300 f4

Would there be any basic difference between a 7 year old 300 f4 and a new one?

Thanks
Tom

Depends on how much use it got? I guess an old one could have the IS system ware out or the USM die after awhile. If it were dirt cheap, under $800.00 then I would consider buying it. If its around $1,000.00 then I would prefer a newer one with some warranty left on it.

Take Care,
Cheers, Patrick

It's not the age but the mileage. This is a lens that has never been upgraded so the performance of both would be identical.

Saint,

Warranties do not transfer with Canon... Only the original buyer is supposed to have "warranty rights". So unless you buy new or Canon bends the rules a bit, you will never get warranty on a used item unless it is through a third party like Mack, for example.

As far as any differences, I would imagine a newer lens may have better quality control during production... And have far less abuse (depending on owner), but I would always go with a much newer item unless the price justifies it.

In the early 90's I was at Intel and we were trying to move manufacturing capacity to silicon fabs in Japan that had excess capacity, our fabs were fully loaded. I spent a couple of years working in semiconductor factories in Japan, and based on what I observed once they dial a manufacturing process in and start production, the process is not tweaked again unless a major problem is found with the product. I'd venture that other than normal wear and tear on a 7 year old lens, there would be no differences inside it from a new one.

I would also assume that if a basic change were made that improved the image the lens produces, they would call it a mark II and charge more accordingly.

I would not say that, for sure.

I worked at a company in which changes to production could be made to improve a product and not be "published" to the customer. If they have issues with certain aspects and newer technology allows for better accuracy and such, they would do it. Especially to save on costs.

The design is probably identical and the optics the same, but the method to get those optics the way they are and the materials could have easily of changed. For better, or worse.

rick_reno wrote in post #12649987
In the early 90's I was at Intel and we were trying to move manufacturing capacity to silicon fabs in Japan that had excess capacity, our fabs were fully loaded. I spent a couple of years working in semiconductor factories in Japan, and based on what I observed once they dial a manufacturing process in and start production, the process is not tweaked again unless a major problem is found with the product. I'd venture that other than normal wear and tear on a 7 year old lens, there would be no differences inside it from a new one.

Whereas, back in the old days of the late 80s, early 90s before Toyota became an American company , when I worked with them, they were always looking for manufacturing improvements, even on the most efficient and highest quality operations, as part of their principle of kaizen and philosophy of never being satisfied.

Probably belongs in the lens forum?

Canon does "silent upgrades" occasionally, midstream changes to products with longer production lifespans. The original 70-200/2.8 IS got a revised IS a year or two after it was introduced. That was documented through their service dept... but the new IS in that case was only to make servicing the lens easier. It didn't change performance and wasn't expected to improve durability. So there was no reason to have the lens upgraded (cost of upgrade was $600 at the time), from a user perspective.

I've never heard of any upgrade, silent or otherwise, to 300/4 IS. There was an earlier non-IS model, of course. But the IS version was one of Canon's first to get stabilization - introduced in 1997 - seems to have been produced relatively unchanged.

This is one of the lenses that requires you to turn off IS if you lock it down on a tripod. But it's a very hand-holdable lens.

Purchased one that was a few years old and couldn't have gotten a better product.

Invertalon wrote in post #12649637
Saint,

Warranties do not transfer with Canon... Only the original buyer is supposed to have "warranty rights". So unless you buy new or Canon bends the rules a bit, you will never get warranty on a used item unless it is through a third party like Mack, for example.

As far as any differences, I would imagine a newer lens may have better quality control during production... And have far less abuse (depending on owner), but I would always go with a much newer item unless the price justifies it.

Not a true statement. Warranties do transfer from old owner to new owner as long as its with in the 1 year Canon warranty period and the original owner gives you the original receipt. I know because I sold a lens and the person that bought it said there was something wrong with it. I sent them the receipt and Canon repaired it at no cost to new owner.

Take Care,
Cheers, Patrick

Saint728 wrote in post #12651772
Not a true statement. Warranties do transfer from old owner to new owner as long as its with in the 1 year Canon warranty period and the original owner gives you the original receipt. I know because I sold a lens and the person that bought it said there was something wrong with it. I sent them the receipt and Canon repaired it at no cost to new owner.

Take Care,
Cheers, Patrick

I agree with this statement.

Officially the Canon warranty only applies to the original owner (it's in the warranty T&Cs somewhere), but it seems they often honour the warranty anyway. At least that's true in the US - I've not heard whether they do in other countries although, when I asked Canon UK, they told me 'no warranty if you bought it second hand'.

I have a Canon 300 4 (non IS) that is about 12 years old and was originally purchased to use on an EOS 1n film body. Since then it's been used with a 1D, a 30D, a 50D, and a 7D. It's still sharp as a tack and works great.
I also have a less then 2 year old 300 4 IS and the two lenses are comperable in sharpness and reliability.