400mm vs 400 ed

[david_daniel]

I am considering getting a 400 for my 67 system and have the

opportunity to either get the newer ed version or the older lens. Of

course the price of the ed is considerably higher, but can get a used

one for under $3000. The review of the older 400 plus comments made on

this forum suggest the older version lens was a terrific piece of

glass. I am wondering what people who have used both consider the main

advantages of the newer version. Did the older 400 have a rotating

tripod ring? Can you put filters on the front of the older lens? (what

size?) When using filters on the rear, how do you twist a polarizer?

Thanks for the help, Dave.

[steve_rasmussen]

The advantage of the ED version is of course the better correction of Longitudinal Chromatic aberration. What you are paying for is reduced spherochromatism. To us this means no fringing at f/4. The 400mm focal length is the breaking point for conventional glass. It is at this length that colors can barely be kept together using a Cooke triplet and three colors corrected, as in the 400 Takumar. You really don't see much difference between ED and conventional glass until you get beyond 400mm. The 400 Takumar can be shot vertical by rotating the camera body in the outer bay mount. Filters can be put up front on the 400 Takumar and believe they are 108mm. To turn the 77mm rear filter, you must have the camera removed from the lens. If you use the rear filter, make sure it is multicoated. The 400 Takumar will fringe at f/4 and 5.6 but only in extreme situations. You are paying a lot of extra money for the ED for only a slight gain in performance.