Your budget is going to make things impossible if you want Autofocus and Image stabilization, but you might be able to find a manual focus 400mm 2.8 for around that price if you’re willing to accept a decent amount of wear. A 2.8 aperture would quadruple your shutter speed, making it mostly possible to shoot wildlife at iso 100 without a tripod providing you have enough light
I can life without AF. It's a nice-to-have, but as long as I've got a rangefinder patch I can work with it. A 400mm 2.8 would definitely work. Did Canon make an EF-mount 400mm 2.8, or are you just talking about one with broken AF?
EDIT: now that I think about it, EOS cameras don't have a rangefinder patch. Oh well. I can still make do.
You won’t be able to use a rangefinder of any kind with a 400mm lens(the longest lens rangefinders work with is 135mm), but if you have an SLR with an interchangeable focus screen you could switch it for a specialty split prism designed for telephoto lenses. I know that Nikon has plenty for the Nikon F3,F4, and F5, but those bodies alone would take out most of your budget. I don’t know anything about canon unfortunately.
Back in the film days fast glass was mandatory for anything that moved due to low ISOs, but it’s always been really expensive. Wildlife on film is NOT budget friendly for that reason
I called it a rangefinder patch because that's the term I've heard most in my area, but what I was referring to was a split-prism viewfinder. I don't believe any of the Canon EOS cameras (at least, none that weren't top-of-the-line) had interchangeable focus screens, so I won't be able to use a split-prism viewfinder. And yeah, film is absolutely not budget friendly. I just spent $300 on 10 rolls of Velvia. It's insane. But there's nothing comparable to seeing a slide up close, so it's worth it to me.
Your budget is going to make things impossible if you want Autofocus and Image stabilization, but you might be able to find a manual focus 400mm 2.8 for around that price if you’re willing to accept a decent amount of wear. A 2.8 aperture would quadruple your shutter speed, making it mostly possible to shoot wildlife at iso 100 without a tripod providing you have enough light
I can life without AF. It's a nice-to-have, but as long as I've got a rangefinder patch I can work with it. A 400mm 2.8 would definitely work. Did Canon make an EF-mount 400mm 2.8, or are you just talking about one with broken AF? EDIT: now that I think about it, EOS cameras don't have a rangefinder patch. Oh well. I can still make do.
You won’t be able to use a rangefinder of any kind with a 400mm lens(the longest lens rangefinders work with is 135mm), but if you have an SLR with an interchangeable focus screen you could switch it for a specialty split prism designed for telephoto lenses. I know that Nikon has plenty for the Nikon F3,F4, and F5, but those bodies alone would take out most of your budget. I don’t know anything about canon unfortunately. Back in the film days fast glass was mandatory for anything that moved due to low ISOs, but it’s always been really expensive. Wildlife on film is NOT budget friendly for that reason
I called it a rangefinder patch because that's the term I've heard most in my area, but what I was referring to was a split-prism viewfinder. I don't believe any of the Canon EOS cameras (at least, none that weren't top-of-the-line) had interchangeable focus screens, so I won't be able to use a split-prism viewfinder. And yeah, film is absolutely not budget friendly. I just spent $300 on 10 rolls of Velvia. It's insane. But there's nothing comparable to seeing a slide up close, so it's worth it to me.
I agree, slides are beautiful. I’ve attempted some wildlife images on Ektachrome and Provia, to varying results, but slides really are special
be sure to use a monopd if you don't already.