Oh my .... I wish I the money , spotted this gem on Ebay .... drooling .....

[Ian Robinson]

http://cgi.ebay.com.au/Canon-EF-400mm-f2-8L-USM-super-telephoto-lens-NR_W0QQitemZ350277326637QQcmdZViewI temQQptZAU_Digital_Cameras?hash=ite m518e27d72d

Would be a great astroimaging lens , but way outside my budget , probably for ever.

[dpastern]

It's a nice lens. Not the Mark II IS though, which is really handy with such a large lens. I'd be tempted more to go with the 500mm f4 for myself - better for motorsport and birding, both of which interest me.

AU 3200 already with 17 bids...probably will go for around 7k, a bit pricey for a first gen unit...

Dave

[leon]

Yea man I have my eye on that one as well, :eyepop: it is the second time he has listed it, it would be a nice one next my collection.

No it wont go for 7K I reckon, :shrug: as I bought a 500mm F/4 in pristine condition, for 6200.00, I reckon If you wanted it 6000.00 would pull it up, make him an offer guys ;) ;)

Leon :thumbsup:

[Peter Ward]

Humm...400mm F 2.8. cool. Auction price just went up by $50....I wonder who placed a bid :)

[dpastern]

It's EBay...shilling abounds...it'll go up. I've seen a used 85mm f1.8 lens go for more than a new one (by an extra $100) a few years back...

Dave

[Ian Robinson]

Someone scored it for AU $4,561.00.

I already have a 300mm f2.8 (a Tamron Adapt2all model) , and there is not a lot to be gained between 400mm f2.8 L and a 300mm f2.8 LD , and the EF is not important in astronomical imaging.

Nor did I pay several thousand dollars for my lens (bought secondhand via Ebay from a genuine camera shop in the USA).

I'll never be able to spend thousands of dollars on ONE LENS.

[Octane]

That's less than 50% off retail value. Damn.

Congratulations, successful purchaser. You have just bought one of the greatest lenses ever built.

Comparing an L-series lens, deemed to be one of Canon's finest to a Tamron lens...

[CometGuy]

Cheer up Ian..you can buy a brand new Takahashi E180ED 500mm f2.8 astrograph for only a little more!

Did anyone remember seeing a supposedly mint condition 200 1.8EF lens advertised for $3000 in the trading post last year. Perhaps it was stolen :(

Terry

[Ian Robinson]

I'd rather have a AG14 (would be 3kg lighter in weight than my existing 10" f4.66 astrograph with the PVC tube) so the Atlux can handle it.

Or if I really lost the plot a AG16 + bigger GEM (though at 23kg the Atlux can handle it + the OAG + guider + 40D).

Neither of these are likely to be viable for me for the foreseeable future unless a big pile of $ falls on me.

There was a EF 200mm f2 L USM for sale secondhand on Ebay a week or two ago.

[avandonk]

It is not just the optics you are paying for. It is a lens that focusses faster and more silently than you can ever imagine. The Bokeh is second to none. My 300mm F2.8L is just amazing for terrestial images. Spider webs at fourty feet?

Bert

[AlexN]

Yeah, I don't think I could bring myself to take my big L glass outside.. the little 70-200 F/4L and the 135 F/2L, sure, no worries, strap it to the mount and have a ball.. the 300 F/2.8L, 400 F/2.8L DO and 500 F/4L, not a chance in hell... Too big an investment to have sitting outside collecting dew etc... Yes, you have to use these things, yes, they are insured, but I didn't buy them with astronomy in mind, so I won't use them for it.

If I were to find one of the rare Canon 200 F/1.8L's, I would be buying that purely for astro imaging, and hence would have no problems using it for such. It would however be insured according.

[Benny L]

you cant go wrong for $4500! I bought one new for 12K a couple of years ago :/

[Ian Robinson]

So's my Tamron LD 300mm f2.8 on the 40D .... so what if it's manual focus and I need to set apeture manually .... not a big deal or an inconvenience to me in anyway.

I don't see how paying several thousand dollars for a canon EF L (IS) USM lens is value for money .... and never will .

[Ian Robinson]

And if you are using your big L glasses for semipro or pro photography , the ATO payed for them ultimately as you will have depreciated them over a few years as "work expenses" / tools & equipment expenses.

For hobbyist use , there is no such way of getting back the cost over time.

[Benny L]

Very True :) Just to stir the pot my astro gear comes off in tax too ;) one of the perks of taking pics for a living :P

[Octane]

Everything is about money for you, isn't it?

I've never seen someone complain so bitterly about things they can't afford but would like to own.

In essence, what you're saying is that anyone who has INVESTED in quality glass is a fool because they could have bought a cheaper version of the lens by a different manufacturer, regardless of the quality differences.

[avandonk]

I consider myself a caretaker of my quality Canon glass. I get to use it and it does not depreciate as quickly as most other possessions. In fact I can sell my 300mm F2.8L for more than I paid for it.

There is no point having it if you do not use it.

I use my lens in rain sleet dust sand and snow as it is fully sealed! A little bit of dew is nothing!

Salt water is not even a problem if it is connected to a pro canon camera. The front element is an optical flat that protects the carefully figured lenses inside. This is relatively cheap to to replace.

What you are paying for is a single crystal of Magnesium Fluoride as the main front lens element and far more.


Bert

[TrevorW]

make the best of what you can afford don't lament what you can't

[Waxing_Gibbous]

I.m tempted to say "damn..I missed it!", but nnestly lugging around 15- odd kgs of glass is no longer my style.:)
Whoever paid $4500 got a very sweet deal. Most non-IS lenses were made with real honest-to-goodness CaFl2, as were some runs of ISes. Not for any quality reason, just the intro. of IS technology co-incided with new regs on toxic waste and crud.
Anyway this lens is way too heavy to hand-hold for more than a shot or two, so Image Stabilisation is pretty redundant. It needs a mono/tripod.

A couple of years back you could've bought the FD version (non-autofocus)
for peanuts. An absolutely mint one went on flea-bay for $1100! :o
But then people figured out: "Hey! This'd make a great telescope. No skanky ole AP 160 is gonna beat this honker!!!
And they were right! So now you'd probably have to pay around $3K.
Anyway. Best wishes to whoever got it.

[Benny L]

I've shot a full weekend of motorsport, hand-held with mine.. I find a mono-pod too restrictive :sadeyes: wasn't too bad and the moose like forearms i got afterwards were a bonus :P :lol:

[AlexN]

Agreed Ben, I have shot hand held with my 300/2.8 and 400/2.8 DO all day for either wildlife or sports, the 400/2.8 DO is sensationally balanced, especially with the 1D mk3 on the rear end of it... the 300 seems heavier, even though they are similar size and weight...

I personally don't need to depreciate these toys (as they are for me, being that I dont earn money from photography in any way shape or form..) for me, These toys bring happiness, as they allow me to capture the the photos I want to capture in my hobby... I love photographing birds in flight, I love photographing animals that generally don't appreciate someone in their personal space, so my long lenses to me, were worth every cent they cost me... And to Ian Robinson, Untill you've tried to capture a raptor diving into a lake to catch a fish at 150m ~ 200m range with your manual focus 300/2.8 Tamron, don't compare it to the 300/2.8L... This thing is pure lightning... As bert said, at wide open F/2.8 you can reliably focus on a spider web at sompe pretty extreme distances, you can easily focus, and maintain focus through a burst of shots on a car coming towards you at 200+ kmph.. Whilst for some uses, the 300/2.8 tamron may produce good images, it will not compare to the Canon L glass in every respect.. For some time I had the Tokina AT-X Pro 300mm F/2.8 and thought it was the bees knees... I had the opportunity to use a friends Canon L version of the same for a day out at queensland raceway and that very same day I started saving for my own...

Even the Nikkor 300/2.8 doesn't touch the Canon..

We're all happy for you that you got something that does what you want for much less than the canon version. Until you demand from your lens what I demand from mine every time it gets used, you won't need to know the differences between your tamron and my canon 300/2.8.

In my hobbies, price is generally not a factor I consider. High price just means a longer wait before I get it... Astronomy being the only difference, I will never pay $20k+ for an RCOS telescope unless I win a massive amount of money... A $10,000 refractor and a 10~15k mount are not out of the question though... Why? when I could get very similar results from a 3.5k refractor and a 5k mount? Because I can. Because I want to... I don't feel the need to justify every purchase I make, count every cent that goes into my hobbies or think to myself, "where can I skimp on something and get similar results" I pick what I want, add up the total cost, then work my butt off to afford it...

[Octane]

Alex,

You're wasting your breath. The ill-informed (never used the equipment in question) "too expensive" posts will not stop.

Regards,
Humayun

[dpastern]

That's a bit mean H.

For sure, the Canon L super telephotos are VERY good, very good, none better imho, but in reality, would you really notice lots of differences at say A4 print levels? Pixel peeping probably, agreed, but how many people really do that? And is that an acceptable way to view an image I guess?

The Tamron 300mm f2.8 is pretty good, as is the Sigma equivalent. Optically, 95% as good as the Canon unit, AF wise, poorer I agree.

I'd personally rather go for the 500mm f4 - lighter and easier to handle, and suits my shooting wants better (birding/motorsport). You don't find a lot of birders using a 400mm f2.8 imho, most are using 500 f4, 600 f4 or 800 f5.6!

Dave

[Octane]

Dave,

OK, take my final (and, maybe first) sentence away and the rest still stands.

My other comment was moderated (removed) which also expanded on my first sentence.

Cheers.

Regards,
Humayun

[dpastern]

I missed the removed comments, but it's not really an issue. I understand what you're saying - the Canon super telephoto glass is the best. And I know it is. Nikon's more expensive by a good portion, and a LOT harder to get, and not as good optically, or AF wise. The OEM manufacturers, Tokina, Tamron & Sigma offer pretty good glass. Sure, it's not in the same league as the Canon gear, but it's pretty good.

I severely doubt that most people could accurately tell which image was taken with which lens in a blind test. I know that there's a difference between final output, and actual usage in the field, and this is where the Canon lenses beat the hell out of their competition. Ultra fast AF. Super accurate (when not using a 1D mark III that is lol). The OEMs might get 50% of shots as keepers, the Canon gets 90%, and yes, that is a MAJOR advantage when shooting sports or wildlife on the move. That doesn't mean that you can't capture wonderful images with the OEMs, it's just harder, and less likely to happen imho.

I must catch up with Alex one day to pry those nice long white lenses from his fingers muhahaha! And if I'm down Sydney way, I think your 5D mark II could be seriously investigated too :P

Dave

PS It's looking more like I'll be getting a Mark IV in the next year. I'll keep my mark IIn as a back up.

[Paul Haese]

Hmmm not sure about this statement. It all depends which master is using the lens. I have seen some absolutely awesome images from the Nikkor.

Canon don't make the best glass on all the high end lenses. I have used the 400 from both Nikon and Canon and I rate them evenly. Yes both are better than Sigma or Tameron but not one can be rated higher than the other.

Incidently put a 2x on the Canon and put it up against the 800 f5.6. I know which one will do better. Virgs has the 2x with his 400 (latest version) and it is fast and great for birding still.

[AlexN]

Paul - The 300 2.8 Nikkor is nice, Im not saying it isnt.. I've used both side by side for birding and motorsport, I found the canon much more reliable for focus accuracy, and a hairs width faster to focus.. There isnt much in it...

The only, and I mean ONLY reason I don't use a Nikon camera much these days is the glass... the 70-200 F/2.8 VR IF ED is better than the canon 70-200 2.8L IS, faster to focus, better colour reproduction lighter, (although somewhat lengthier) the wider Nikkors and wider Canon's I have little to no experience with.. I do the majority of my terrestrial photography at over 200mm F/L... never below 85mm..

I've used the 300 and 400 2.8 canon's with the 1.4x TE, they both functioned as if the TE wasn't there.. obviously requiring lower shutter speeds, but accuracy and speed were relatively unchanged... IS took up the slack when my arms weren't stable enough to hold the lenses still! :)