Wanted - Canon 300mm
 

Having searched high and low without results, does anyone know of a Canon
300mm f2.8 for sale ?

I will consider a 300/f4.

Non IS preffered but it looks like I can't be too fussy on this one.

E-mail

Thanks

Sorry - that should be

In article ,
RustY© wrote:


Having searched high and low without results, does anyone know of a Canon
300mm f2.8 for sale ?


In other words, you really want this:

http://www.photographyreview.com/cat...111crx.aspx#FM

But you'd "settle for" this:

http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/con...mode lid=7317


It's hard to sympathize with your predicament, but I'll try :-)

Correct me if i'm wrong but I thought the OP wanted a 2.8 but would
settle for a 4.0?

BTW, I'd save like crazy for the current 2.8. I use one for soccer.
It's a brilliant lens.

400 2.8 next I think

DAH

In article 6Zlte.1888$Lr4.661@fed1read03, james
wrote:


http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/con...categoryid=154
&modelid=7317

"RustY©" wrote in message
...
Having searched high and low without results, does anyone know of a Canon
300mm f2.8 for sale ?

I will consider a 300/f4.

Non IS preffered but it looks like I can't be too fussy on this one.

E-mail

Thanks

try KEH.com I have bought several lenses from them. Always had good
experiences, fast shipping, no annoying bait and switch or trying to get
you to buy unwanted accessories. Overall very pleased with everything I
have gotten from them. they have a few of each in stock even

A used non-IS will cost nearly as much as a new IS.
I'm not likely to *ever* be in the market for such a thing, but,
just for curiosity's sake, is the IS so bad, or is it that the
older lens is so much better?

James Of Tucson wrote:

A used non-IS will cost nearly as much as a new IS.
I'm not likely to *ever* be in the market for such a thing, but,
just for curiosity's sake, is the IS so bad, or is it that the
older lens is so much better?

My experience is the opposite. After I purchased my second-hand 300/4
IS lens for $825, I was able to sell my 300/4 (non-IS) for only $500.

-Dave

I was able to sell my 300/4 (non-IS) for only $500.

The f/2.8 seems to be much more valuable in the marketplace.

James Of Tucson wrote:

I was able to sell my 300/4 (non-IS) for only $500.

The f/2.8 seems to be much more valuable in the marketplace.

The same holds true for the f2.8 versions - the newer IS lenses command
much more money then the non-IS lenses on the second-hand market.
--
Dave

The one source I saw for the 300mm f/2.8 non-IS lens that the OP wants,
rang up in the over $3000 price bracket. WAY too rich for my blood.

WAY too rich for my blood

...especially when the difference between the $1200 f/4.0 and the
$3000 f/2.8 is overcome by just switching from ISO 100 to ISO 200.
The difference in depth-of-field between f/2.8 and f/4.0 isn't much on
a 300mm lens.

Sure, in very low-light situations it's not all that simple, but
*myself*, I do very little telephoto work in that low of light.

I think that a lot of people do get caught up in "lens envy". For
every person who regularly shoots moving birds with a 300mm lens and
1.6x teleconverter at dusk, there are an awful lot of people for whom
even a "lowly" 300 f/4.0L would be much more than sufficient well over
99% of the time.

steve