300/2.8L better than 300/2.8L IS?

Hello!

I have heard that the 300/2.8L non-IS lens gives better imagequality than the 300/2.8L IS. Is it true?

If there is any advantage, it will be imperceptible unless you are printing 30" prints and comparing them from a viewing distance of 3 inches. In other words - it's not worth losing the IS. The 300 f/2.8 IS is one of the very best lenses Canon makes, and the image quality is exceptional....good for pretty much any use and any print size, so there's no need to worry about it being inferior.

I don't actually need the IS, and the non-IS-version is damn cheap..

In that case, what does it matter? Pick up the non-IS and enjoy!

AFAIK Canon doesn't delivery any spare parts for the non-IS version any more. If the AF or something else breakes, you have a nice museum piece.
But generally this lenses seem to be very solid build. If the price is OK and the lens is in a good shape, why not.

Good shape, yes. Some marks around it, but not many. Optical he said it is perfect.

Practically identical IQ. If you plan to shoot with a tripod/monopod then the IS isn't as important as if you handheld a lot.

I handheld quite often actually, but I now have the Sigma 300/2.8 (without IS / OS) and I have no problems with handholding it....

But I want to know which one of them is the best....

Gissan wrote in post #6007451
But I want to know which one of them is the best....

Well it has been said already that the IQ is pretty equal but the addition of IS makes that lens better. Lens manufacturers don't typically decide to replace a lens with an inferior one. So the IS version is the better lens of the two.

I have the 300 f 2.8 with IS. I have never tried the non IS version but I really can't imagine a lens being any better. It is my best lens by far out of eleven Canon lenses, seven of them being L series.

Typically lenses improve over time. For example, the 400mm f/2.8L was a nice lens. The Mark II was even better, even optically. The latest version, with IS (the "Mark III" as it were) is optically about the same as the Mark II but better in every other way.

Okey, but if we just compare IQ and disable IS - which one of them will give me the sharpest image?

The 300/2.8L IS is said to be the sharpest lens Canon ever have made, but some also say that the 300/2.8L non-IS is better (as in sharper).

Anyone that has compared the two? How big is the difference? And which is the sharpest?

Gissan wrote in post #6007749
Okey, but if we just compare IQ and disable IS - which one of them will give me the sharpest image?

The 300/2.8L IS is said to be the sharpest lens Canon ever have made, but some also say that the 300/2.8L non-IS is better (as in sharper).

Anyone that has compared the two? How big is the difference? And which is the sharpest?

In this case I think you are trying to count the hairs on the back of a moose's ass from 200 yards. It just isn't worth the time. They are both ridiculously sharp from what I have seen. But shooting handheld I would want the IS, no questions asked.

In2Photos wrote in post #6007792
In this case I think you are trying to count the hairs on the back of a moose's ass from 200 yards. It just isn't worth the time. They are both ridiculously sharp from what I have seen. But shooting handheld I would want the IS, no questions asked.

Haha I think that hit the nail on the head, both would be crazy sharp IQ wise and whatever the difference wouldn't be worth the trouble finding it. This really should be more about the IS being a big help to you or not and if so what's it worth?