Used 400mm f2.8L IS lenses - good value now?

[FarQinell]

Just spotted this lens sold in a London shop for £3450 inc hood and flight bag and warranty - from the photos it seemed fairly described as exc++.

For a used Canon 500/4 - current model in the same condition - the current asking price would be a lot higher.

Surprising particularly as the 400/2.8 has a lot more glass and has the extra stop to freeze the action.

The current 500/4 is a bit lighter but certainly no lightweight.

Perhaps because there are a lot more 400/2.8s around and owners are upgrading to the latest version - available now.

Maybe we can expect a drop in price for used 500/4s when the new model comes available in May - allegedly?

Both are very nice lenses to catch fast moving objects but I am guessing you would get more keepers with the 400/2.8.

And with 1.4X TC I am also guessing that 560/4 images would be better than 700/5.6? Anybody out there who has used/tried out both lenses with a TC?

[pwp]

The 400 f/2.8 is the all time favourite with sports shooters, along with the equally remarkable 300 f/2.8. Even older beat up 400 lenses hold their value remarkably well. I think you'll see a lot of demand for 400 f/2.8 lenses as the 1DX starts to sell in meaningful numbers to sports shooters who are upgrading from MkIV bodies with their very useful APS-H x1.3 crop sensors. This will keep second hand prices buoyant for some time, even as photographers  upgrade to the 400 f/2.8II and release their old lenses onto the secondhand market.

With the FF 1DX shooters who rely on the reach of the 300 f/2.8 and APS-H will be wanting more, and their answer lies with the 400 f/2.8.

Paul Wright

[briansquibb]

I love my 400 f/2.8

It is surpisingly versatile as its reasonable minimum focussing distance means that portraits etc are all possible.

I can't speak for the 500 f/4 but the 600 f/4 is just too long for this type of work.

I handhold it but I can understand that some may struggle with that

[FarQinell]

Thanks.

Just a thought - if the AF works at max aperture (before stopping down to the desired aperture) and since the depth of field at f2.8 is a lot less than at f4 does that mean that the 100% full size images on the 400/2.8 are "sharper" than on the other big ones?

Anybody there to correct me on this!?

[tomscott]

That lens has been there for a long time tho. At least 6-8 months, guessing its LCE on strand your meaning. Went in 3 weeks ago to have a look around. I wasn't going specifically to look at that lens but it did look quite beat on the outside like it had been well used but didn't look at the elements as I don't have need for one.

If it was a good one im sure it would have been snapped up by now.

**Edit** Sorry the one at LCE is a 400mm DO

[Axilrod]

I found one that was in excellent condition for $4000 a few months back and asked people here if they thought it was worth it.  Everyone screamed about how it was a scam and this and that, and it turned out it was legit as it gets and I ended up missing out on it.  Wish I had gotten it now. 

[TexPhoto]

Fantastic lens. Only real down side is the weight and size. I see them selling at $5-6K on ebay, I paid $4500 used about 2 years ago.

I use mine with the 1.4X and 2.0X extenders and thus have a 560mm f4 IS and a 800mm f5.6 IS as well.

[briansquibb]

Thanks.

Just a thought - if the AF works at max aperture (before stopping down to the desired aperture) and since the depth of field at f2.8 is a lot less than at f4 does that mean that the 100% full size images on the 400/2.8 are "sharper" than on the other big ones?

Anybody there to correct me on this!?

They stand out from the BG more - separation is better

[TexPhoto]

Thanks.

Just a thought - if the AF works at max aperture (before stopping down to the desired aperture) and since the depth of field at f2.8 is a lot less than at f4 does that mean that the 100% full size images on the 400/2.8 are "sharper" than on the other big ones?

Anybody there to correct me on this!?

Well, sort of.  It should be able to focus more accurately at f2.8 than a 5.6.  and so shooting it at 5.6, it still focuses at 2.8, so it should focus a little more accurately.  And certainly can focus in lower light.

I shoot a lot of night games, and f2.8 lenses seem to do great, and f4 lenses no so much.  f5.6 lenses just bad.