Advice on buying a "used" Canon EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM lens

Thanks guys, for your opinions and advice, it helped me to make my buy decision. I bought the 70-300 IS USM f/4-5.6 from the guy on craigslist. Like the seller said, It was brand new, the box, documents, and lens all had matching serial numbers and the seller even had the reciept. This lens came bundled with his new camera, and since he already had a telephoto lens he didn't need this one. I paid $300 for it, so I saved money on it. While $300 isn't inconsequential, in the realm of Canon lenses $300 is not much. I have decided however, that If/when I buy an L lens or any lens in the price range or higher I will buy new, and from a reputable dealer, which will eliminate doubt and my own second guessing.

Regards,

Rick


New EF 70-300 IS USM f/4-5.6 f/10 1/500, ISO 250, 135mm

Congratulations! That is a good buy for $300.

My vote is for the 55-250. I had the lens you are looking at. I sold it for $325 because it is soft wide open at 300mm. The 55-250 is better at 250 than the 70-300 is at 300. And there is very little difference between 250 and 300mm. Plus the 55-250 is a lot lighter. And you can get it new for less than the 70-300 used.

Nice picture. Enjoy your new lens.

Mike

TSchrief,

I might have gotten the 55-250, as many people have the same opinion as you, and swear by it for all the same points that you make. For me, my ultimate consideration in not getting the 55-250 was that it's an EF-S lens, and I am trying to wrap my brain around getting a 5DIII. Planning ahead, I won't have to replace all my lenses at the same time if/when I get a 5DIII, if I only get EF lenses now. I have a 17-55 EF-S which I love, and will have to bite the bullet and replace with a 24-70 2.8L when the times comes.

Regards,

Rick

TSchrief wrote in post #14910150
My vote is for the 55-250. I had the lens you are looking at. I sold it for $325 because it is soft wide open at 300mm. The 55-250 is better at 250 than the 70-300 is at 300. And there is very little difference between 250 and 300mm. Plus the 55-250 is a lot lighter. And you can get it new for less than the 70-300 used.

alazgr8 wrote in post #14910672
TSchrief,

I might have gotten the 55-250, as many people have the same opinion as you, and swear by it for all the same points that you make. For me, my ultimate consideration in not getting the 55-250 was that it's an EF-S lens, and I am trying to wrap my brain around getting a 5DIII. Planning ahead, I won't have to replace all my lenses at the same time if/when I get a 5DIII, if I only get EF lenses now. I have a 17-55 EF-S which I love, and will have to bite the bullet and replace with a 24-70 2.8L when the times comes.

Regards,

Rick

I certainly understand that logic. I plan on acquiring a 5D3 in March and have upgrading my lenses as well. One I will be keeping is the 10-22. I think that and the 18-135 will be my only EF-s lenses at that point. I am keeping the 60D. Enjoy your new lens!

TSchrief wrote in post #14910150
My vote is for the 55-250. I had the lens you are looking at. I sold it for $325 because it is soft wide open at 300mm. The 55-250 is better at 250 than the 70-300 is at 300. And there is very little difference between 250 and 300mm. Plus the 55-250 is a lot lighter. And you can get it new for less than the 70-300 used.

How does the 70-300 look at 250mm compared to the 55-250 at 250? If it was similar, wouldnt the extra 50mm come in handy once in a while?

I agree at 300mm, it can get soft. But below 300, its can be pretty sharp.

the 70-300 IS also has USM, even if its the USM micro motor... still better than regular micro motor.