400 mm f/2.8 L Mk I

[xROELOFx]

Would like to enquire whether a 5 year old 400 mm f/2.8 L make I (not II) which is in excellent condition is a good deal at 4000 euro, and what is its performance with a 2x TC III on a 1DX, whether images are still sharp.

4000 euro seems a good deal to me. perhaps too good. just make sure you test the lens thoroughly, check if the IS still works etc. and you will have a really great lens for a relatively cheap price!

the new version III extenders work really really great. yesterday i used the 2.0X on my 500 f/4 and the images are just amazing. perhaps a little IQ is lost, but with a total reach of 1300mm (500 x 2 x 1.3 cropfactor) it was well worth it! i can imagine the 2.0X would work even better on the 400 f/2.8 because you still have full autofocus.

[FarQinell]

Would like to enquire whether a 5 year old 400 mm f/2.8 L make I (not II) which is in excellent condition is a good deal at 4000 euro, and what is its performance with a 2x TC III on a 1DX, whether images are still sharp.

If the lens is the 400mm f2.8L IS I lens (ie the one behind the latest current version) it looks like good value to me particularly if its from a reputable dealer who should give you 6 months warranty with it. Watch ebay auctions for current valuations!

Downside is the weight but I guess you have already taken this into account.

Upside is that - with the 300mm f2.8 IS I - it is sharp wide open ie better wide open than either the 500/4 I or the 600/4 I - see the ISO 12233 test charts by Brian Carnahan.

It also takes the 1.4XTC II exceptionally well ie a sharp 560mm - surely that's long enough!

Finally when the IS eventually packs in you still have a very useful long lens - because of the extra stop.

[GMCPhotographics]

There's a lot of mis-information here in this thread, I'm not pointing the finger at anyone specifically.
There's a number of versions of the Canon 400mm about. The current model is the ef 400mm f2.8 L IS mkII. It's the best of the breed, and the lightests. It has the newest Image Stabiliser.
The old version was the ef 400mm f2.8 L IS and this is optically equal to the current mk II version, but it's a big and heavy beast. Both of these lenses are listed on The Digital Picture lens test web site and can be compared. This lens has an Image Stabiliser.
The previous version to this was the ef 400mm f2.8 L mk II. This lens doesn't have an image stabiliser and is heaver than the newer versions. It has a Flourite lens element that puts it's IQ into the same league as the latter two lenses. This is an optical peach (as are the other two lenses) but it is a heavy beast and no IS. It's min focus distance isn't as close either.
The oldest version of this lens is the ef 400mm f2.8 L. This lens is the oldest and heaviest 400mm in the Canon EF linage. I can't comment on the optics because I've not used one. Given a choice, I would buy the newest I could afford and I would look for near mint condition. Especially look at the the rear lens mount. If you can see brass, then it's had a hard life.
 

[xROELOFx]

There's a number of versions of the Canon 400mm about. The current model is the ef 400mm f2.8 L IS mkII. It's the best of the breed, and the lightests. It has the newest Image Stabiliser.
The old version was the ef 400mm f2.8 L IS and this is optically equal to the current mk II version, but it's a big and heavy beast. Both of these lenses are listed on The Digital Picture lens test web site and can be compared. This lens has an Image Stabiliser.
The previous version to this was the ef 400mm f2.8 L mk II. This lens doesn't have an image stabiliser and is heaver than the newer versions. It has a Flourite lens element that puts it's IQ into the same league as the latter two lenses. This is an optical peach (as are the other two lenses) but it is a heavy beast and no IS. It's min focus distance isn't as close either.
The oldest version of this lens is the ef 400mm f2.8 L. This lens is the oldest and heaviest 400mm in the Canon EF linage

true, but as the OP stated it's a 5 year old 400mm. so i guess it's pretty save to assume he's talking about the EF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM. the 400 f/2.8 non-IS lenses are from 1991 (mk. I) and 1996 (mk. II).

[charlesa]

I can confirm it is the 400 mm f/2.8 L IS, it is 5 years old so no guarantee with just some wear and tear on the hood and body (it was in use by a sports photographer), the rear mount and front elements are still pristine and the IS works fine, even tested it with the 2x III TC. For 4000 euro it is a no brainer, if it malfunctions I can still get it serviced via CPS I would presume, no? Or since Canon have discontinued the lens now that the Mk II is out, the lens would be difficult to get serviced?

[TexPhoto]

CPS will fix it for a number of years after it goes out of production, though i don't know how many years that is.  And of course other shops will fix it long after that if they can find parts.

[briansquibb]

I believe that in the EU that have to support it for 7 years after the final production date.

[bdunbar79]

I too found a used 400mm f/2.8L IS I lens in pretty decent shape for 5999.  Looking forward to using it.  There wasn't much brassing if any at all on the mount.

[charlesa]

Proud owner of 400 mm of prime glass 

Can anyone suggest a suitably sturdy monopod.. no way anyone can hand hold such a beast and get half decent shots!

[Joes Dad]

Gitzo GM5541 with RRS head.

[xROELOFx]

Proud owner of 400 mm of prime glass 

Can anyone suggest a suitably sturdy monopod.. no way anyone can hand hold such a beast and get half decent shots!

congrats!

[charlesa]

Gitzo GM5541 with RRS head.

Is a head strictly required or can affix the monopod directly to the lens collar?

[Michael_pfh]

My 400 mm f/2.8 L Mk I is sharp and I paid less than 4,000 Euro for it.

[bdunbar79]

As a poster above said, what if the IS or AF motor does go out on the Mark I?  How much pain in the butt would it be to get it fixed by Canon?  Either the AF or IS?  I've never had that happen in a lens, so I was just curious.

[Kernuak]

Proud owner of 400 mm of prime glass 

Can anyone suggest a suitably sturdy monopod.. no way anyone can hand hold such a beast and get half decent shots!

Most monopods from the high quality manufacturers will cope with a large white. Gitzo tend to be very expensive and their tripods look the part, but I don't think their monopods can command the same superiority, because there are a few decent ones around. I've started steering away form Manfrotto tripods, but their 680B or (681B?) will cope and appears to be better made than their tripods. Also have a look at Giottos, as their tripods are better build quality than Manrotto, so I would expect their monopods to be at teh same level, although I haven't looked at them closely, the Giottos MTL 8261B tripod I have more than copes with my 300 f/2.8 and was much more reasonable than the Gitzo equivalent.