I thinking about buying a non is 300 2.8 lens. Does anyone have any dealings with the non is lens? Is it still a cracking lens without the "is" Does anyone know where i can find tech info on the non "is" lens?
darrenh Senior Member 920 posts Joined Aug 2005 Location: Malton, Yorkshire, England More info | Nov 30, 2008 06:32 | #1 I thinking about buying a non is 300 2.8 lens. Does anyone have any dealings with the non is lens? Is it still a cracking lens without the "is" Does anyone know where i can find tech info on the non "is" lens? Regards,
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Madweasel Cream of the Crop  6,224 posts Likes: 61 Joined Jun 2006 Location: Fareham, UK More info | Nov 30, 2008 07:43 | #2 If you look on the Canon website, there is a 'museum' section that will give some technical info on the older lens. Although the current version may be a little better, the older one is still excellent and will not disappoint. According to information I have, the non-IS was made from 1987 to 1999, is 10% heavier than the IS version, uses many fewer glass elements (due in part to the addition of the IS unit), has slightly longer minimum focus distance and uses 48mm drop-in filters instead of the 52mm ones standardised across the current range of IS L-series super-telephotos. Mark.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Mark Dammit I need sleep  3,386 posts Joined May 2008 Location: Perth, Australia More info | Nov 30, 2008 07:56 | #3 I would save for the IS, just because of the IS, while it doesn't help too much for sports, it is a godsend for panning! Mark
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Nov 30, 2008 09:12 | #4 Darren,
LOG IN TO REPLY |
joepineapple Senior Member  288 posts Gallery: 2 photos Likes: 2 Joined Apr 2007 Location: Washington DC - Born, Bred and Still Live Here. Who's this Obama guy? More info | I have an older 400 2.8 Non IS and a 100-400 IS, both used for sports. I don't use the IS at all, and it has never been an issue. I tend to make sure that the event I'm shooting has adequate lighting or I will shoot during the day. The first IS lens I owned was the 70-300 IS and I kept that for about 10 months before giving it to my friend, and I never had the chance to utilize the IS. My students ask, "Where's that bazooka lens?"
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Mark Dammit I need sleep 3,386 posts Joined May 2008 Location: Perth, Australia More info | Nov 30, 2008 10:56 | #6 joepineapple wrote in post #6784269  I have an older 400 2.8 Non IS and a 100-400 IS, both used for sports. I don't use the IS at all, and it has never been an issue. I tend to make sure that the event I'm shooting has adequate lighting or I will shoot during the day. The first IS lens I owned was the 70-300 IS and I kept that for about 10 months before giving it to my friend, and I never had the chance to utilize the IS. If you do some motor sports and try panning, you will find a massive difference, with the 300 IS I have heard of people getting their SS down to 1/60 without a monopod, non IS you really have to stay up above 1/250 to get decent shots.... Mark
LOG IN TO REPLY |
cc10d Senior Member  812 posts Likes: 1 Joined Jan 2004 Location: Oregon, USA More info | Nov 30, 2008 13:50 | #7 When the IS version first came out and you could look at both on the Canon website, the NON IS had better MTF curves or lack of curve than the IS does cc
LOG IN TO REPLY |
 | x 1600 |
| y 1600 |
| Log in Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!
|
| ||
| Latest registered member is Aristosan 639 guests, 158 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 | |||
