Used lens advice - Canon 400 MM 2.8

[sheryl_bury_michals]

<p>My birthday is coming up - and I wanted to treat myself to a lens upgrade. I've used my 100-400 IS/USM lens for sports photography for 10 years and have been happy for the most part.<br>

However, at a rugby tournament I shot at in San Francisco 2 weeks ago, I realized I needed a longer lens - the regulation size field the teams play on is big and a fast zoom would be helpful. I looked a images of other photographers that shot that same weekend - one had a 600mm/f4, the other a 400mm/f2.8. Both their images were a lot closer up than my shots, and were really wonderful, and I know they didn't have to move around the pitch (field) as much - they just picked their spot and shot all day from their "perching point".<br>

I know it's all about the shot, but in this case a better lens would have helped.<br>

I've read on this site about KEH - Calumet nor B&H had 400mm/f2.8 used, but KEH did - and I gfound one in excellent (Ex+) condition that I'm considering buying.<br>

Has anyone ever bought a lens from there? did you have any issues.<br>

the almost $7K for a new one is a bit out of my price range. I'm also thinking of getting a new body upgrade of the 40D. Some suggest the 5d, some the Mark range of bodies - another thing to think about.<br>

I'd appreciate all comments. I think after 10 years it's time for a new lens.<br>

Thanks<br>

Sheryl <strong>:)</strong></p>

[franklin_polk]

<p>KEH is (IMHO) the best place for used gear. They have great return policies, and they underrate their gear (i.e, don't be afraid to buy BGN). I bought numerous bodies and lenses from them, and had only one problem (body wasn't as good as rated), and they quickly responded and resolved the issue. Since (I'm assuming) the IS version is out of your budget, go for the II version (the one here: http://preview.tinyurl.com/m4ktmz), as it is slightly better optically than the first version.<strong> <br /> </strong></p>

[zml]

<p>Consider the heft of that lens: the non-IS versions (I and II) weight over 13 lbs (around 6kg) and the IS version is a bit lighter (5.3 kg, around 12 lbs.) Keep in mind that the non-IS versions may not be repairable and/or no longer serviced by Canon.<br>

Now, you'll need good tele technique and good support (depending on your photographic interests, a tripod with a Wimberley or similar heads, or a good monopod: handholding it is out of the question for longer than few minutes...) I curse each and every time I have to use my 400/2.8 L IS (well, but the results are well worth it...)<br>

Ask yourself if you wouldn't be better off with a much lighter lens (such as 300/2.8 L IS) and a teleextender...</p>

[eric merrill]

<p>Sheryl:</p>

<p>I'd strongly recommend getting the IS version, even if you're action so you're using fast shutter speeds to freeze the action. I have the 300/2.8. Using it and the 2x on a monopod is a fairly nimble combination. But when I turn the IS off, it is hard to look through the viewfinder for as long. It's a lot of magnfication. The IS makes looking through the viewfinder so much more enjoyable to me.</p>

<p>Eric</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>Don't worry about the lack of IS. I have used the manual focus Canon FD 400/2.8 L with Canon EOS-FD 1.26x adapter on a Canon 10D and now use a manual focus Nikon 400/2.8 on a Nikon D2X. Obviously the autofocus lenses you are looking at would be easier to use, and you don't need to worry about spending much more for IS versions.</p>

<p>Every 400/2.8 ever made is optically incredible so also don't worry minor tweaks in optical design from one generation to the next.</p>

<p>I really do suggest that you go to a retailer to handle one of these though. They are very big and very heavy. Worth every ounce and inch in my opinion though.</p>

<p>A 400/2.8 does not get any closer than your 100-400/5.6 and your crop body has obvious advantages over a full frame for telephoto purposes. The 400/2.8 will blow away your 100-400 for image quality.</p>

<p>I have bought three "ugly" or "bargain" lenses from them and have saved a lot of money and have been extremely happy with them.</p>

[sheryl_bury_michals]

<p>You all are so awesome - thanks for the positive feedback!<br>

I am fully aware that the 400/2.8 won't be a lightweight (but seeing my associate Dave's 600/f4, I'm sure it's at least a wee bit lighter than that); I also know I won't be running around the rugby pitch with one of these babies, but I noticed from my fellow photographers at the National 7's tournament in SF that they picked their spot and shot from there, only moving when the sun moved. So that is a perk to me.<br>

But the action shots in the end were so much better. I won't give up my 100-400 IS obviously (mainly because I can bring it on the plane with 2 bodies & some smaller lenses in a Lowepro camera backpack, and it fits under the ariline seat), but I think this would be a nice addition to have in the hopper of lenses. I would think lugging this on a plane may be a pain though.....something I've also thought about.</p>

<p>I do have a few more questions?<br>

What is the difference between the FD (48 drop-in) versions of the lens as opposed to the IS/L/Ultrasonic lenses? Is it only a service issue (as in Canon won't service the FD models) that we're talking about, or is it more than that? Does KEH service the used equipment they sell in that case?<br>

also, what do you think about the 400/f4 DO IS USM lens - it's a bit lighter, and not quite as fast, but I read reviews on B&H that people use it also for sports photography.<br>

and - would using a 300/2.8 with a 2x teleextender (also in the back burner as a possible choice) slow things down a bit if taking a fast paced rugby player -and if so, by how much? I know a photographer in Austin that swears by this lens for taking rugby matches.</p>

<p>Sheryl</p>

[craig_meddaugh]

<p>FD models need an adapter to achieve infinity focus. A quality one can be quite expensive and hard to find. </p>

<p>The 400/4 is fine lens... but a stop slower. Not as sharp either, but that is not really a concern for you as sports doesn't require that high of resolution. As for the 300/2.8+2x TC... it's slow at 5.6 and the image quality is going to be pretty poor compared to either the 400/4 or the 400/2.8. </p>

<p>Given that you are shooting rugby outdoors during the day, the 400/4 or /2.8 isn't going to offer a tremendous improvement over the 100-400/5.6 (unless it is cloudy). The images are not going to be any closer (as you propose)... though I suppose you could crop tighter with the 2.8 than the 100-400. I'd advise that you rent the lenses you are thinking about to see if they make a serious difference in your output (and if dealing with them is worth the additional effort). </p>

[zml]

<p>The EF 600/4 L IS and 400/2.8L IS are equally heavy (even thought the 600 is longer.) And the non-IS 400/2.8 versions are almost 2 lbs heavier! In additon to shooting issues, think of transporting it: my typical travel setup involving that lens exceeds 40lbs...<br>

AFAIK Canon doesn't service nether the FD nor the non-IS versions of the EF 400/2.8 lens (check with Canon before buying.)<br>

The old mount, MF FD 400/2.8 is a bad idea for sports on an AF camera: it requires a very rare FD-EF adapter for infinity focus and it will be very dificult to focus in action: EF cameras don't have the "focus aids" of MF cameras.<br>

300/28 L IS with or without an 1.4x extender will work great especially if you use a crop body. In fact, it might work better for you than the heavy EF 400/2.8. The speed of AF with the 2x extender is not too shabby either but you get f/5.6...<br>

400 DO is a great lens used widely for action photography and is as nearly as good overall as the 2.8, but some people complaining on its (inherently..?) lower contrast which I don't find objectionable. In fact I often see photogs with 2-3 bodies hanging on their shoulder, one with the 400 DO attached (that would be impossible with the 400/2.8 L...) Yep, the lightweight DO might make you smile unless you need - or want - f/2.8.</p>

<p>Rent the 400/2.8 and the 300/2.8 and shot some typical assignments: it's always a god idea to meet the beast in person before plunking down some serious $$.</p>

[photodiscoveries]

<p>The 400 f4 DO IS is a great lens. It is fast, light, compact. It is f4 so you can use a 1.4 extender, and even with the extender, the quality remains above my 100-400. I am a bird photographer, and just bought a 500, so my 400 DO is up for sale. It is at Adorama for an offer, but I can get it back if you have interest. I am sure it would save you money and perhaps make a bit extra for me, since they pay about 30% below their selling price for used equipment. Let me know. djohnh@gmail.com. </p>

[doug herr]

<p><em>"Every 400/2.8 ever made is optically incredible ..."</em><br>

<em></em><br>

Depends on your frame of reference. I did not see the point of stopping the FD lens down to f/5.6 for the performance I was looking for.</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>Since you have brought up the idea of a manual focus 400/2.8, I will add a few comments. I have used the manual Nikon 400/2.8 AIS on a Canon 10D with a simple mechanical adapter. The Canon DSLR will meter with the lens in Manual mode and Av mode but must be used stopped-down. Since f2.8 lenses are generally used at f2.8, for sports, this is actually quite easy. Set the lens aperture at f2.8 and let the camera select the shutter speed or set it yourself and fire away. The histogram will immediately confirm exposure and focus. Of course you have to manual focus. </p>

<p>While I prefer manual focus for some motoracing shots I must say that autofocus is a blessing for soccer which would apply to rugby as well. This year I started using an autofocus converter for my Nikon 400/2.8 and 200/2 on a Nikon D2X and it has dramatically improved my soccer photography. I had no problems keeping up with the action when my son was 13 but now at age 16 the action is much faster! </p>

<p>Before the 400/2.8 I had gone the route of a 300/2.8 with 1.4x and 2x converters. The 400/2.8 was noticeably sharper with less CA than the 300 with a 1.4x. I also did not like losing the stop of light with the 1.4x. If you are thinking in terms of the 600/4 or 400/2.8 then I don't think a 300/2.8 will do what you want. Now I would actually prefer a zoom lens for soccer but the Nikon 200-400mm f4 is too expensive for me, and unfortunately for you Canon does not make anything like it.</p>

[sheryl_bury_michals]

<p>John - I agree - if Canon would make a 200-400 f4 then I'd probably buy it - but one of my friends who owns the Nikon 200-400 f4 seems happy with his - he's had it a while - he thinks, along with someone else I talked with, that particular lens is the way to go as opposed to just a 400/2.8.<br>

Michael - yes, the issue of traveling with a beast like the 400/2.8 is of some concern, since I currently can pack the 100-400, 2 bodies, 2 smaller lenses (35/f2 and 24-70/f2.8), plus batteries, my Sandisk cards, sunblock, and a sunhat in a nice Lowepro backpack that fits under the seat in a plane (or in the overhead compartment). Monopod goes in my carry-on bag with clothes and stuff. So it's a pretty compact organized system.<br>

Servicing the beast would be a concern too - though I find it odd that Canon won't support its old lenses it made. That seems to be the trend in anything these days (Hell, I have Photoshop CS which works fine, but when i needed a technical support issue Adobe told me they no longer serviced that program - hell, they CREATED it for pete's sake!).<br>

Thing is my husband is being a real sweet pea and wants to get me a lens as a BD present this year, but I told him I'd do the reasearch first, so I probably will rent the 400/2.8 to see what it's like. And maybe the 400/F4 while I'm at it (someone I met a while ago swears by this particular lens for his work). Means getting some extra weight training in to get a wee bit more arm strength to manage a big lens.</p>

[clgriffin]

<p>I own both the 400mm L f2.8 Version 1 (which I bought at a real bargain locally) and the 400mm DO. If I go birding and want to do any walking, the DO is a great lens. I wouldn't hesitate to use it for daytime sports or indoor sports if higher ISO was acceptable.<br>

The 400 L is a tank. You will need a sturdy monopod at the very least. I mount a Kirk BWG (gimbal head for using the 600L or the 400L, but you could get by with Really Right Stuff's new monopod head, the Hi-Capacity Monopod Head with B2-Pro II, at half the price of a gimbal. It will handle 75 pounds of gear, adequate for the 400 and a camera. Most folks don't bother with additional heads, but I find them useful for vertical movement--up for birds and down for macro or close action.<br>

Canon won't support the old 400L, but there may be independent repair facilities that will tackle minor problems. </p>

<p>Here's a 100 percent crop from a faux macro shot that I did with my 400L. No USM, no post-processing--the stamen of a hibiscus flower. I used a tripod, but normal focusing and on camera shutter release.<br /> </p><div></div>

[zml]

<p>Service: You know, the 400/2.8L IS was introduced in 1999 (and the two non-IS versions in 1991 and 1996 respectively) so surprise, surprise, no parts for older lenses. Canon will also not touch anything in the FD or earlier mount either.<br>

Transport: Yeah, that part becomes an issue, esp. if you fly often on puddle jumpers (gate check most of the time or a long and colorful conversation with the flight attanedant about stowing it in the crew's closet...) I use Think Tank stuff: Airport International roller and/or Airport Acceleration backpack and can squeeze (that's exactly the word I wanna use here...) in each bag the 400/2.8, 70-200/2.8, 2 1D-size bodies, 2-3smaller lenses and assorted doodads (chargers, cleaning stuff, cables, etc.) but that's a tight squeeze and the whole shebang gets heavy (over 40 lbs!)<br>

Location shooting: Also an issue. Shooting from a monopod is fine but moving around or merely leaning the 400/2.8 on your arm/shoulder will make you want to throw the thing away, and it gets more complex if you shoot with two cameras. There are quite a few clips on youtube with helpful hints BTW.</p>

[wild_india]

<p>I did a review on my website of the Canon EF 400mm f2.8L II if you are interested<br>

<a href="http://wild-india.net/articles/canon-ef-400mm-f2-8l-ii-review/">http://wild-india.net/articles/canon-ef-400mm-f2-8l-ii-review/</a><br>

Yes, it is heavy and expensive but the optics and AF speed is much better than a 100-400. Remember to budget for a pro body and a stable tripod!<br>

KEH is a great place to buy and one of the reputable dealers that do mail order only. Also check B&H and Adorama</p>