It’s unlikely I’d sell it, though never say never, if someone offered a decent price for it.

@@carldowningphoto wats ur max price u can quote

@@Jerry23555 £7000

@@carldowningphoto sry bro thanq

Tats tooo high for dis first model prime lens

I was there at the beginning of April

f2.8 is not just about light, its depth of field as he explained

Hopefully. I broke my leg at the beginning of the year in a serious accident and have been recovering since. Now up and about, but still locked down due to COVID.

Glad you enjoyed it

@@carldowningphoto nihon user and sent to a friend that was debating whether to get a Canon 400mm f2.8 use it or the latest version of the lens. He chose the mark in as he found the image quality wasn't quite the imagined leap in output plus the lighter lens he just didn't like so he bought the mark ii variant instead.

The crop factor on aps-c cameras is definitely an advantage which is why you’ll see so many wildlife photographers using the Canon 7D. Low light capabilities are usually better in full frame cameras and there are one or two other technical advantages too. I regularly shot birds at ISO 3200 in low light situations with my 7D such as in the Amazon and still achieved usable images. The key to a sharp image is more about the lens than the camera though.

@@carldowningphoto so what I'm going to do is get an aps-c and a fullframe and use one or the other depending on the light conditions. Thanks for clarifying the doubt.

Thanks Danny!

I'm not sure it is something I've thought about. I used to trek through the forests of South America on my own and I am sure there were a few things out there that could have attacked me.

Finally someone who agree's with me and I am so thankful that not everyone is an idiot lol. Do you know why it is that that is the case? Well in the new version III 400mm 2.8 and 600mm f4 lenses, there is only one large front element which is a fluorite element. Now the older lenses, the version I and II IS lenses there are 3-4 large elements in the front of the lens, instead of just one. This is also why the Nikon super-tele lenses are slightly sharper, they have four large elements instead of only one. Also the Nikon lenses have multiple ED elements. However the new version III Canon lenses and also the new very light Sony 400 and 600mm lenses have only 1 large front element. Now you're also not getting what you're paying for in the new lenses in my opinion. The reason these lenses cost so much to produce, is the large front elements which are difficult to grow, polish, grind, etc. People who do not understand optics or optical designs will never understand what we are talking about. They do not have the brain capacity to understand light or the way it effects optics, ie lenses lol. You can't just over compensate for the lack of large elements in the front by putting a shitload of them in the rear and expect the lens to perform as well. It's actually pretty simple to understand, but all anyone cares about is, is it sharp? They go around youtube and Preview all day long and ask people, "is it sharp?" They sound like a parrot who can only ask, "is it sharp, is it sharp, is it sharp?" LOL, like a lenses only character that matters is sharpness ahahahahaha! Idiots, knuckle dragging idiots lol!

@@patricksmith2553 I'm not sure how the RF super telephoto lenses will come out. Probably a good idea to pick up the EF 200mm f1.8 and the 400mm f2.8 ii while you can still find them for sale.

@@CoolhandLukeSkywalkr Thanks, I actually shoot Nikon now and have the Nikon 400mm f2.8 VR II lens. Just got a new Nikon D5 and D500, I'm very happy with these decisions. I'm a photojournalist and I don't think I'll be switching to mirrorless anytime soon, but I do plan on adding one to my bag, maybe a Z6 just to have for certain situations like Golf or Court.

I should have looked at the ID first. Thanks for the grid reference.

Thanks Shak.

The lens is heavy hand held so I usually use a tripod or monopod. It's a fantastic lens though.

Thank you for your comment.

@@carldowningphoto Hope you will visit my channel.

Excellent channel and I have subscribed.

@@carldowningphoto Thank you.

Thanks for the comment. It was a very tough day :)

@@carldowningphoto I bet!! Take a look at my channel if you like birds, you might like it you might not....)

If I wasn't so heavily invested in Canon I may well have switched to Sony

If I need lightweight, I would go with Canon 400mm 2.8 III. Lighter, better and less expensive compared to the Sony crap.

Stefan1968ful I would now having tried one recently, but it wasn’t available at the time.

@@carldowningphoto Yes, I think the version II and version III are almost identical from image quality. But the weight difference, oh boy, that is really something you can feel.

Stefan1968ful those kinds of prestigious guns are equally good. At a certain point your eyes’ never gonna get the difference in termes of image quality. The thing is with the Sony compares to the Canon III you get the possibility to fire 20fps and each frame focused perfectly onto the eyes in a middle of a game, don’t tell me you will go faster by moving your focus point onto a running man please be honest😉 but I have to admit one thing as a wildlife photographer there’s is no difference