:


> Gitzo GM5541 with RRS head.



Is a head strictly required or can affix the monopod directly to the lens collar?


----------



## Michael_pfh (Jul 3, 2012)

My 400 mm f/2.8 L Mk I is sharp and I paid less than 4,000 Euro for it.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 3, 2012)

As a poster above said, what if the IS or AF motor does go out on the Mark I? How much pain in the butt would it be to get it fixed by Canon? Either the AF or IS? I've never had that happen in a lens, so I was just curious.


----------



## Kernuak (Jul 3, 2012)

charlesa said:


> Proud owner of 400 mm of prime glass ;D
> 
> Can anyone suggest a suitably sturdy monopod.. no way anyone can hand hold such a beast and get half decent shots!


Most monopods from the high quality manufacturers will cope with a large white. Gitzo tend to be very expensive and their tripods look the part, but I don't think their monopods can command the same superiority, because there are a few decent ones around. I've started steering away form Manfrotto tripods, but their 680B or (681B?) will cope and appears to be better made than their tripods. Also have a look at Giottos, as their tripods are better build quality than Manrotto, so I would expect their monopods to be at teh same level, although I haven't looked at them closely, the Giottos MTL 8261B tripod I have more than copes with my 300 f/2.8 and was much more reasonable than the Gitzo equivalent.


----------



## charlesa (Jul 3, 2012)

Kernuak said:


> charlesa said:
> 
> 
> > Proud owner of 400 mm of prime glass ;D
> ...



I have a Giotto CF tripod which I am very satisfied with, but a 400 mm needs a monopod, or else a gimbal head on a tripod? Although unsure what gimbal to go for, except Wimberley have a good rep with the version II of their head, although have no idea what brackets would be needed for a 400 mm


----------



## Bombsight (Jul 3, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> As a poster above said, what if the IS or AF motor does go out on the Mark I? How much pain in the butt would it be to get it fixed by Canon? Either the AF or IS? I've never had that happen in a lens, so I was just curious.


Cant answer that question ... but want to say thats a good reason to buy the non-IS version if you can find one. Ideally, the newest version of the 400 f/2.8 is best, ... if you can afford it. But when buying only what one can afford and it being older, I think it's best to eliminate the 3-$4000 total loss of a failed IS motor.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Jul 3, 2012)

charlesa said:


> Kernuak said:
> 
> 
> > charlesa said:
> ...



You're right: a 400 needs either a gimbal or a monopod.

The gimbal balances everything around a pivot point such that you can easily, smoothly, and quickly position the rig in any direction with just a single finger -- and it stays pointed in that position without you having to do anything (like tighten a knob) until you push it again.

But a gimbal only works from a fixed position. Moving means you've got to pick up the whole mess and re-level the tripod head at the new position.

A monopod isn't quite as steady as a gimbal, but it's as portable as you could ask for.

And, yes. The Manfrotto monopods work great with a Big White. I use mine with a RSS monopod head (and their replacement foot on the lens).

b&


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 3, 2012)

Bombsight said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > As a poster above said, what if the IS or AF motor does go out on the Mark I? How much pain in the butt would it be to get it fixed by Canon? Either the AF or IS? I've never had that happen in a lens, so I was just curious.
> ...



After looking through 10-12 of these lenses now, hardly any difference in price between IS and non-IS. It's frustrating to have to buy IS because at 400mm I don't need it since I'm on a tripod or monopod with that big tank :


----------



## briansquibb (Jul 3, 2012)

I use a Manfrotto 055PROB and Manfrotto 383 Gimbal - reasonably priced and good.


----------



## charlesa (Jul 8, 2012)

Would it be doable to actually put a Wimberley on a monopod? Sounds strange to me but the thought arose.


----------



## Kernuak (Jul 8, 2012)

charlesa said:


> Kernuak said:
> 
> 
> > charlesa said:
> ...


I wasn't suggesting a tripod, I was using it as an example of quality. However, it does depend on what you're shooting, as to whether a tripod would work with a 400. A pro wildlife photographer I know has a Gitzo trpiod, without a gimbal head and uses a 200-400 with it, he also used a 600 in the past (obviously Nikon). He doesn't tend to shoot birds in flight to any great degree though, mostly being used for land or coastal based wildlife. There are also other heads that could be used instead of a gimbal. A monopod is cheaper than a tripod though and is more flexible in some ways, they are a bit of a pain for birds in flight though.


----------



## charlesa (Jul 8, 2012)

Actually considering a Gitzo monopod with a RRS MH01 head, but as I asked, is it actually possible to put a Wimberley on a monopod?


----------



## TexPhoto (Jul 15, 2012)

I really prefer to not use a head when I use my 400mm 2.8 IS MK I on a monopod. The head is just a wobble point and a little more weight. You twist the camera to vertical in the tripod collar.

IS is awesome on this lens, and if you think you don't need it because you'll be on a tripod, you are wrong. Lenses of this size and focal length wobble on the heaviest and most expensive tripod. If your shooting in bright daylight at 4000 sec, no you don't need it, but I shoot night sports and trust me IS makes a big difference.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 15, 2012)

TexPhoto said:


> I really prefer to not use a head when I use my 400mm 2.8 IS MK I on a monopod. The head is just a wobble point and a little more weight. You twist the camera to vertical in the tripod collar.
> 
> IS is awesome on this lens, and if you think you don't need it because you'll be on a tripod, you are wrong. Lenses of this size and focal length wobble on the heaviest and most expensive tripod. If your shooting in bright daylight at 4000 sec, no you don't need it, but I shoot night sports and trust me IS makes a big difference.



Yes it has turned out to be a great lens. I know I don't need IS when it's on a tripod because I shut it off. No problems.


----------



## Michael_pfh (Jul 15, 2012)

TexPhoto said:


> I really prefer to not use a head when I use my 400mm 2.8 IS MK I on a monopod. The head is just a wobble point and a little more weight. You twist the camera to vertical in the tripod collar.
> 
> IS is awesome on this lens, and if you think you don't need it because you'll be on a tripod, you are wrong. Lenses of this size and focal length wobble on the heaviest and most expensive tripod. If your shooting in bright daylight at 4000 sec, no you don't need it, but I shoot night sports and trust me IS makes a big difference.



I do not use a head when using my 400 2.8L on a monopod, either. Since the lens weighs 6.1kg I prefer to use it on a tripod using a Manfrotto 393. The lens does not wobble on my tripod (Manfrotto cx055pro4).

Of course it would be nice to have IS so that I could use it handheld like my 300 2.8L II but considering the weight I wouldn't do that often anyway...


----------



## gary samples (Jul 15, 2012)

Wimberley version II if you have the money is the only way to go. I love it ! so glad I didn't cheap out .


----------



## charlesa (Mar 11, 2013)

I have an opportunity to sell version 1 of the 400 mm f/2.8 L, at a profit! Not sure whether to go for 400 mm f/2.8 II or 200-400 (but second option entails a wait of n months and a cost of n euro!). Ideas?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 11, 2013)

charlesa said:


> I have an opportunity to sell version 1 of the 400 mm f/2.8 L, at a profit! Not sure whether to go for 400 mm f/2.8 II or 200-400 (but second option entails a wait of n months and a cost of n euro!). Ideas?



Given the choice between a vaporware lens and the 400 II, I'd pick the latter. Unless you require the flexibility of the zoom for framing, the prime will almost certainly offer better IQ and it will be a stop faster, plus you can use a 2x TC if necessary.


----------



## charlesa (Mar 11, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> charlesa said:
> 
> 
> > I have an opportunity to sell version 1 of the 400 mm f/2.8 L, at a profit! Not sure whether to go for 400 mm f/2.8 II or 200-400 (but second option entails a wait of n months and a cost of n euro!). Ideas?
> ...



Thank you neuro, could possibly wait a bit more and see if that 200-400 mm surfaces any time soon, but last I heard photogs at the Olympics had access and the lenses looked close to a final version... but Olympics are now 8 months old and no news of the lens. It would help with the framing as you say, but in the end, a prime is a prime.


----------

