Advice on a USED Canon Ef 300mm L IS USM lens !!!

Hey everybody,


I'm looking at a Canon EF 300mm f2.8 L IS USM lens. It's used, and I've never looked at one before so I have some questions for anyone on here using this lens. I'm always afraid to buy USED camera equipment to begin with, but a NEW one costs some serious cash. First of all I'm curious as to if the IS normally makes noise ??? My 100-400mm L IS USM doesn't make so much as a whisper when operating. The USED 300mm, however makes a very audible "moving gear" noise (even after shutter release button is let go of, for about a second). Second, is there any way to tell the age of the lens ??? Finally, I've always heard that the sharpness of the 300mm would blow away the image quality of my 100-400mm (which produces some great shots BTW), but after a couple quick handheld test shots using both lenses I don't much difference between the two lenses. The difference (if any) in picture quality is so small, that I don't think it justifies the price to upgrade just for the larger aperture, and speed. Should I really notice a big difference in sharpness ??? I am willing to spend more $$$ and buy a NEW one, if it'll get me the sharpness that I've been hearing about. Any help would be greatly appreciated...Doug

I can hear the IS on my 300 f2.8. It's not loud, but I can hear it. As far as I know, that's normal. There is a slight lag for it to become fully effective after pushing the button, and a slight lag for it to turn off after releasing the button.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/date-codes.htm
Use this to find the age. The IS sound could be related to production year.

I use both lenses and purchased each new within the last 4 years. I now use them on a Canon 7D. Over 90% of my shots are taken from a kayak, bobbing in the waves and spinning in the wind so achieving sharpness is often a challenge. After reading your post on Friday I decided to try my 100-400 when I went out yesterday instead of the 300mm that I have used for most of the summer. The shots I took were just as sharp on average as the ones I've taken with the 300 mm...not to mention that the 100-400 is much lighter and does afford the flexibility of the zoom. I've often missed shots with the 300 because my subject was too close. Yes, the IS of the 300 is much louder than that 100-400. I have never tried a comparison test of these two lenses on a fixed subject from a tripod....maybe the 300 mm would pick up more detail. Thanks for your post..I'll be using my 100 - 400 more often now.

I own the 100-400 and rented the 300 with a 1.4 tele on a trip to Nebraska for the Sandhill cranes. I could see some difference in sharpness going to the 300, but very slight. Big difference in weight and not as flexible as the zoom. Like my 100-400 a lot and just added the 500mm which is very sharp. Hope that helps.

I'm surprised to hear the comments about near equivalent sharpness between the 300 f/2.8 and 100-400 - the 300 is massively more sharp to my eyes (and I'm not one of those photographers who spends a lot of timing thinking about this sort of thing), not to much it produces a much better contrast and focuses much faster.

Thanks everybody for your input. I ended up comparing my 100-400 to the 300 by shooting from a tripod, using the timer, and at various f-stops. Both lenses had decent sharpness at various f-stops. Overall, I felt that my 100-400 (shot at 300mm & 400mm) had equal or better sharpness, for the majority of shots than the 300. The 300 was horrible at f/2.8, so what would the point be to spend $3000 for a used lens that couldn't replace my $1500 100-400 ? Again, this lens was USED with a 7yr old date code, who knows what kind of history this lens has had. I did return it under Adoramas "no ?s asked" return policy, being out only @ $80 for shipping both ways. I would love to shoot a new one, and see if I get the same awesome reults that I keep hearing about the 300mm f/2.8...thanks again !!!