CANON 400MM F/2.8 NON IS
Aug 2, 2015 04:19:26 #
Aug 3, 2015 08:26:58 #
Are you interested in buying? I Googled it and came up with a variety of reviews, posts, ... Apparently is is an excellent lens - must use tripod since non IS. However, for nature, sports, ... it is great. Very heavy!! Ebay has one listed. Here are some Googled links that mention the lens:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/31956314
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=25117.0
Mark
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/31956314
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=25117.0
Mark
Aug 3, 2015 11:50:47 #
RRS
Loc: Not sure
joto9d7 wrote:
Does anybody know something about this lens?
True, it's heavy but oh what a lens! Works very well with a 1.4 TC and becomes an 800mm f/5.6 with a 2X TC. The second part (800mm f/5.6) is important because it will AF with just about all bodies. Can be shot hand held with a fast enough shutter speed even though you say it's the non IS model.
Aug 3, 2015 12:26:03 #
Just found this. Some good posts about the lens.
http://photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00S534
Mark
http://photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00S534
Mark
Aug 3, 2015 15:56:19 #
Thank you for your help in the matter of the 400mm prime lens. I was shopping for a Canon f/5.6 400MM prime L lens and saw a better one, a 400mm f/2.8 for only $1800.00.
I am still shopping for a Canon 400mm f/5.6 and don't think I need the weight and size of the f/2.8.
Know anybody that wants to sell their 400mm f/5.6 prime L lens? And, do you have any thoughts on this lens?
I am still shopping for a Canon 400mm f/5.6 and don't think I need the weight and size of the f/2.8.
Know anybody that wants to sell their 400mm f/5.6 prime L lens? And, do you have any thoughts on this lens?
Aug 3, 2015 15:58:49 #
Thanks for your help. I appreciate you for that, but I no longer want the 400 f/2.8 but still am shopping for a good deal on a Canon 400mm f/5.6.
I thought the f/2.8 version was a great price at $1800.00, but it's way too big and heavy.
Thanks again.
I thought the f/2.8 version was a great price at $1800.00, but it's way too big and heavy.
Thanks again.
Aug 3, 2015 16:11:18 #
Wow, Mark you found it for about $500.00 and i was wanting to pay $1800 thinking it was worth $9000.00
Thanks again
Thanks again
Aug 3, 2015 16:47:57 #
Aug 3, 2015 19:32:40 #
THANKS AGAIN, MARK,
As you might guess i'm exploring other options before I buy that Canon 400mm prime.
I'm thinking about buying the older version of the Canon 100-400mm L f/4.5-5.6 VC (ii). Is the (i) version as good as the (II) version?
As you might guess i'm exploring other options before I buy that Canon 400mm prime.
I'm thinking about buying the older version of the Canon 100-400mm L f/4.5-5.6 VC (ii). Is the (i) version as good as the (II) version?
Aug 3, 2015 20:50:43 #
I really don't know which is better. I'd check a few review sites and see what they have to say.
Mark
Mark
Aug 3, 2015 22:03:27 #
joto9d7 wrote:
Does anybody know something about this lens?
The early super telephoto lenses did not include IS. There were actually 2 versions of this lens, version II was a little lighter in weight but added 50% to the cost. The reason for it's weight is unclear, it's just heavy. All the early super telephotos used 48mm drop-in filters which are currently difficult to find currently. There seem to be influxes of the 400mm and the 600mm non-IS lenses on the market today, Adorama and B&H both are showing several. I found a very good version of the EF 500mm f/4.5 USM lens for 1/2 the price of an IS equipped version. It turned out to be a great addition to the arsenal.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.