For wildlife (esp birds the 400mm is mostly too short without extenders) 500mm or 600mm f4.0 are the better choice here ...
Strictly from a resale standpoint, if you guys had an extra $5k laying around and had time to sit on them, would you do it?
Sounds like a deal - especially for the 400mm f2.8 which is really a low price for a mint condition lens - However you should consider the usability of this extremely heavy lens if you are not a Pro Sports or Fashion (Portraits with strong bokeh) shooter. For wildlife (esp birds the 400mm is mostly too short without extenders) 500mm or 600mm f4.0 are the better choice here ...
Unless this guy is hurting $$-wise real bad, divorce, foreclosure, etc. $4000 for the 400 does not make sense.Just my opinion, something smells fishy.
It seems too good to be true!You have to check:1. Whether the serial numbers are not reported as stolen.2. Whether the 70-200 is indeed the 2.8 IS version II and not version I (That's easy)3. The condition of both lenses especially the condition of the 400 2.8 which cannot have a protective filter.4. To have in mind that the 400 2.8 is very heavy (and maybe this alone could be a genuine reason for sale by itself)5. To compare with the real street prices (for example 70-200 2.8 IS II now is 2069 and not 2400 for example)Anyway it still sounds very good.You can at least check the equipment...