400mm 2.8 II Upgrade?

I feel sure that this topic has been discussed here before, but my search attempts turned up nada.

I've got a 400mm 2.8. Is the 400mm 2.8 II worth the upgrade?

I asked the same question on the 300 2.8 most said not worth the extra cash.

I just got my 300 2.8 version II yesterday, I havent had a chance to do side by sides but in real world photography I doubt its notable. I think the 400 may be more worth it because it's almost 4 lbs lighter.

Image quality is the real question. Yes, the weight reduction would certainly be a benefit but once it's on a monopod weight isn't really a factor for me. The things that might make it worth it for me would be improvements in sharpness, focus speed and accuracy and overall image quality.

I don't really have any complaints about my current 400mm, I just like to stay up-to-date on my equipment. This is one upgrade I'll probably pass on, unless I hear of a compelling reason to make a switch.

Thanks, I was kinda wondering too.

jharms1 wrote in post #15533684
I feel sure that this topic has been discussed here before, but my search attempts turned up nada.

I've got a 400mm 2.8. Is the 400mm 2.8 II worth the upgrade?

Yes! Update and send me that version 1 paperweight

Well it really depends on the conditions that you use the lens the most. The newer lens is quite a bit lighter. So having to hump that lens over a few miles over uneven terrain will show one difference.

One thing I noticed is that the 1.4 and 2x seem to fit just a bit better on the newer lens. But that may be due to my older lens' wear and tear. One thing is not in doubt, the newer lens has much better flare reduction. The old one will really get squirilly with the front element getting hit by stadium lights. Even with the hood. This usually manifests itself in an overall reduction of contrast in the image. The switches are better sealed in the newer lens so if you shoot in snow or rain you are less likely to have moisture build up inside the guts. I have used both in the rain, never an issue but there is always a first time...

LBaldwin wrote in post #15536708
Well it really depends on the conditions that you use the lens the most. The newer lens is quite a bit lighter. So having to hump that lens over a few miles over uneven terrain will show one difference.

One thing I noticed is that the 1.4 and 2x seem to fit just a bit better on the newer lens. But that may be due to my older lens' wear and tear. One thing is not in doubt, the newer lens has much better flare reduction. The old one will really get squirilly with the front element getting hit by stadium lights. Even with the hood. This usually manifests itself in an overall reduction of contrast in the image. The switches are better sealed in the newer lens so if you shoot in snow or rain you are less likely to have moisture build up inside the guts. I have used both in the rain, never an issue but there is always a first time...

I agree.

The Canon EF 400mm f/2.8 L IS USM Lens had been the standard of excellence in field sports since it was introduced. The new Canon EF 400mm f/2.8 L IS II USM Lens is a tad sharper but that will be noticeable only to pixel peepers. The bokeh of the new lens is the same wonderful quality as the old.

For me, there are three qualities that make the new II worth the price.

First, there is the weight. The new one is dramatically lighter and at the end of a day of hauling it up and down a sideline, the lighter weight is enough to be worth the extra cost. To me, the new one feels light a slightly bigger 300 rather than a lens twice the weight.

Second, the new image stabilization with a mode 3 is ideal for sports shooters like myself. You can track an athlete without any jerky movements since the IS only kicks in when the shutter button is pressed. Yes, it works and yes, it makes for better images.

Third, the performance with the 1.4x TC III is improved. I wouldn't use the old 400 with the II because of slow focus, but the new pair focuses very quickly and accurately. I have no qualms about using it. I've not tried the 2.0x TC III.

Bottom line? I enjoy using the 400 and use it more often (rather than the 300) because of the lighter weight. To misquote Joe Biden, "It's a big _____ing deal."

Phil

Thanks, Les and Phil! I had about talked myself out of this upgrade. Now, I'm second guessing my "firm" decision!

One other factor, the newer lens has s greater resale value. .

Man, I would love to own this lens!

Bryan

Bryan / BPS..
You don't own it.. it owns you!! LOL

Weight gain is definately no small thing, it's like 1.5kg or so lighter, and very hand holdable. The colour is also nicer but that is minor :P

I also believe there were other much wanted changes, like no longer risk of all the paint flaking off on the front etc as it now has a huge rubber ring.

As good as the 300 II is as well, I do think owning the biggest f2.8 is better, especially if you say already own a 70-200. Then you have a 400/f2.8, 560/f4 and 800/f5.6, with near comparable IQ to the primes of equivalent lengths (the performance of the mk IIs with the next extenders is pretty damn impressive)

So a simple yes or no question.... Is it worth the upgrade?

LBaldwin wrote in post #15541845
One other factor, the newer lens has s greater resale value. .

which is negated by "greater price" .

one thing to consider is how long will canon support the old model.