Would you get.....

Hey guys and gals,
I hopefully have the opportunity to purchase( all used)
a bit of equipment.
My options are a 1d mark ii N and a 300mm 2.8 IS or
a mark III and a 300mm 2.8 non IS.

I am totally torn here.
I know either combo will give me excellent images compared to my 20D and 70-200 2.8 with the 1.4.... But i just do not know which way to roll.

Would really like to here from those who have used any of these combos as i have never used the IS version.
Thoughts???

thanks
mike.

Given the same choice... I'd go Mark III and 300 non-IS. Reason being is that the 300mm lens weighs like 5.6 pounds. You won't be hand holding that and a 1D for a very long time so you'll probaly want to use a monopod or tripod... see where I'm going with this? Well not that you couldn't, but I know that I wouldn't want to hold that much weight. I am sore after using my 5D and 70-200 f/2.8 all day.

Given the history of issues with the mk3 and the proven track record of the mk2n....I have to say I am content with my mk2n...and I like IS glass. You can always turn off the IS on an IS lens if you don't need it...but you can't turn it on on a lens that doesn't have it.

Tough call as IS is really handy but not wholly necessary if you use a tripod or shutter speeds fast enough to stop birds in flight for instance (1/1,000+). So I'd go for the second choice.
I think you're going to split opinion though.

MK III & Non-IS.

The 300L F2.8 isn't much cheaper than the IS version. And also it is an older lens. I am not sure if saving couple of hundred dollars is worth it here. Although MarkIII is a nice body, it is known to have AF issue. I personally know a local shooter who took his MarkIII for a first run in a local cycling race. He was complaining OOF shots just by looking at the LCD screen. This was around late March this year.

mikeassk wrote in post #6211554
Hey guys and gals,
I hopefully have the opportunity to purchase( all used)
a bit of equipment.
My options are a 1d mark ii N and a 300mm 2.8 IS or
a mark III and a 300mm 2.8 non IS.

I am totally torn here.
I know either combo will give me excellent images compared to my 20D and 70-200 2.8 with the 1.4.... But i just do not know which way to roll.

Would really like to here from those who have used any of these combos as i have never used the IS version.
Thoughts???

thanks
mike.

300mm f/2.8 IS + 1D MkIIN, if you ask me.
Cameras come and go, lenses stay for a long time.
300mm none IS will have very limited use, you’ll have to have it on a tripod all the time.

However, I don’t have personal experience with either of these lenses, so please take this advice with a grain of salt.

TooManyShots wrote in post #6211825
....He was complaining OOF shots just by looking at the LCD screen...

Probably not the best way to test sharpness

I think the biggest thing is the mark ii N wont lose any real value, come october when Canon most likely releases a mark iii update, where the current will. Right?

IS and AF or neither.....

is that even a question?

jacobsen1 wrote in post #6212083
IS and AF or neither.....

is that even a question?

This is kinda where i have been leaning.

as a VERY happy owner of the mkIII, my vote is the mkIIn+ 300 2.8 IS hand down!!! the 300 2.8 IS is truly magic and the mkIIn is a VERY capable body. besides, bodies come and go but lenses are forever...