Canon EF 400mm F/2.8L USM Mk II Lens vs. new 400mm F/2.8L IS USM

[jake_crews]

I've been looking into some longer glass and have the opportunity to purchase an

older lens at significant savings over the newer IS model. Everything I've read

has been positive about the older lens (well, if a 30 lb lens is positive!).

Just wanted to get some thoughts from the crowd if any in terms of why saving a

couple thousand dollars would not be wise . . . and opt for the IS lens.

 

Thanks in advance!

 

J

[2yellowdogs]

No reason why saving a couple of thousand $$$ isn't very wise. All you're giving up here is IS. In this kind of long glass, IS is nice, but NOT worth two thousand dollars.

[patrickconnolly]

Assuming that you will not be hand holding the monster, and shutter speed is appropriately fast to freeze the sports action, then yes, it isn't going to be worth the extra money.

[John Crowe]

In my opinion if you are shooting sports you do not need IS. If you are doing sunsets on a tripod or deep in a jungle somewhere then IS could be helpful.

 

 

Heck, I'm shooting sports with a manual focus 400/2.8 and enjoying the incredible results!

[jake_crews]

Thanks for the feedback . . . not to see if I can part with the thousands to get the "cheaper" lens! :)

[discpad]

I agree with all of the above.

 

Looking forward to using my 12 pound 500mm f/5.6 Mamiya 645 lens on my S2 Pro with the Mamiya-Nikon adapter... It looks like the combination will give me about a 1200mm f/5.6 equivalent, for under $700!