Canon 400 2.8

I am looking into investing in a Canon 400 2.8. I have gone from a Canon 400 5.6 to my current 100-400 II but looking to take the next step and adding the extra needed light for night games. This will be used for shooting sports and wildlife. While I'm aware it is on the shorter end for wildlife my main use is sports so moving up to a 500 f4 is not an option. I already own a 70-200 ii and 24-70 ii so the lower end is covered. My question is in regards to the lens itself. While I wish I could afford a new Canon 400 2.8 IS ii the cost is way above the budget. It looks like my options include 400 2.8 mk I non-is, 400 2.8 mk 1 is, and 400 2.8 ii non is all being bought used. Knowing that my shutter speeds will invariably always be above 1000/sec and either be on a monopod or a tripod am I going to miss having the IS at all? Are any of these three better quality than the other? Having to buy a used copy, I have read that Canon no longer services any of these​ models would that be a concern for purchase. Any help would be appreciated.

As i recall, the version II of the non IS models was noticeably sharper than the original 400 2.8 non IS.

True that Canon no longer services any of these. And if that is a concern, then I would certainly look for a version 1 IS model. It was just recently removed from the service list and chances are better of finding some repair parts around if need be. The others have been around quite awhile and finding parts for them would be a challenge.

And while non of these is light, they do get lighter with each newer version.

For wildlife, you could be using it with an extender quite often. Though I don't have any experience with using the non IS models with an extender, the version 1 IS takes extenders very well.

I guess a lot would depend on what you are willing to spend for how much you intend to use it and/or what kind of a deal you find on a particular model.

I would recommend trying to find a good deal on a version 1 IS. But if a REALLY good deal on a version 2 non IS came along, it would be something to consider.

BTW, love your avatar photo.

Thank you for the insight. I was kind of thinking of leaning towards the IS mk 1 model but I did notice that the other two non IS version were cheaper and most that I found were in better condition.

I will be using this mostly for sports but would definitely be using it with a TC if I needed it for wildlife.

Thank you! That was one of my favorite sports portraits I took of my son.

I basically co-own my friends. It spends more time with me than it does at his place. IF you are a pro then you need need need to buy one that can be serviced through CPS. The alternative is getting repairs done by authorized repair facilities across america.

If you are shooting for hobby/amature/ and/or pro that takes very good condition of his gear and is seldom in harms way of any collisions from players then any of the previous models would be fine.

The 400 2.8 IS mk1 is incredibly sharp although the newer one is sharper the mk1 takes the 1.4xIII amazingly well. Little to no loss in IQ or AF speed. I just bought my own monopod so I don't have to borrow my friends.

For nighttime shooting the 2.8 is a must and for wildlife you'll have one heck of a 560mm F4.

I professionally shoot portraits but not currently sports but would definitely like to try to break into it more. This is my reasoning for moving up in glass to a faster 400. I do shoot on the sidelines at high school games so could possibly at times be in the action. But I also considered the possibility of taking it to another repair company. I've typically taken good care of my equipment but most of my equipment was purchased new so there was less risk of issues.

I had 400/2.8 NON IS II, which I changed for IS I. I think build quality is better on the non IS. In the IS I had to tight ball berrings twice in the colar tripod. But version 1 is still very good built.
They both have very good image quality, perhaps IS works a bit better/sharper wide opened with TC 1.4.
AF on both is very good.
I changed mainly due to end of service and MFD, as photographing small birds from hides I had more often extension tube than TC.
Anyway they are both not serviced anymore so either will be good, especially II non IS if you could find some great shape for small money. I paid for II non IS 2,500 euro around 3-4 years ago.

Not sure if you are still looking but I have a ver 1 non-IS Canon 400 f2.8 I'm getting rid of.

rdalrt wrote in post #18449793
As i recall, the version II of the non IS models was noticeably sharper than the original 400 2.8 non IS.

True that Canon no longer services any of these. And if that is a concern, then I would certainly look for a version 1 IS model. It was just recently removed from the service list and chances are better of finding some repair parts around if need be. The others have been around quite awhile and finding parts for them would be a challenge.

And while non of these is light, they do get lighter with each newer version.

For wildlife, you could be using it with an extender quite often. Though I don't have any experience with using the non IS models with an extender, the version 1 IS takes extenders very well.

I guess a lot would depend on what you are willing to spend for how much you intend to use it and/or what kind of a deal you find on a particular model.

I would recommend trying to find a good deal on a version 1 IS.

+1.