# 400mm 2.8 L (non- IS)



## DanoPhoto (Nov 7, 2011)

I have an opportunity to buy a 400mm 2.8 L (non-IS) for $1500 and wanted to get some feedback from some more experienced users. It has cosmetic signs that is has been around the block a few times, but pretty well cared for according tot the seller.

I will probably be using a monopod for sports use and tripod for birds, so the lack of IS does not deeply concern me, especially for the price difference.

Thoughts and advice, please.


----------



## dr croubie (Nov 7, 2011)

I saw one of these a few months ago, it was the non-IS II-version (I was a bit excited because I thought I'd spotted a pre-release of the IS II).
The one thing that would put me off it is the weight:
400/2.8 USM: 6.1kg
400/2.8 USM II: 5.9kg
400/2.8 IS USM: 5.3kg
400/2.8 IS USM II: 3.8kg.

So don't expect it to be hand-holdable, make sure you get a nice Gimbal-head or Physiotherapist. The non-IS versions also use the 48mm drop-in filters, the new ones take 52mm. If you like using CPLs, take that into account because you may or may not be able to find any.

As for the IQ, I have no idea, I've never seen a review (and if there is one around, I'd love to read it). The price sounds very nice, as long as the glass is clean and non-fungal and the aperture works. Is there any way you can test it out before you buy it?
I also wouldn't mind the lack of IS, I'd also be using it wide-open if I could get one. 

hmmm, actually, that price looks very nice, if I had the cash I might even consider out-bidding you on it...


----------



## AprilForever (Nov 7, 2011)

Sounds like a great price!


----------



## ferdi (Nov 7, 2011)

You'd think there is something wrong with the lens if someone sells it for less than $3000. So make sure the front element isn't damaged too much, test the focus speed (time needed to auto-focus from infinity to MFD), focus accuracy (back/front-focus, hunting), and check for any loose parts (shake it).

One reason not to buy it could be because Canon might not service it anymore. The USM motor from the older models is not built anymore so it will be hard to find a replacement if it breaks (and probably expensive to repair as well).

IQ of the non-IS lenses should be excellent, even with extenders.
Note that the MFD is 4 meters, compared to 3 meters in the newer IS versions.
Example thread with images: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=661655


----------



## bycostello (Nov 7, 2011)

never met a seller that hasn't told me it was very well cared for!!!!


----------



## Michael_pfh (Nov 7, 2011)

I bought one of those precious glasses (manufacturing date: 09/1993) about 2 weeks ago for the price of almost 3,000 Euro and I am very happy with it so far. The lack of IS does not disturb me as I have been using it mostly at f/2.8. Since it is very heavy I am either using a monopod or tripod (you can handhold it for just a couple of shots due to its weight). Although having a pro grade Manfrotto carbon fiber tripod and a very good Manfrotto ballhead (incl. panning function) I figured out that this monster lense needs a gimbal head. Will get a Wimberley Sidekick and mount it on my existing ballhead.

My advice is to test the lens carefully, if you think it is in good condition go for it - it's so much fun and such a great offer might not come along a second time...


----------



## DanoPhoto (Nov 7, 2011)

Thanks gang for the experienced feedback that I was lacking.

I will run this thru all of the field tests recommended, as well as, shooting a whole lot of frames for IQ.

Great info and advice about all of the "age related" issues (filters, USM, repairs, etc) that I have thought about but just did not know enough about. Sort of spells out the risk-reward equation a bit more for me.

The extra weight of this lens means that's will need to invest in some more new toys to get the most out of it without feeling like I just went to the gym every time I break it out.

Great help, please give me more, if you have any.

I am always skeptical of offers that appear too good to be true. Caveat emptor is a timeless phrase for a reason.


----------



## ferdi (Nov 7, 2011)

A ballhead can indeed be tricky, if the lens falls forward it might take the tripod with it. The Sidekick is a good choice, don't forget a lens plate.
If you take the lens on an airplane, make sure the bag satisfies the airline carry-on qualification. Most models for the 400 f/2.8 should pass (e.g. Lowepro Vertex 300 or Pro Trekker 400), some will even fit under your seat.
Maybe get some camouflage too for your birding? If the lens is not modded yet that is.

Skepticism can be good, I once nearly drove half the country to get a 400 f/5.6 but the ad was a scam. Never pay a dime before having checked the lens in person.

Correction of myself: 400 f/2.8 IS II has MFD 2700mm.


----------



## Michael_pfh (Nov 7, 2011)

Yes, I will definitely also get a lense plate with the Sidekick. The Wimberley P50 lens plate should fit the 400 2.8L (non-IS), right (probably with an added AP-900)?

By the way, are those 48mm drop-in (polarizing) filters still widely available? My local Canon dealer did only carry the contemporary 52mm version...


----------



## DanoPhoto (Nov 7, 2011)

B&H Photo shows them in stock.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12319-REG/Canon_2582A002_48mm_Drop_in_Holder_with.html


----------



## Michael_pfh (Nov 7, 2011)

Thanks! I might get one then during my next trip to the US.

Found an interesting alternative to the Wimberley Gimbal head / Sidekick on B&H's website:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/554099-REG/Manfrotto_393_393_Heavy_Duty_Gimbal.html


----------



## briansquibb (Nov 7, 2011)

dr croubie said:


> So don't expect it to be hand-holdable



Well I hand hold my 400 f/2.8IS all day......


----------



## Caps18 (Nov 7, 2011)

I wonder how it would do as a 800mm f/5.6? Does it have auto-focus?

You need my tripod and Wimberly swivel...


----------



## ferdi (Nov 7, 2011)

Michael_pfh said:


> Yes, I will definitely also get a lense plate with the Sidekick. The Wimberley P50 lens plate should fit the 400 2.8L (non-IS), right (probably with an added AP-900)?


The P-50 fits most Canon lenses from 300 to 800mm, so you can share it among lenses. See also Popular Lenses and Their Suggested Plates & Hardware.
According to the compatibility guide you indeed need the AP-900 to mount the 400 f/2.8 on the Sidekick.


----------



## briansquibb (Nov 7, 2011)

Caps18 said:


> I wonder how it would do as a 800mm f/5.6? Does it have auto-focus?
> 
> You need my tripod and Wimberly swivel...



As an 800? Shutter speed at 1/1000 and away you go.

Of course it has autofocus!

Have a Manfrotto 393 gimbal for taking landscapes with it.


----------



## TexPhoto (Nov 8, 2011)

Sounds like a great price if it's in good shape. 

I have the IS V1, and love it. You should pick up the 1.4X and/or 2.0X teleconverters. I have both V IIs of these, and they give you a whole lot of flexibility. IS is really nice, but paying for it is really not!


----------



## Michael_pfh (Nov 8, 2011)

My canon dealer told me that even the 2.0x MkIII should work perfectly with the 400mm 2.8 L (non- IS). 
I got the 1.4x MkII and it works fine.


----------



## DanoPhoto (Nov 10, 2011)

Thought I would share some closure to this thread...

Checked out the lens in person (well worth the 3 hour drive) and did not like what I saw. Cosmetic appearance aside, the glass had a sheen/fog to it that did not look right and it "felt" gritty wehn focusing. Did the recommended "shake test", but did not hear anything.

Did not need ot go beyond the physical inspection to know this was (probably) not going to turn out well in the end.

When I do buy my fist "great white" super tele, I want it to feel right.

Thanks for all of the great advise and helping me avoid a (potentially) costly lesson.


----------



## TexPhoto (Nov 10, 2011)

That is a shame, but good you did not get something you did not want. Think about a 300mm f4 IS as a way to get your feet wet in the long side of the L world. I kept mine after getting my 400, and it is a great little brother.


----------



## ferdi (Nov 10, 2011)

That's too bad.
Fog can mean there's water or fungus in it. If not serviced in time then it will cause corrosion and malfunctions.
You could try to dry it yourself with silica in an airtight box (which can take a few days), but since turning the focus ring feels gritty it might already be too late.


----------

