Canon 300 2.8 NON IS quality?

C

c_robinson

Messages
953
Name
charlie robinson
Edit My Images
No
Just how good is this lens, quality, sharpness and focussing wise?

I'm looking at it as i can't afford the IS version, it's generally a similar price to a sigma 300 2.8...How do the 2 compare.

Target subject is sports, rallying and Aviation.


Charlie :thumbs:
 
c_robinson said:
Just how good is this lens, quality, sharpness and focussing wise?

I'm looking at it as i can't afford the IS version, it's generally a similar price to a sigma 300 2.8...How do the 2 compare.

Target subject is sports, rallying and Aviation.


Charlie :thumbs:
Click to expand...

I found the later IS version better.. I am guessing its not just the IS that changed and I dont know how old the non IS version I had was... but deffo much better the newer :) BUT wait for other replies as theres lots of possible reasons for the difference..


BTW the none IS is older and canon do not support it and wont repair..
 
OK thanks, reason i ask is the non IS 300/4 is meant to be sharper than the IS version despite it's age..

It being older, surely if it broke it'd go through insurance and you'd get a new version, if listed at say £2k value....
 
if the insurers replace new for old, if the old item is damaged and un-repairable, assumably they'd replace with a new item. I know if you have a 20d and it breaks, you get a 50d if your insurers replace old for new...Not fraudulent atall
 
Our household has experience of the Sigma 300 and the Canon. We don't have the Sigma anymore. When it nailed the shot it was good, but it was inconsistent on image quality - think the AF wasn't all that.

I really rate the Canon 300/2.8. Takes a 1.4x extender well and is very fast to AF.
 
c_robinson said:
if the insurers replace old for new, if the old item is damaged and un-repairable, assumably they'd replace with a new item. I know if you have a 20d and it breaks, you get a 50d if your insurers replace old for new...Not fraudulent atall
Click to expand...

that may be true but it doesnt take a brain surgeon to work out that grossly over valueing an item is fraudulent. As is all the people who 'drop their camera in the sink' yet I don't see anything being done there either.
 
c_robinson said:
It being older, surely if it broke it'd go through insurance and you'd get a new version, if listed at say £2k value....
Click to expand...

Thanks for clearing that up chaps, as per my original post earlier, and the fact the only one i found in 4 hours hunting this morning is on for £1999 second hand, they offered my £70 off so £2k value (once posted) aint far off. :thumbs::bang:

Now to find one at a sensible price :bang::help:

Charlie
 
Ive got a Mk1 Non-IS and its served me very well. Apparently the coatings on a Mk2 Non-IS glass make them better. Its works fine with both the 1.4x and 2x TC's. I took some very good advice from a motorsport tog a while back and he recommended stopping down to at least F8 to get the best out of it with the TC's attached. You can get consistently good results if the light is good but there is a definite tail off when its murky - thats with TC's. Without TC's ive never had a problem. As for the price, id expect a decent one to go for around £2000. When i got mine a few years back you were looking at the £1600 mark and weve had hefty increases all round since then.

Cheers

Nat
B->
 
ai, i was hoping to spend around £1500 with hard case and drop in filter hopefully, holder is a minimum. I'll keep looking

Cheers so far
Charlie
 
Crikey £1200 was a bargain - how long ago was that?

As for the filters it should come with the drop in holder to put gel's in as thats required to fill the hole. As for the other options i found them to be akin to platinum coated unobtanium hens teeth! I eventually found the screw in one in the US and the polariser (which is an all-in-one as it has a thumbwheel to rotate it) in Japan. Both were via fleabay. The drop in for screw filters uses 48mm and they are a mission in themselves to find. I found one ND4 a while back and thats it but i havent looked for a while.

B->
 
£2k is definitely too high. Keep an eye on Aperture Photographic in London who often have 2nd hand 300 2.8's for £1500ish. They seem to take a lot of kit from press & sports togs.

I have a non-IS 300 2.8. It is pretty stunning. Whilst I'd prefer a 400 2.8, it's way outside my budget so a 300 with the 1.4 gives me good range, and I have had excellent results with a 2x extender as well.

It is quite a bit heavier than the IS version I think - something to bear in mind - but it's built like a tank. Focus is lightening fast. It makes my 70-200 2.8 look distinctly sluggish. I think I'd get a slightly better keeper percentage with the more recent IS version but I'm not complaining for the price.

Oh, and I tried the Sigma and returned it after 24 hours - looks attractive from a price perspective, but a 2nd hand £1500 Canon 300 2.8 blows it out of the water big time (and looks cooler!).

I've got loads of pictures with the lens. Here's a recent one:

s


And another:

s


Both with the 1.4x on. Plenty more on here if you want to browse.

Tobers
 
Oh, and I found that mine was front-focusing which I adjusted by tweaking in +8 on the focus micro-adjustment. I suspect that the previous owner had the lens calibrated to his camera body in the days before focus micro-adjustment came along.
 
Cheers Andrew,

I didn't realise you used the NON IS, i'm a big lover of your rugby stuff, but assumed you used the IS version.

I will buy one soon then, just finding one, thanks for the idea of aperture, i've checked yesterday but i'll keep my eyes open.

Charlie
 
A price of £2K looks OTT to me. I missed an IS version the other day in Southampton for under a £1000 and another purchased by a woman on the same photo Hols as me for £1100. OK both were scratched a lot but worked well. I'm still looking but will wait till I find an IS version for around £1200-1500 which do come up more regular than you think. I also tried the sigma & like someone else said took it back the next day.
 
I know, just assumed he had the gear, whether used or not, the image quality from the IS even with the IS switched off will (in theory) be different to the non IS
 
KIPAX said:
You dont use IS to shoot sport as a rule..
Click to expand...

Yep - I'd have it switched off for sports.

c_robinson said:
I know, just assumed he had the gear, whether used or not, the image quality from the IS even with the IS switched off will (in theory) be different to the non IS
Click to expand...

It's not the kit, it's the photographer :D. I'd love the newer lens, but put the money into another body (1DIV) instead as 2 bodies for sports is a must. The more modern optics & mechanisms would be better though I'm sure, but I'm not complaining! Also, I'm going to lose pretty much nothing when eventually I sell the lens to get a 400 2.8 so economically its an excellent buy.
 
hi charlie,

i have a canon 300mm f2.8 mk2, and use it with my ef1.4x mk2.... i cannot fault it on anything..... oooops the weight of course.

i owned a siggy 300mm f2.8 ex hsm dg thingy, it was ok, result not always brilliant but depends what you are shooting.
i think motorsport, and fast action is hit n miss whichever lens and make you use.

hope this helps a bit.

cheers paul
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top