300 2.8 non-IS VS either of the IS versions...

[87vr6]

First things first... I am not a pixel peeper. At all, if I can't see a "defect" at normal viewing sizes (corner softness, chroma, etc..) then it doesn't exist as far as I'm concerned.

I've never shot with the non IS, but I have rented a IS v2... Which was phenomenal. I mean stunning. I also used it with a 2x v3 converter, and even that was spectacular.

I'm also big on IS to eliminate any shaking, mostly during panning or action shots. I often use slower shutter speeds (1/60 give or take) usually to achieve motion blur behind the subject. Yes, I'm quite aware that IS doesn't stop the subject, etc....

Now onto it.. Will I easily notice a difference if I were to start regularly using a non IS versus buying one of the IS versions?

I have a chance to get a very clean 9.5/10 300 2.8 local to me for a reasonable price.

Let me hear it folks!

 

[Invertalon]

As far as I know, all of the 300mm f/2.8's are amazing... Non-IS, IS and the 'Mark II'... From what I hear, they are all extremely close IQ wise with weight and TC performance being the only big differences. The Mark II is supposed to be slightly sharper, but I never heard it being anything significant.

In my experience (I currently own the 300 Mark II and have rented the original 300 f/2.8 IS) the rented 300 IS was a dud... It was softer than expected and I was quite unimpressed with it. At the time though, (years ago), perhaps I did not microadjust it or some other factor, so that may have been why. I rented it from Canon CPS and it was a heavily used lens ;D

But my Mark II is insane... By far the most sharp lens I have ever used. The weight reduction is nice as well.

If you found a great deal on a 300 non-IS, go for it! I am sure it will be great.

 

[jhpeterson]

The first EF glass I ever bought was a 300 2.8 non-IS more than 20 years ago. I used it for several years with great results. A decade ago, I replaced it with another one. If anything, it's even sharper than my first, and at least the equal of my newer lenses, including a 70-200/2.8 IS II. Over those ten years, mine has gotten a little worse for wear, but still delivers image quality that holds up to the test of 20+ MP cameras.

The only drawback with this older lens is that Canon stopped servicing this one some years back. Should you need parts and repairs, you're probably out of luck unless you can find some independent shop willing to take on the task. But, if that's a risk you're willing to take (in the past ten years, I had to replace the mount, as I had used the lens so much), if you can get one of these at a (relatively) bargain rate, don't hesitate.

 

[Steve]

The only drawback with this older lens is that Canon stopped servicing this one some years back. Should you need parts and repairs, you're probably out of luck unless you can find some independent shop willing to take on the task. But, if that's a risk you're willing to take (in the past ten years, I had to replace the mount, as I had used the lens so much), if you can get one of these at a (relatively) bargain rate, don't hesitate.

I have a 300 2.8 non-IS and had to have it repaired (malfunctioning diaphragm). There are shops that can do it, if parts are available. The biggest concern would be if the AF motor goes, since that part is difficult to find but most other parts seem to be fairly available.

For what you want to do, OP, the IS may be important though. I use my 300 for birds/wildlife so I use high shutter speeds generally and its great. But if you are doing motorsports or something similar with low shutter speeds like you mentioned, the IS will be missed for handheld shots. The original EF 300 2.8 is something like 6lbs and can be tough to keep steady. I handhold it all the time, but again, high shutter speeds make that a lot easier. Monopod or gimbal head tripod setup might be necessary if you go for the non IS.