| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
300m 2.8 I.S compare to Non I.S.
Charles Mitchell, Photographer
 |
Whiting | IN | USA | Posted: 10:50 AM on 09.14.06 |
->> My local camera store has a brand new 300mm2.8 Non I.S. for what seems like a fair price given it's brand new ($3100.00).
The date code indicates the lense is one of the last to be made before the I.S. version came out.
My obvious question is ...how much difference in sharpness and focus speed is there between the two versions?
Are there any other differences ...I have heard about the collar issue on the I.S. version ,have those been addressed? I.S. not a factor for comparison.
Is $3100.00 for a Non I.S. a good price?
I have done the message board search but would like more input
Charles M. |
|
Jamie Howell, Photographer, Student/Intern
 |
Atlanta | GA | USA | Posted: 11:11 AM on 09.14.06 |
->> That seems a little high to me. The IS version came out in 1999, so that lens is at least 7 years old. I just picked up a well worn non-IS Canon 300/2.8 for $2000. I would probably price a "mint" one at $2400-$2700.
I have not used the 300/2.8 IS, but my 300/2.8 non-IS focuses as fast as the fastest focusing lenses ive owned (135/2L and 300/4 L IS).
Personally I would have no reservations getting the lens, but I think the price is a bit high. |
|
Mark Smith, Photographer
 |
Elk City | OK | USA | Posted: 11:51 AM on 09.14.06 |
| ->> ...and then I'd call me and laugh that I suggested a Nikon lens for a Canon user. |
|
Jeff Brehm, Photographer, Photo Editor
 |
Lancaster | OH | USA | Posted: 11:58 AM on 09.14.06 |
->> roflmao. I wish there was a way we could send sound files in here. I'd send Homer's "D'oh!" to Mark and then several dozen to myself for all the similar things I've done.
I'm proud of you, Mark, for outing yourself on this one. |
|
Kohl Threlkeld, Student/Intern
 |
Knoxville | TN | USA | Posted: 12:28 PM on 09.14.06 |
->> mark,
I usually wouldnt post just to say something was funny, but i laughed out loud! Thanks for a good first laugh of the day, i needed that.
kohl |
|
Alan Rogers, Photographer
 |
Carbondale | IL | USA | Posted: 12:45 PM on 09.14.06 |
->> The IS version is supposed to have a higher focus speed than the non-IS when the stabilizer is turned off, the theory being that power from the stabilizer is diverted to the focusing elements.
I've mainly used the IS version, so I couldn't compare the two, but it's super fast and very sharp. |
|
Rick Rowell, Photographer
 |
Canoga Park | CA | Usa | Posted: 1:34 PM on 09.14.06 |
| ->> I've used both versions when shooting fast moving hockey and football. I've not noticed any great difference. The IS version is a little lighter in weight and will focus a little faster with the new body's (1D mark2 and 1Ds mark 2.) The older version will get the job done for you just fine, it's just as sharp as the IS version. Although I find it very hard to believe that their is still an older EF 300mm f2.8 auto focus lens out there that's not been used. To good to be true? You have to ask yourself. Even if it is brand new never been used condition I would offer no more than $2700.00. It's just my opinion, but I'm willing to bet you that lens has been out of the box and used a few times. Good luck, Rick. |
|
Drew Buchanan, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Fort Walton Beach | FL | USA | Posted: 4:17 PM on 09.14.06 |
->> If you have enough dough go for the IS get it. If you don't then get the non-IS. There are not enough differences between them that it'll be that much of a loss. Just some milli-seconds of saved AF speed and little less stress on the shoulders will be the only difference.
**Just make sure you test it out before purchasing. |
|
Jerry Lai, Photographer
 |
Chicago | IL | USA | Posted: 12:35 AM on 09.15.06 |
->> I have used the IS version quite a bit and it is fantastic. A couple of local shooters I know here use the non-IS version and their results look good too. So I would say there's not a huge difference in image quality between the two, and from what others here say, it sounds like you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between AF tracking speed as well - if there's even a difference.
All that said, the quoted price for the non-IS does seem high. I bought a 300 f/2.8 IS here on Sportsshooter for $3200... which I've since sold (traded, actually) for slightly less than that. Yes, it was pretty beat up physically and had said collar issue, but the glass was flawless and worked great. |
|
David Johnson, Photographer
|
Social Circle (Atlanta) | GA | USA | Posted: 7:50 AM on 09.15.06 |
| ->> Mark, I think you pulled the message board equivalent of a hail mary with the lens cap on. :) |
|
Mark Bolton, Photographer
 |
Dover | NH | USA | Posted: 11:01 AM on 09.15.06 |
->> I have the 300mm non IS version, shoot w/ a 1DMKIIN body and I love the lens. It's quick, sharp. I bought it in March and have been very happy w/ it. Got it from KEH for $3200 in Like New condition. You may come across some non IS lens in the SS classifieds cheaper.
Overall, I'd recommend the non IS lens.
Mark |
|
Stew Milne, Photographer
 |
Providence | RI | USA | Posted: 11:51 AM on 09.15.06 |
->> Charles, I bought a "never been used, but attached to a camera body a few times" 300/2.8 non-IS two years ago for a steal at $2200. At the time, a lot of nikon shooters were switching to Canon and buying up all the used gear, driving the price up on all Canon gear. I feel very lucky to get mine at $2200. Literally the guy never shot a photo with it. It's in pristine/mint condition, not even a tripod or monopod mark on the bottom screw.
It focusses fast and is real sharp. I did have my local shop look it over, since it had been sitting for 5 years w/o use. They were amazed at it's condition. So, go shoot a few frames through the one you are looking at and offer them $2500, since it is an "old" model. Use the same logic you would with buying
a car. If the 2007s are on the lot the seller can't sell his
2006 car for the original price.
Also, get your local shop to check it out.
I prefer the non-IS version of lenses, as I rarely need the IS and it kind of freaks me out anyway when I have used it. Vertigo!
-smilne |
|
Bryan Rinnert, Photographer, Photo Editor
 |
Columbus | OH | United States | Posted: 1:30 PM on 09.15.06 |
| ->> I actually paid only $1650 for my 300 2.8 non-IS off of ebay of all places. The glass was prefect, though you could tell it's age from the out side, though I have seen worse lens. It focuses great, sharp and fast. It has a bit of dust inside and I'm going to send it into Canon for a cleaning and calibrating after football season is over. Though they want $300 to do it. So in all, around $2000 for a non-IS, is what I would look for unless you want it in perfect condition. |
|
|| Sponsor Special Deals
SB-900 TTL AF Shoe Mount Speedlight
|
Available from:
Samy's Camera
|
Price: $499.95 |
Notes:
The SB-900 i-TTL Speedlight leads the Nikon Creative Lighting System delivering the portability, power and versatility to support any photographer's creative lighting imagination. SportsShooter.com users should call 866-726-9463 to get the special SportsShooter price.
|
|
-- More Info -- |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|