# Used 300 2.8 L IS Mk I



## can0nfan2379 (Jul 1, 2013)

Hey all,

Hopefully will be picking up my first big white soon. There are a couple of sellers in the area. One has a UV date code in very good condition the other is a US date code in pristine condition. Both are about the same price.

So my question is -- the US (2004) vs the UV (2007) -- is there any reason (USM motor, aperture control etc.) that a person would pick the lens with newer electronics over the older lens or is date code fairly irrelevant? Both lenses are supposed to have perfect glass, no internal dust or fungus. The few scuffs and scrapes on the UV lens are just cosmetic on the body.

Anybody know of any quality control issues with any of the runs of the 300 2.8?

Recommendations?

Thanks,

Ryan


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 1, 2013)

Canon doesn't really do 'stealth' updates - doing so would mean changing the manufacturing line, requiring revalidation of the process, etc. If there are issues, yes they change the line - but there are no advisories on the 300/2.8L IS. So, the electronics will almost certainly be the same between the two lenses. 

I'd be inclined to the pristine US over the 'very good' UV, personally. I have had a UT 300/4L IS and an UL 200/2.8L II, and both were excellent.


----------



## can0nfan2379 (Jul 1, 2013)

Thanks Neuro,

Yeah I was just wondering not so much about stealth updates but more about the finite lifespan of motors and such just like shutter mechanisms rated for x number of actuations....

The older lens looks essentially new -- not even a mark on the tripod foot.

Cheers,

Ryan


----------



## tron (Jul 1, 2013)

can0nfan2379 said:


> Thanks Neuro,
> 
> Yeah I was just wondering not so much about stealth updates but more about the finite lifespan of motors and such just like shutter mechanisms rated for x number of actuations....
> 
> ...


Then it is probably less used and/or more well taken care of. So it must be a better choice.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 1, 2013)

tron said:


> *The older lens looks essentially new -- not even a mark on the tripod foot*.


Then it is probably less used and/or more well taken care of. So it must be a better choice.
[/quote]

My 600 II doesn't have a mark on the tripod foot, either. Of course, that's because 5 minutes after first unpacking the lens, I swapped out the Canon foot for the RRS replacement, and packed the Canon foot away in the case.


----------



## can0nfan2379 (Jul 1, 2013)

True enough....


----------



## tron (Jul 1, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > *The older lens looks essentially new -- not even a mark on the tripod foot*.
> ...



My 600 II doesn't have a mark on the tripod foot, either. Of course, that's because 5 minutes after first unpacking the lens, I swapped out the Canon foot for the RRS replacement, and packed the Canon foot away in the case. 
[/quote]
;D ;D But still a heavily used lens will show signs of use on other places...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 1, 2013)

tron said:


> But still a heavily used lens will show signs of use on other places...



True. I was just pulling your leg...erm...foot.


----------



## Northstar (Jul 1, 2013)

can0nfan2379 said:


> True enough....



I bought a used one (UY) in mint condition last year. I love mine and I bet you'll love yours.

My vote would be for the perfect condition older version. With a lens this big and heavy, you want the previous owner to be the kind of person that was VERY careful handling the lens, one drop on the ground or even a hard bang against something solid could have negative implications for the internal "stuff". 

Also, the other potential positive on the pristine version is that there are many people that buy a lens like this and then almost never use it. And after they've looked at it sitting on the shelf unused month after month and year after year, they finally decide to sell it and get something else. This could be one of those....used, but basically new.

Test it thoroughly before you buy.

Good luck!
North


----------



## can0nfan2379 (Jul 1, 2013)

Any thoughts on buying from people on Fred Miranda or Nature Photographers -- in particular only those sellers with both excellent feedback and numerous transactions (including recent transactions) in their history? If I went that route, I wouldn't be able to test the lens prior to buying but I have been speaking to one gentleman and his reviews are all positive, seems like a decent individual for whatever that is worth.

I guess ultimately it is buyer beware....

Have any of you bought a lens this way or only in person, face to face transactions?


----------



## Northstar (Jul 1, 2013)

can0nfan2379 said:


> Any thoughts on buying from people on Fred Miranda or Nature Photographers -- in particular only those sellers with both excellent feedback and numerous transactions (including recent transactions) in their history? If I went that route, I wouldn't be able to test the lens prior to buying but I have been speaking to one gentleman and his reviews are all positive, seems like a decent individual for whatever that is worth.
> 
> I guess ultimately it is buyer beware....
> 
> Have any of you bought a lens this way or only in person, face to face transactions?



I bought mine from a guy on eBay named Dan 812... His transaction history is pretty impressive and he always has a bunch of canon whites and superwhites. My transaction was very smooth. It might be worth a look. He shows a bunch of very detailed close up photos of the item.

Good luck


----------



## can0nfan2379 (Jul 2, 2013)

Thanks for the suggestions Northstar and Ankor!!!!


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 2, 2013)

I use one:


----------



## pwp (Jul 2, 2013)

The 300mm f/2.8is is a very robust piece of work designed to hack the daily grind. Mine has been used mercilessly since not long after the IS version came out about 10 years ago. It's still perfect and could pass as an immaculate example. It hasn't been dropped, banged or soaked too often. It always travels in it's bag. 

While either lens is probably perfectly fine, you may as well go for the one that is described as the better of the two, regardless of age.

-PW


----------



## can0nfan2379 (Jul 2, 2013)

Thanks for the advice PWP. Purchased today!!!!


----------



## Northstar (Jul 2, 2013)

can0nfan2379 said:


> Thanks for the advice PWP. Purchased today!!!!



Which one did you get?


----------



## can0nfan2379 (Jul 2, 2013)

The slightly older US date code that was in impeccable condition. ;D


----------



## Dylan777 (Jul 2, 2013)

can0nfan2379 said:


> The slightly older US date code that was in impeccable condition. ;D



I too thinking about 400 f2.8 IS version I. Would be nice to have version II, but the price tag is little too high for me.


----------



## can0nfan2379 (Jul 3, 2013)

Same here.....would have loved a 300 2.8 L IS II but for roughly $2500 less on the used market and $3500 less if I were buying the mark II new....I'm confident that the original 300 2.8L IS will give me 96.74% of the performance of version II....


----------



## Dylan777 (Jul 3, 2013)

can0nfan2379 said:


> Same here.....would have loved a 300 2.8 L IS II but for roughly $2500 less on the used market and $3500 less if I were buying the mark II new....I'm confident that the original 300 2.8L IS will give me 96.74% of the performance of version II....



+1....I'm looking for a decent 400mm f2.8 IS version I. Hopefully for around $4500 to $5000.


----------



## jasonsim (Jul 3, 2013)

Loving my 300 f//2.8L IS II. It is so light weight and short compared to the bigger great whites. And it works well as a 600mm f/5.6L:












I did also have the 300mm f/2.8L IS v1 and did enjoy that one too...just it did not take the 2x extender very well.

Congratulations on your new lens! You will love it!

Kind regards,
Jason


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 3, 2013)

Great shots...............but he's talking about the version I.


----------



## can0nfan2379 (Jul 3, 2013)

Yeah I read that when I was researching the mark I (about it not taking the 2x teleconverter that well).

I have a 1.4x II already that I intend to use on the 300. I have read that the 2x III performs better on the 300 2.8L IS MkI than the older 2x converter so I may look into that as a temporary stop gap until I can afford a used 500 or 600 Mk I.


----------



## tron (Jul 3, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> can0nfan2379 said:
> 
> 
> > The slightly older US date code that was in impeccable condition. ;D
> ...


Keep in mind that the 400 2.8 version I is VERY heavy!


----------



## Dylan777 (Jul 3, 2013)

tron said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > can0nfan2379 said:
> ...


 Well, I don't have anything longer than 200mm at this time. If I'm going for mrk II, I'm looking at end 2014 or early 2015 here :


----------



## Dylan777 (Jul 3, 2013)

jasonsim said:


> Loving my 300 f//2.8L IS II. It is so light weight and short compared to the bigger great whites. And it works well as a 600mm f/5.6L:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Jason,
How is AF on 300mm version II with x2 TC III? You have any photos with this combo? I'm currently shooting with 5D III.

Thanks
Dylan


----------



## jasonsim (Jul 3, 2013)

Hi Dylan. I will look to see, if I have any examples of the AF on a moving subject. If I don't I would suspect that the AF is very good using the combo mentioned: 5d III + 300mm f/2.8 IS II + 2x III. I say this because my 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II + 2x III has no trouble with AF at 400mm. Here is an example of that combo on a 5D III:





400mm . 1/1600th . f/6.3 . ISO 400​


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jul 3, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> can0nfan2379 said:
> 
> 
> > The slightly older US date code that was in impeccable condition. ;D
> ...



I bought a S/H near mint 400 f2.8 L IS mkI last year, just before the mkII's were released. I figured that I won't loose money on it and if I need to I can upgrade to the mkII as and when. The 400L is everything people are saying....it's AF is fast and very accurate. It's jaw droppingly sharp....it's one of the few lenses which can be used with a 2x TC wide open. It's very versatile too, the ability to use TC's really expands the use of this lens. It becomes a 400/2.8 a 560/f4 or 800/5.6. The only problem with it is it's physical weight....it's REALLY heavy and cumbersome. 
There are lighter ways to shoot wildlife! 
If I had a clean slate and 10K to blow, I would buy the new 500IIL. It's SO light and easy to handle. I'd loose the f2.8 option but the rest of the package really makes up for it.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jul 3, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > can0nfan2379 said:
> ...



Thanks GMCPhotographics for your feedback,

The reason I want f2.8 in telephoto lens, because my daughter is taking indoor swimming and ballet. Both activities are indoor, therefore, f4 or f5.6 might not be fast enough. My shutter speed usually some where 1/250 to 500ish. 

I don't mind the weight of version I, since most likely shooting will be on tripod/monopod. The photo below was taken with 70-200 @ 200mm. I cropped nearly 60% through LR4. I'm not sure 300mm is long enough?, but it's nice to be able to shoot handheld


----------



## Dylan777 (Jul 3, 2013)

jasonsim said:


> Hi Dylan. I will look to see, if I have any examples of the AF on a moving subject. If I don't I would suspect that the AF is very good using the combo mentioned: 5d III + 300mm f/2.8 IS II + 2x III. I say this because my 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II + 2x III has no trouble with AF at 400mm. Here is an example of that combo on a 5D III:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks Jason, that 300mm II lens looks REALLY good. At this moment, I do have enough $ for 300mm II. I'm not sure 300mm is long enough for my indoor shooting. My longest lens is 70-200mm and I feel I could use 400mm.


----------



## jasonsim (Jul 3, 2013)

Dylan, 

Here is a shot taken with the 300mm f/2.8L IS II + 2x III on a 1Dx. It shows some inflight action. I would say this combo is very usable. 

If you already have the 70-200mm f/2.8L II, I would recommend getting a 2x III and try it out at 400mm. You will be surprised by it's performance. Faster than a 100-400mm and the IQ is better.






Regards,
Jason


----------



## Dylan777 (Jul 4, 2013)

jasonsim said:


> Dylan,
> 
> Here is a shot taken with the 300mm f/2.8L IS II + 2x III on a 1Dx. It shows some inflight action. I would say this combo is very usable.
> 
> ...



Wow...that is an amazing photo with x2 TC III Jason. Thanks for sharing. Will take your advise and try out x2 TC III on my 70-200. I heard nothing but "WOW & AMAZING & RAZOR SHARP & LIGHTING AF" about 300mm version II.

This could be my next lens


----------



## jasonsim (Jul 4, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> jasonsim said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan,
> ...



Thanks Dylan. It is a really great lens and so is your 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II. Happy shooting!


----------

