EF400mm f/2.8 L USM II

Hello,

How does it compare to the IS version?

TIA.


Griffin.

Griffin,
I don't have a answer for your question but I used to have this Mk II lens. It's more for shooting indoor sports. If you are into birds you may well consider a 600/4L IS or non-IS. My EF600/4L is sharper than my EF400/2.8L II wide open and the weight is about the same ...

I used to own this lens as well. I cannot say that my 600/4 IS is sharper, but I can say that the 400/2.8 II is a mighty sharp and fast focusing lens. It is also very versatile.

What you really need to think about is what you shoot. If it is a mixture of birds and larger wildlife then the 400/2.8 may suit you well. Also, are you shooting digital? The magnification factor of digital cameras can make the 400/2.8 a very attractive choice for general wildlife.

Hello,

I saw another HK guy selling this lens, in "mint" condition, over FM site, at a price of about a new EF300mm f/2.8 L IS USM. So I am asking if it should be my next target. I saw the IS version in action at TPN which was used by Fishery and Agricultural Department. I am aware of the tremendous extra cost in handling and storing this gaint. Anyway, I am using 10D and have the intention to use it with a 2x TC.

BTW, glad to see many familiar faces here.

Thanks for all your input.


Griffin.

Appearently, somebody finally find out that lens and now it has been sold! Well, I guess it is not a problem any longer.

Correct me if I am wrong. I always think the lens performance in this order:

600 f/4 > 400 f/2.8 > 500 f/4 > 300 f/2.8

See ya around.


Griffin.

Griffin wrote:Appearently, somebody finally find out that lens and now it has been sold! Well, I guess it is not a problem any longer.

Correct me if I am wrong. I always think the lens performance in this order:

600 f/4 > 400 f/2.8 > 500 f/4 > 300 f/2.8

See ya around.


Griffin.

It depends on what you mean by "performance". If it is AF performance an F2.8 lens will perform faster than an F4 lens, all other things being equal. If you are referring to Canon's current line of IS lenses here is a breakdown of their performance, both in terms of AF and sharpness (starting with the best and going down the list):

• EF 300/2.8L IS: The sharpest, fastest autofocussing lens of the lot (and by a long-shot).
• EF 400/2.8 L IS: Sharpness on par with the 500/4 (if not slightly sharper), AF performance faster than both F4 lenses.
• EF 500/4 L IS: Arguably slightly sharper and faster AF than the 600/4.
• EF 600/4 IS: Fast and sharp, but takes a back seat to all of the above (pretty comparable to the 500/4 and not far from the 400/2.8 though).

The 400/2.8, 500/4 and 600/4 are very close in terms of sharpness, but the 300/2.8 blows them all away.

I realize this is slightly off topic from the original question but I thought I would shed some light on the performance of each of these lenses, since it was brought up.

Hope this helps! (and feel free to rebut )

Now this is off topic, I'd agree with Greg that the EF300/2.8L (IS or non-IS) is the sharpiest of all super telephoto lenses in Canon's lineup.

As with regard to the 500/4 IS vs 600/4 (non-IS), my experience is that the latter appears to be sharper, not significently but ...

KK, does that means most 300mm primes are the sharpest lenses on this planet?

Unfortunately, as you said before, 500mm f/4 is the min when you are serious in bird photography...

Thanks for the analyssi. Coulda wait for another 400mm Mk2 to come by.


Griffin.