400mm 2.8 L (non- IS)

[TexPhoto]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.