Canon 300mm 2.8 NON IS

admirable

admirable

Suspended / Banned
Messages
11,612
Name
Jim
Edit My Images
Yes
Can anyone point me to a review of this lens or has anyone had this lens in the past.

Better still, does anyone have one now and can give me some pointers as to what it's like.

Is there a Mk1 and a Mk2 version of the NON IS lens?

cheers
 
It's all relative

I got the none IS version to replace the sigma 120-300 and it was pretty dammned good.. they average 1k for a used copy..The older version went pretty poor in half light... good in daylight, good under floodlights at night footy but poor in poor light... but I now have the newer version and its even better :)

What you will think of it depends on what you already have.. like I say.. relative
 
Just dug this out of my archive of use full info

Canon 300mm f2.8 L (NON IS)

Optically and mechanically there are no differences between the lenses and Canon only considers there to be one "full" model of the 300/2.8L non-IS.
However they did release three "sub-models" for lack of a better description. These were marked on the external box and also on the warranty card.
The original one had no numeral after its name, but the second and third ones were marked as II and III respectively.

Differences

MK I

The original lens has a metal hood and no strap slot opening on the back of the tripod foot.
The case for these lenses was a black vinyl-coated hard case.
This lens also has Canon's brown coating on the front element.

MK II

The MK II changed to a polycarbonate hood (lighter) and added the strap slot in the tripod foot.
These lenses came with a green aluminum-trimmed lens trunk rather than the hard case.
The front-element coating changed from the brown one to Canon's green coating during the MK II production run.

MK III

The III was very similar to the II but came with the newer beige trunk instead of the green one.


Hope this is of intrest
 
Canon Bob said:
Here's Photo.net's review http://photo.net/equipment/canon/300

Bob
Click to expand...

Written in 1996 .. to the reviewer it would have been the best thing since sliced bread.. lens and bodies ahve come on a lot since then.. apart from technical info i wouldnt put too much store on the review.. A review written nowerdays would be more usefull IMHO :)
 
Hmmm, this has a metal hood so I might give it a pass, it's been well used!
 
Well, one of my fellow Blzeebub'ers uses the "Mk I" non-IS 300 2.8... providing you don't care about IS, then its perfect.

I'd go for it... especially if you say its 1/5th the price of the IS one.... so about 500 quid?

Chuffin bargain of the year!
 
mho said:
Just dug this out of my archive of use full info

Canon 300mm f2.8 L (NON IS)

Optically and mechanically there are no differences between the lenses and Canon only considers there to be one "full" model of the 300/2.8L non-IS.
However they did release three "sub-models" for lack of a better description. These were marked on the external box and also on the warranty card.
The original one had no numeral after its name, but the second and third ones were marked as II and III respectively.

Differences

MK I

The original lens has a metal hood and no strap slot opening on the back of the tripod foot.
The case for these lenses was a black vinyl-coated hard case.
This lens also has Canon's brown coating on the front element.

MK II

The MK II changed to a polycarbonate hood (lighter) and added the strap slot in the tripod foot.
These lenses came with a green aluminum-trimmed lens trunk rather than the hard case.
The front-element coating changed from the brown one to Canon's green coating during the MK II production run.

MK III

The III was very similar to the II but came with the newer beige trunk instead of the green one.


Hope this is of intrest
Click to expand...

Thanks for that, good bit of info there!
 
Brilliant information about the various "models" of the non-IS version of the 300mm f/2.8 L - thank you.

I am looking for a 300mm f/2.8 at the moment and have seen quite a number of the non-IS versions (well ... two or three) for sale in a number of places. One of the ones I was seriously looking at had been serviced by CANON and fitted with bits and pieces from the IS version in view of the fact that the original parts were no longer available. This may reduce the fears of such a lens being unserviceable and although the above work was done early in 2005, I can't see any reason why it could not be done now. (Though at what cost is anybodies guess!). Saying that, the chap who was selling the lens told me that the focus hold/recovery function (not sure what the official term is for this), didn't seem to work.

Alan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top