A&P How much would you pay for a lens that can take pics like these??

Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by Jcolman, May 22, 2008.

  1. Jcolman

    Jcolman OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    43,114
    Likes Received:
    82
    Location:
    east coast
    I know...the subject matter/composition/etc sucks, these were very quick test shots. 400mm f/2.8 mark ll lens that I can pick up cheap. The lens was dropped but repaired.


    f/9
    [​IMG]

    f/5.6
    [​IMG]

    f/2.8
    [​IMG]


    The lens is a beast!!

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  2. Kirk Hinrich

    Kirk Hinrich New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2004
    Messages:
    40,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Brown Line
    Deja vu...I swear you or someone was looking at this same lens like a week ago
     
  3. Girth

    Girth ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2002
    Messages:
    71,405
    Likes Received:
    107
    Location:
    Houston
    tree fitty
     
  4. ThexToddster

    ThexToddster New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2005
    Messages:
    20,748
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Woodcrest, CA
  5. CornUponCob

    CornUponCob New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2001
    Messages:
    15,319
    Likes Received:
    0
    Can't tell anything without full size images or 100% crops. Also, it too me a while to get proficient with the 400 2.8 before I could consistently get in focus shots at 2.8... I wouldn't be too quick to judge if you only took a few shots.
     
  6. Jcolman

    Jcolman OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    43,114
    Likes Received:
    82
    Location:
    east coast
    I agree. This was a quick "first look". If I do make an offer, which I probably won't, I would subject the lens to a real test in the studio, on a tripod, with controlled light and a test chart.

    My fear about this particular lens is that the third element came loose when the owner dropped it. There is also a minor chip on the edge of the element but it doesn't affect IQ. Canon wouldn't repair it due to the elements no longer in production. The owner had it repaired at an independent shop. Who knows how long the repair will last?

    On the one hand, it could last years and I could pick up a $6000 lens for half price. On the other hand, the element could come loose the day after I buy it and I'd end up with a worthless pile of glass and metal.


    Here's a 100% crop of the f/2.8 shot

    [​IMG]

    Here's a crop of one of the other f5.6 shots

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: May 22, 2008
  7. Jcolman

    Jcolman OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    43,114
    Likes Received:
    82
    Location:
    east coast
    :mamoru: it was me. I'm still toying with the idea.
     
  8. SLIGHTLY

    SLIGHTLY OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2005
    Messages:
    1,486
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Bay Area
    I'm always reluctant to buy high end glass thats out of production. Almost got a screaming deal for an 80-200 2.8. But after a bit of research found if any of the switches failed i would be SOL. So i passed and never looked back. Tho having a 400 2.8 for half price would be fun. (compression monster hehe)
     
  9. adamlewis88

    adamlewis88 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2007
    Messages:
    5,392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    I dont know why you dont just buy the 400 f/5.6L. As you can see (and contrary to what most people think) the bokeh at f/9 is still substantial. The 400 f/5.6L is also MUCH less, MUCH lighter, and takes up MUCH less space in a camera bag. I know what Id pay because I know how much it is worth but for what you do, I really dont know how you would begin to logically justify such a purchase.
     
  10. Jcolman

    Jcolman OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    43,114
    Likes Received:
    82
    Location:
    east coast
    Two words. Two stops. It makes a huge difference. I have an older 400 f/5.6 lens. It's great when it's sunny outside. Inside an arena or on a dark day, forget it.
     
  11. Kirk Hinrich

    Kirk Hinrich New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2004
    Messages:
    40,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Brown Line
    :eek5:
     
  12. mojito

    mojito New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2003
    Messages:
    62,877
    Likes Received:
    0
    go rent one first, on a lens that substantial, you really need to feel comfortable using it, and the 300 2.8 is as big of a lens as I'd want to carry around all day. the 400 was just too much.

    a 300 2.8 + 1.4x is a great 400 f/4
     
  13. Jcolman

    Jcolman OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    43,114
    Likes Received:
    82
    Location:
    east coast
    This is a monster of a lens. It would take some time getting used to lugging it around. I'm afraid that it would be too much to be honest. Still....I have a hard time passing up a good deal.
     
  14. adamlewis88

    adamlewis88 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2007
    Messages:
    5,392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    Three letters. ISO.

    I use the 400 2.8 on a regular basis and rarely do I shoot it at 2.8 except at night. What are you going to use it indoors for? Almost all indoor sports are with a lens in the 200-300 range and if youre huge into it you normally get a 200 f/1.8.

    Like I said, I didnt think sports (much less nighttime sports) was your thing, but if you think youre going to find yourself shooting sports in pitch black, go for it. Of course then you run into the problem of using a 5D for sports...

    It seems like youre out to just spend a ton of money. Its your money so do what you want with it but I personally dont see why you need a 400/2.8 for what it seems like you like to shoot. I understand it may be hard to pass up a good deal..but come on...
     
  15. Jcolman

    Jcolman OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    43,114
    Likes Received:
    82
    Location:
    east coast
    I've never been a big fan of high ISO shooting. I've pushed the 5D up to 1200 and didn't care for the results. Also, I hope that I wouldn't have to really ever shoot at f/2.8. I'd much rather shoot at f/5.6 or f/8. But you and I both know that the sharpest point on a lens is about two/three stops from wide open.

    I'm not necessarily planning on shooting anything with this lens but having one does open up opportunities. If I shot sports, it would probably be gymnastics. I have a lot of contacts in this area. I also would most likely get a 1D mk lln to shoot with as well.

    However, the beauty of a long lens, for me anyway, is that if I have it I'll think of ways to use it in situations where one wouldn't normally use a long lens. As a photographer, I'm trying to give myself enough tools so that I never have to say " I can't get that shot". I've been there, done that in my previous life as a shooter.
     
  16. mojito

    mojito New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2003
    Messages:
    62,877
    Likes Received:
    0
    you can easily use iso 1600-3200 as long as your exposure is dead on. underexposure is the kiss of death
     
  17. Jcolman

    Jcolman OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    43,114
    Likes Received:
    82
    Location:
    east coast
    I don't know. Here's a shot I took at 1600 (not 1200 like I thought) and a quick crop. it's passable I suppose but a bit too grainy for my tastes.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    Although I have to admit that it looks better here than enlarged on my screen in LR. I guess I could get away with making 4 x 5 prints.
     
  18. mojito

    mojito New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2003
    Messages:
    62,877
    Likes Received:
    0
    pixel peeper :squint:

    with noise ninja/neat image it'd be fine, and most customers would be fine with as is. It also depends on the output medium, prints hide it better.


    I don't have the originals or 100% crops in front of me, but these are all iso 1600-3200. NO noise reduction applied.

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
  19. Jcolman

    Jcolman OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    43,114
    Likes Received:
    82
    Location:
    east coast
    :rofl: I'm more a full frame elitist asshole!

    I guess I need to get me some noise ninja voodoo. I've haven't tried it yet.
     
  20. CornUponCob

    CornUponCob New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2001
    Messages:
    15,319
    Likes Received:
    0
    a 400 2.8 is something most people put off until it's necessary to buy one, or the expect for their work to be able to pay for it in a short period of time.

    I wouldn't quite call the Mark II version of that lens a $6,000 lens... A gently used 400 2.8 IS will go for ~ $6000, sometimes cheaper depending on condition. You said this one was currently priced around $3,000?
     
  21. adamlewis88

    adamlewis88 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2007
    Messages:
    5,392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    Not even that. Just expose properly. The two you posted could stand to be a little brighter. Also, when youre able, expose to the right and bring it back down later. This helps a TON with noise at high ISO. If thats something youre interested in, also try reading about setting a UNI-wb since the in-camera histogram is effected by the WB the camera is currently using (even though you can change it later when shooting RAW).

    3200 ISO and "mid" chroma NR from DPP

    [​IMG]
     
  22. Jcolman

    Jcolman OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    43,114
    Likes Received:
    82
    Location:
    east coast
    Correct. I think I could pick it up for 3k.
     
  23. adamlewis88

    adamlewis88 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2007
    Messages:
    5,392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    I thought he said it was going for 4,100. Could be wrong though.
     
  24. Jcolman

    Jcolman OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    43,114
    Likes Received:
    82
    Location:
    east coast
    Thanks. I'll look into UNI white balance. I pretty much set my WB to either 5600 (since I shoot primarily with flash or outdoors + flash) or AWB and tweak later. Nice shot btw!
     
  25. Jcolman

    Jcolman OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    43,114
    Likes Received:
    82
    Location:
    east coast
    He was asking $3800 but I got the impression that I could get it for 3k.
     

Share This Page