Is a 400mm worth it

Hello Im recently getting more serious about sports photos and want to really upgrade my gear. I'm looking at possibly purchasing a 400mm f2.8. my question is I want the the beat deal obviously so it comes down to the IS. If i get the IS then I blow money I cant really afford. But without the IS then Canon no longer does repairs to the lens. or at least thats what i've been told. What is a guy to do??

Please any 400mm users please give me your thoughts and felling about this, it may very well decide what I will do..

The 400 is just an awesome piece of glass. It is my favorite, and most expensive, but the pictures just look great from it and the focus is fast. I was in the same boat as you and decided to go with the IS.I wanted to make sure that Canon would service it just incase I needed it to be fixed. I didn't want to spend that much money and have to find someone to repair it. The expense only hurts when you first send it. After that you will never look back.
If you are serious about sports photography, you will need the 400 for soccer, baseball, football, etc. Any long field sports the 400 shines. Good luck.

Just switched from 400 2.8 non IS ver. II to 400 2.8 IS ver I.
In terms of sharpness I can't see difference on pictures. They are both very sharp. See charts from FoCal I measured. They are very similar.

Non IS

IMAGE LINK: https://imageshack.com​/i/5su48yj

IMAGE LINK: https://imageshack.com​/i/1ab712j

I have just gone from 100-400 to a 400 f5.6 prime.
Its an amazing lens, well worth the swap.
If you going to a 400 f2.8 then that would be awesome for what you want.

I shoot with the 400 f/2.8 IS II and I usually have IS turned off. I'm shooting sports on a monopod at 1/1000 a second to 1/1600 so IS just burns battery power and doesn't do anything for you at those speeds for sports and animals in motion.

If you are using it for portrait photography, it'll probably be on a gimbal, so you still won't need IS. If you're shooting animals in nature and are in a blind, you'll be on a gimbal, but it might be useful because you'll be running slower shutter speeds. If you're tracking wildlife, you'll definitely find IS very useful because you'll be handholding or on a monopod and will be shooting at slower shutter speeds. Tom Reichter is an expert wildlife photographer and he uses these supers for wildlife more than I do, so wait for him to see your question and hopefully he will reply.

Bx338 is at an advantage because his 400 f/5.6 is extremely easy to handhold over mine. I started with the 400 f/5.6 and I suggest you do too, because it'll help you think in 400mm easier than jumping to something that requires such a degree of support as the 400 f/2.8.

not sure if this will help but i haven't heard many issues with the auto focusing moors and really that the only thing that can go wrong with the non is lens. i am happy with my 300 non is

I also suggest going on Amazon.com and reading some of the reviews by users of the 400mm f/2.8 and the 400mm f/5.6. That'll help too.

May I suggest a Sigma 100-300/4 (+/- 1.4x TC) on a monopod?

I can speak for the 400mm 5.6 picture quality, lightness and fast AF. BIF shots suddenly became much easier...

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/mk3o​2F

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/mrdL​Ry

I have the EF 400mm f/2.8L II USM and shoot primarily surfing competitions. Even with my 300 F4L IS I always turned it off since my shutter speed is always above 1/1000. Have a look at this thread for this beastly lens. Goodluck.

https://photography-on-the.net …read.php?t=6616​55&page=43

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/mFvQ​Z4

bx338 wrote in post #16804695
I have just gone from 100-400 to a 400 f5.6 prime.
Its an amazing lens, well worth the swap.
If you going to a 400 f2.8 then that would be awesome for what you want.

Totally agree I also just purchased a 400 5.6 and its a great lens. If a 400 2.8 was
within my budget that would have been without a doubt awesome. If you can afford
it go for it.

I used to have the original Canon EF 400mm F2.8 L - it was a bit of a monster at 6.1 Kilos! However it gave excellent image quality and fast AF. This was the first of the 4 incarnations of the Canon EF 400 F2.8 and is not shamed by the latest model.
Unfortunately you take pot luck on repair - that is why the early versions are cheaper!

bx338 wrote in post #16804695
I have just gone from 100-400 to a 400 f5.6 prime.
.

LOL

I went from the 400 f5.6 prime to the 100-400
zooms are much more versatile especially for sports
(but the f2.8 400mm zooms get expensive !)

60D
Canon 100-400
f5.6
100mm
thru the fence!

As you know, image quality from any of the 400 2.8's is not going to be an issue.

I bought a 400 2.8 IS about 3 years ago. I never use the IS. But wanted the IS version to be sure that Canon would still be servicing it for awhile. Being in Canada it would be even harder to find somebody to service an older non IS version.

Now if I could find some way to upgrade to the v2...

You'll honestly always have IS turned off for sports. Every other pro I shoot with turns it off, not only because it's useless when you're at high shutter speeds, but also because it burns away battery power and it also makes the frame of the picture wiggle around too much when you're following action.