300mm F4 NON IS

Ive been searching around for one of these the past couple days. I was just wondering how much a used one should be selling for? And Ive been struggling to find The NON IS version of this lens. Are people just holding on to them because they are a good lens and not worth selling. Also if anyone knows any other good websites for used canon lenses besides on here.

Thanks
Brian

I'm not familiar with prices in the US but I'd be looking for a new lens rather than SH.

Good lenses generally hold their value very well and if you buy new, keep the box and instructions etc., and take care of the lens, you'll be able to get a decent price for it later on when you want a change.

David

Riddy831 wrote in post #11091410
Ive been searching around for one of these the past couple days. I was just wondering how much a used one should be selling for? And Ive been struggling to find The NON IS version of this lens. Are people just holding on to them because they are a good lens and not worth selling. Also if anyone knows any other good websites for used canon lenses besides on here.

Thanks
Brian

Check out KEH.com for new and used. Also look on ebay. I've bought many used lenses on ebay (and a couple from KEH) and have yet to be disappointed.

Did a quick ebay search. Look here, and this one is IS.

http://cgi.ebay.com …enses&hash=item​3f03ec2662

The 300 f4 usually sells for $700- $900. I hear this is a very sharp lens. I would suggest looking into the IS version. You can get that one used for about $1000. Other sites? Fred Miranda's website and ebay.

As of right now im just going to school and not working so my budget is very limited so im trying to keep it as low as possible. Im gonna be shooting sports with this lens so the IS is really not that important to me and ive read that it also lowers the IQ just slightly. But ill be sure to keep checking ebay like I have been and Ill also try those other sites as well

Riddy831 wrote in post #11091709
As of right now im just going to school and not working so my budget is very limited so im trying to keep it as low as possible. Im gonna be shooting sports with this lens so the IS is really not that important to me and ive read that it also lowers the IQ just slightly. But ill be sure to keep checking ebay like I have been and Ill also try those other sites as well

you can also search on Fred Miranda buy/sell

I got a very nice copy a few years ago from there for about $710. (Later sold it for a 300 2.8 IS) These days I think you should be able to get it for $650. It is nice a light compared to the 2.8 IS beast!
When I sold it on ebay I couldn't get $700 for it anymore until I decided to allow overseas sales and then I got $700 for it.
I think $700-900 listed above is a bit much, certainly I wouldn't go above $750 for sure.

A nice daytime field sports lens on a, relative, budget!
Worked well for football/soccer.

I guess I must just wait for one to pop up and hopefully be one of the first to spot it.

Wombat did you find the f4 to be a very shape lens like ive heard it is? And this lens would also be appropriate to use for baseball too? Also did you ever use it with a 1.4x TC? and if you did what were your thoughts on that combo together?

Riddy831 wrote in post #11096100
I guess I must just wait for one to pop up and hopefully be one of the first to spot it.

Wombat did you find the f4 to be a very shape lens like ive heard it is? And this lens would also be appropriate to use for baseball too? Also did you ever use it with a 1.4x TC? and if you did what were your thoughts on that combo together?

Back when I had it I only had a 20D (not something with the world's greatest focusing so these results may or may not be valid for 1 series/5 series/7 series) but putting on the TC did reduce the sports AF quite a bit. It definitely got slower and clearly less precise (although it's possible had micro focus been avail back then that that would've fixed it???).

I would say it seemed, bare lens at f/4, to be a litte bit better than the bare sigma 120-300 2.8 gives at 2.8 and similar to the 300 2.8 IS + 1.4x TC wide open at f/4. Worse than the bare 300 2.8 IS at f/2.8. It has better contrast and sharpness than the 70-300 IS or tamron 70-300 VC at 300mm and better sharpness and slightly, slightly better contrast than the old 100-300L (much better AF than that).

I thought (bare) that the AF was worse than the 300 2.8 IS but better than the sigma 120-300.

It is pretty prone to purple fringing-type CA.

Yeah it's fine for baseball too. A bit short for the outfield and a bit tight at first, but it works.

Here are a few shots (downscaled for web, jpgs out of a 20D):

IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING! HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING! HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING! HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Riddy831 wrote in post #11096100
I guess I must just wait for one to pop up and hopefully be one of the first to spot it.

Wombat did you find the f4 to be a very shape lens like ive heard it is? And this lens would also be appropriate to use for baseball too? Also did you ever use it with a 1.4x TC? and if you did what were your thoughts on that combo together?

I use mine for motorsports, and it's a very sharp lens with decent autofocus. Mine is a little sharper wide open than a friend's IS version. It works pretty well with a Kenko Pro teleconverter too, though the focus is a little slower (still OK) and the image quality is slightly poorer (still decent). It's a great lens all round

i went out and bought a used 300mm f2.8 (nikon) to play with. i used it once and the darn thing is so heavy i havent used it again!! It would be lift, focus, shoot shoot shoot, drop camera to waist and pant like a dog...

yeah, i know tripod but im lazy ....

I had the 300 f/4 IS and it was very sharp. Reports are that the non-IS is even a hair sharper.

I would put the IS version around $1,000 used and the non-IS around $700. Assuming very good condition.

The non-IS is not a real common find simply due to its age. The IS version replaced it in 1997. That means any non-IS you find is at least 13 years old.

On Ebay.
http://cgi.ebay.com …enses&hash=item​255e09df99

I doubt...

If you viewed a selection of real-life images shot with both the IS and non-IS 300mm f/4L lenses. I doubt if you could pick out which images were shot with which lenses.

So, price would be the only criteria for the decision between the IS and the older non-IS version.

If you ONLY SHOOT SPORTS, you can get away with the non-IS version. However, if you attempt to hand hold other types of shots, IS is often a life saver (an image saver anyway).

imagemaster over on FM forum has one for sale right now. He does live in Canada but is a great guy to deal with