canon 300 2.8 v mkII

KIPAX

KIPAX

Seriously Likeable
Suspended / Banned
Messages
21,370
Name
KIPAX Lancashire UK
Edit My Images
No
Has anyone used the canon 300 2.8L IS lens and then the newer mkII version and can tell me if theres much difference..

I ahd the other 300 and wish I had never sold it :( It was pin sharp and lovely colours... But i needed to fund the 400mm .. Now thinking of getting a 300 but is the mkII worth it over the previous version ?
 
I don't know but I wonder if the old one is now on the unsupported list like the longer prime lenses? Don't know if that makes a difference to the decision.
 
In your position it must be worth the extra purely because of getting spare parts for the mk 1 version - I believe Canon are about to stop supporting the older lens.

I've not used it personally but know quite a few who have, and both are up there at the top of the sharpness charts, but the newer superteles play better with the mk3 converters, particularly the 2x in respect of AF speed
 
Chipper said:
I don't know but I wonder if the old one is now on the unsupported list like the longer prime lenses? Don't know if that makes a difference to the decision.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure it is... But no.. Plenty of repair shops around.. only plus with it being on canon list is CPS and turnaround times but with a 300 and 400 then time wont be as important .. ta :)
 
The new one makes more sense.. Look after it and hopefully hold its value somewhat (obviously lose the new to used money) .. But hmmm scarey :)
 
I had an email at Christmas stating my 300 is no longer supported and was removed from my cps account, a bit of a bummer, but hay hoo..
 
DemiLion said:
MPB have got two in stock for £4.2k if you're interested.
Click to expand...


mfsuds 4.8k for used..So MPB lookin good.. neither company state what warranty they give... have used both in past just cant remember ..
 
I've currently got both versions, Tony.....picked up a MkII and still haven't got around to moving the MkI on. For your usage, I don't think that you'll see any difference....I don't. The MkII is noticeably lighter and better with extenders but the lens alone for sports then nothing too obvious to me.

Bob
 
Canon Bob said:
I've currently got both versions, Tony.....picked up a MkII and still haven't got around to moving the MkI on. For your usage, I don't think that you'll see any difference....I don't. The MkII is noticeably lighter and better with extenders but the lens alone for sports then nothing too obvious to me.

Bob
Click to expand...


Yeagh just read a long thread on DPreview and everyone seems to think no difference optically..its all about the extenders.... but i have my 400 so its not a consideration..

hmm the 4200 quid at MPB looks tempting though......
 
I suppose i worry about getting a duff older one :( seriously should have kept mine.. worse decision i ever made.. even the wife said why not keep it :(
 
I picked up a second hand mk2 last year for GBP 3k. Really fast to focus, extremely sharp and fairly easy to hand hold. Got some great results this month with ski racing with it.
 
I might wait until bob is selling one of his :)
 
Canon Bob said:
I don't think that you'll see any difference....I don't. The MkII is noticeably lighter and better with extenders but the lens alone for sports then nothing too obvious to me.
Click to expand...
Agree totally. To me the weight difference, whilst not very great in absolute terms, is moderately significant; the Mk I is hand-holdable but the Mk II is comfortably hand-holdable. YMMV, obvs. Optically, the Mk I is stellar and the Mk II is technically beyond stellar, but in practical terms that's not much of a difference.
 
StewartR said:
Agree totally. To me the weight difference, whilst not very great in absolute terms, is moderately significant; the Mk I is hand-holdable but the Mk II is comfortably hand-holdable. YMMV, obvs. Optically, the Mk I is stellar and the Mk II is technically beyond stellar, but in practical terms that's not much of a difference.
Click to expand...


Sell me mine back haha :)
 
StewartR said:
Seriously? I'm planning to offload all my Mk I lenses at the end of February, and you're welcome to have first dibs.
Click to expand...

You are one of the few poeple I would buy a used lens from with confidence...... if you can let me know as and when... I wont commit now but would give you an answer instantly Y/N THANKS :)
 
KIPAX said:
I might wait until bob is selling one of his :)
Click to expand...
You'd be very welcome, Tony, but I think that you'd be better off waiting for Stewart's offer so that you can drive down and pick one....shipping a larger size lens from here isn't cheap.

Bob
 
Canon Bob said:
You'd be very welcome, Tony, but I think that you'd be better off waiting for Stewart's offer so that you can drive down and pick one....shipping a larger size lens from here isn't cheap.

Bob
Click to expand...

Plus yours wouldnt be UK :)

Lets see what deal Stewart can give me (used ex hire lens - gotta be cheap haha) .. I think I will hold off on a decision for a couple of weeks then .
 
KIPAX said:
Plus yours wouldnt be UK :)
Click to expand...
I bought it from AJ Purdy in their big sell off when the went bust. However, lenses bought in other EU countries have the same warranty and support as UK sources ones (for now!)
 
Canon Bob said:
I bought it from AJ Purdy in their big sell off when the went bust. However, lenses bought in other EU countries have the same warranty and support as UK sources ones (for now!)
Click to expand...


True. I had a blonde moment... It was me who asked canon when i bought my 400.. i asked them if imported 400 was covered and they said yes.. bodies not covered.. lens are covered... that was a direct answer from canon.... so i dont knwo why i wrote the above...old age mate :)
 
pooley said:
In your position it must be worth the extra purely because of getting spare parts for the mk 1 version - I believe Canon are about to stop supporting the older lens.

I've not used it personally but know quite a few who have, and both are up there at the top of the sharpness charts, but the newer superteles play better with the mk3 converters, particularly the 2x in respect of AF speed
Click to expand...

Yes this is what I was advised as well
I was looking at a second hand mk 1 but was told that the mk 2 works better with TCs
I ended up buying the 300 2.8 mk 2 and the mk 3 converters 1.4 and 2.0 as these were specifically designed to go with the mk2 superteles
It's an amazing combination get brilliant images with the 1.4 tc attached and still excellent with the 2.0
 
LCPete said:
Yes this is what I was advised as well
I was looking at a second hand mk 1 but was told that the mk 2 works better with TCs
I ended up buying the 300 2.8 mk 2 and the mk 3 converters 1.4 and 2.0 as these were specifically designed to go with the mk2 superteles
It's an amazing combination get brilliant images with the 1.4 tc attached and still excellent with the 2.0
Click to expand...


You required somehtign longer than 300 then.

I need 300.. I ahve the 400 2.8 so its not a consideration to use a TC as I wouldn't gan anything.. in fact I would lose stops :)

Seems to me the PLUS for a mkII is
servicable by canon v servicable by other companies
better with TC
that it?


As I can use anyone to service a lens and I dont need a converter then mk1 is making more sense.. i ahd one and know the quality of pic is excelelnt and indeed most say i wouldnt see a difference between the two... If i can source a mk1 knowing its going to be in good nik then may as well save a few thousand pounds:)
 
I do believe the mkii lenses have the contacts that fully talk to the mkIII tc's but the mk1 doesent.
Rob.
 
KIPAX said:
You required somehtign longer than 300 then.

I need 300.. I ahve the 400 2.8 so its not a consideration to use a TC as I wouldn't gan anything.. in fact I would lose stops :)

Seems to me the PLUS for a mkII is
servicable by canon v servicable by other companies
better with TC
that it?


As I can use anyone to service a lens and I dont need a converter then mk1 is making more sense.. i ahd one and know the quality of pic is excelelnt and indeed most say i wouldnt see a difference between the two... If i can source a mk1 knowing its going to be in good nik then may as well save a few thousand pounds:)
Click to expand...
Yes that's true if you won't be using tcs then a mk1 makes sense :)
I use mine mainly without tc but do quite often use the 1.4 And occasionally the 2.0
 
Slightly off topic, much difference in image quality between mk 1 300 f4 and 2.8 at say F5.6 onwards?
 
MatBin said:
Slightly off topic, much difference in image quality between mk 1 300 f4 and 2.8 at say F5.6 onwards?
Click to expand...

i wouldnt have thought so.. I ahd the 300 f4 and thought the f4 quality was exceptional.... it was my first prime so i may have been blinded by it :)
 
MatBin said:
Slightly off topic, much difference in image quality between mk 1 300 f4 and 2.8 at say F5.6 onwards?
Click to expand...
Optically, probably not. There is the question of targeted AF accurracy though. Using specific AF points, the targeted position of f/2.8 (or faster) lenses is within 1/3 DoF whereas with slower lenses the target is simply within DoF
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top