200-400/4 ED - Worth It?

[Bjørn Rørslett]

The missing part is a black cover for this opening. Probably a cover on a port to allow the tripod foot itself being removed if required. Put a piece of rubber or plastic into the hole to prevent ingress of dirt and all is well.

Did the seller quote a serial number? I'm curious whether the original estimate of < 500 units needs to be expanded.

[jhinkey]

#182403 I think - the image of the interior optics from the front is not quite in focus where the serial number is.
See the image below.

[jhinkey]

Another image . . .

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Lens looks nice.

The sn. is within the earlier reported range.

[jhinkey]

Yes, there is likely a set screw inside that hole that keeps the tripod collar from sliding off the mount.
I've seen others for sale that are missing the cover for this (see image below with and w/o the cover). 

If it's not functional I'm pretty sure I can live w/o the plastic cover

- J

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Once I had undone the cover, the thread fit is quite loose apparently. Thus some Loctite will do wonders for its continued presence on my 200-400. <DONE>

You might find a suitable screw or similar and plug the hole immediately. Dirt inside a rotating collar is a no-no for smooth operation.

[jhinkey]

Does this look normal Bjorn?  See additional images.

It seems like there should be something else down in that hole, but we can't see it in these pics.

Thanks -

John

[Erik Lund]

Images of the mount? Definitely not mint,,,

[Bjørn Rørslett]

John: except for the threads on my sample being black, the appearance is the same. I just locked down the cover with Loctite and the lens operates fully normal afterwards.

[jhinkey]

There must be something way down in there past what appears to be helicoid inserts.  The small black side set screw is to keep whatever that is from easily coming out and the cover to keep stuff from getting in.

Picture of the mount (a bit out of focus), but it looks pretty good.  They are calling it EX condition, which is down on their scale of NEW, MINT, EX+, EX, etc.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Could be as simple an answer as the opportunity to swap the locking button on the rotating collar from one side to the other. As mine is on the left side and I'm left-handed, it suits me perfectly as is.

[jhinkey]

Could be as simple an answer as the opportunity to swap the locking button on the rotating collar from one side to the other. As mine is on the left side and I'm left-handed, it suits me perfectly as is.

You may be right.  The mount, though out of focus, looks to be in decent shape.

- J

[Erik Lund]

Except for the marks left from the locking pin from rotating the camera a little roughly, it looks fine!


Collectors will not like with the wear on the body, so the lens will not hold its value in the same way,,,,

[Bjørn Rørslett]

It is worth while to remember that with such heavy lenses, the camera should always be mounted onto the lens, not the lens onto the camera. This has to do with the leverage and momentum created by the mass of the lens that will wear the groove for the locking pin. The 200-400 belongs to the generation before the arrival of steel inserts in the groove, as the long lenses feature these days.

[Erik Lund]

Could be as simple an answer as the opportunity to swap the locking button on the rotating collar from one side to the other. ,,,,

This must indeed be the correct answer, in the image of the mount the set screw, to avoid missing the lock screw, is clearly visible

The aperture ring is also in very good shape.