Info on a 300 F/4L non IS

[richard_martin10]

<p>I have a chance to purchase a 300 F/4L, used but in as new condition. No marks at all on the outside, no scratches on the glass front or back, just a couple of small specks of dust inside the lens. I took a few pics and they are razor sharp, picture quality is superb, AF is blazingly fast, all functions seem perfect. Price is irresistable! My only doubt is a 1993 date code. I'm told that the lens sat for years unused, this seems obvious from the condition............any downside to purchasing it?</p>

[alan_bryant1]

<p>If it's been well cared-for, it should be good for many more years. A discount is appropriate since it will be difficult to fix if it does break, and of course it lacks IS. These show up at KEH fairly often, and run $800-$900 in EX condition.</p>

[peter_j2]

<p>How much is the lens? Do you intend to shoot mainly handheld with a 300mm in varying light conditions? Hate the thought of having to lug around a tripod? Between $900 and $1000, you can find a used f/4L IS version off of eBay. Especially at the 300mm focal length, you may want to re-evaluate the need for a non-IS version versus an IS version before buying. Otherwise, the non-IS lens may again sit preserved in the closet unused.</p>

[JohnMWright]

<p>I have one, though I don't know the date. I paid about $800 for mine a few years ago. It is razor sharp. Unless you want IS, I would not hesitate for a second. There are times I wish I had IS, but mostly I shoot from a tripod.</p>

[PuppyDigs]

<p>I have one of the same vintage and, as you wrote, it's razor sharp and ultra fast focusing. Doesn't seem to be giving up the ghost after all these years so if the price is right it's a good gamble.</p>

[john_hanlon3]

<p>Hello Richard,</p>

<p>What are you waiting for? To quote Bob Atkins' review: "a killer lens". I have the IS version but it gets heavy in a hurry shooting hand held, even after removing the tripod mount, so I always use a tripod or monopod with IS switched off. Add a Canon 1.4X and you have an excellent 420mm f/5.6 with virtually no loss in sharpness or focusing speed.</p>

<p>Bob's review is here: <a href="http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/300-4.html">http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/300-4.html</a> Note that he finds the non-IS version a touch sharper than the IS.</p>

[hjoseph7]

I purchased one just a few weeks ago in perfect condition not a single scratch on it, or dust with a case for a little ove $800. Sure I would love to have the IS version, but how often do I go out and shoot with a 300mm lens slapped on my camera, not very. According to some reviews, the non-IS version is a litle bit sharper than the IS version and lighter too. Something to think about.

[richard_martin10]

<p>Thanks all for your quick help on some answers.........its a done deal at 765.00. For those that suggested an IS version instead, I have no need as this lens is headed for motorsports duty. I have no problem hand holding a 400 5.6 or a 70 200 2.8 so using this one will be a piece of cake! Anyone know if Canon still services this lens? Thanks again, Rich</p>

[peter_j2]

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Anyone know if Canon still services this lens?</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Call Canon. For example, I have read that it's bigger brother the discontinued Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L USM is no longer serviced by Canon.<br /> <strong><br /> </strong></p>

[PuppyDigs]

<p>The 300 4L has been out of production over 10 years so you need to use non-Canon owned service centers like KEH and MidWest Camera. </p>

[jajurek]

<p>I have this lens too. Use it often with Extenders. There is one drawback: it isn't on the DPP compatible lens list (for CA repairing). With Extenders CA can be some problem. </p>

[jajurek]

<p>I have this lens too. Use it often with Extenders. There is one drawback: it isn't on the DPP compatible lens list (for CA repairing). With Extenders CA can be some problem. </p>

[steve_dunn2]

<cite>I have the IS version but it gets heavy in a hurry shooting hand held, even after removing the tripod mount, so I always use a tripod or monopod with IS switched off.</cite>

 

<p>This lens' IS system doesn't include tripod mode, so you do indeed want to have IS off when using it on a solid tripod (and a not-so-solid tripod, of course, is a not-so-good tripod). But all of Canon's various versions of IS work well on a monopod, including this one (I used to have the 300/4 IS and was very happy with it, including using it on a monopod), so if you haven't already tried it, I'd suggest you give it a shot.</p>

 

<cite>There is one drawback: it isn't on the DPP compatible lens list (for CA repairing).</cite>

 

<p>DPP isn't the only problem which can fix CA. I've been fixing CA using PTLens since several years before DPP gained CA correction. While PTLens doesn't automatically fix CA using its lens database like it does for curvilinear distortion, it's pretty easy to adjust it manually, and after a while you have a pretty good idea what the appropriate adjustment will be for each of your lenses (heck, most of mine are zooms and I can usually make a fairly decent first guess).</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>I have the IS version but shoot sports so I rarely need the IS. I bought the IS version as i wanted a new lens and this lens holds it's value well. Your 17 year old lens sold for $765 verses the $1270 for a new IS lens - i.e. after 17 years it sold for 60% of the new price!.. this is why L series glass is a good investment compared to camera bodies.</p>

[jajurek]

<p>Thank you, Steve. I have PTLens too, but prefer DPP for fixing CA. Best wishes!</p>