Opinions on the older Canon 300mm F2.8 non-is with Canon 7d

[hd02fatboy]

I was following the forum titled” Canon super tele choices!!!” started by zrz2005101. There was really good information there, but I have a slight variation from that post.

I am seriously interested in purchasing a Canon 300mm F2.8 non-is from KEH. A couple of reason that I am considering this particular:
1. I will be using the lens primary for college football and some other outdoor college sports at a smaller college. Since I might also have the opportunity later down the road to also do night time high school sports, is another reason for using the 300mm F2.8.
2. I currently have a 60D and a 7D as my primary camera and a Canon 70-200mm F2.8.
3. The approx. $2600 price tag fits my budget. Keep in mind that the budget is one of the key factors here for me. Being able to charge approx $2600 for a 10+year lens still has me wondering.
4. I am not interested in IS because of the shutter speeds I currently shoot at (and budget).

So my questions are to those that are may have actually used this combination with the older 300mm F2.8 non-is with either a 7D or 60D.
1. Knowing that IQ in the newer IS and IS-II are greater, what is your opinion of the IQ of the older 300mm 2.8 on a 7D and current canon bodies?

2. How about AF speed. Knowing that the focus speed on the newer ones is superior, what is your opinion on how the AF speeds for the older 300mm on a 7D, particularly for college level football?

3. One concern is the lack of part available. I might have to live with that based on my budget. Are there any other concerns with functionality or picture quality that might be known (that I haven’t seen on Google) that should sway me away from this lens?

4. I have seen a few comparisons of the Sigma 120-300mm F2.8 OS, but all are against the IS-i or the IS-ii. Does anyone think the newer sigma is superior in AF speed and IQ to the older 300mm F2.8 non-IS?

With all due respect to those that might suggest to get the IS or IS-II, I know I should, but I am working with a budget here and would like opinions on the non-is. Thanks in advanced

 

[bdunbar79]

I shoot sports too. 390mm is going to be a tad bit tight if you have sideline passes. 300mm on FF is great. Nonetheless, you can try shooitng back the other way, like go down to the opposite 30 yard line and shoot a team coming at you, who is way down at say, the 20 yard line. Opposite side of the field shots are also great for 390-400mm focal length. Be prepared to move around. Also, I agree that IS isn't needed. I never use it because I have my lenses on monopods and the IS just seems to fight me more than it helps me. It stays off.
I have the 300mm f/2.8L I IS version, IS stays off, so no concern there. AF speed will be just fine. Don't be afraid to open that baby up. I've shot as wide as f/3.2 at 1/2000. Most of all, have fun!

P.S. I shoot the 300/400 lenses on FF (1DX) and 70-200 on the 1D4. You have a perfect set up for football! Bring both cameras, put the 300 on the 7D, and the 70-200 on the 60D. You can't miss.

 

[TexPhoto]

If you are on the sidelines and can have only 1 lens, I'd take a 70-200, IS if you can have it. 300 will be too long much of the time. If you have 2 cameras and 2 lenses, this would be great for long shots. And of course detail on the field, off, coaches, cheerleaders etc.

I have a 400mm and shot sports with a 7D, and it was awsome for the loooooong shots, but my 70-200 was getting 80% of my on field shots.

Up in the stands, the longer lenses will be awesome. I shoot pro soccer from time to time, and sometimes I can take the field, and sometimes not. Up in the stands, the 400mm really pulls in the action.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I'd be a bit concerned about the lack of support from Canon. As you note, Canon no longer sells parts or services the lens, so you will need to go to a third party and hope they have parts if you need one.
I'd tend to look really hard at the Sigma zoom, maybe even rent one to try.

 

[Imagination_landB]

I'd be a bit concerned about the lack of support from Canon. As you note, Canon no longer sells parts or services the lens, so you will need to go to a third party and hope they have parts if you need one.
I'd tend to look really hard at the Sigma zoom, maybe even rent one to try.

I agree with this, I just bought the 120-300 (and here in canada 10 years warranty) donnu for the USof A. It's super sharp ansd I know theres a lot aof complains about issues with sigma lenses but I have 3 of them (8-16, 50, 120-300) and they're all perfect (except focus jumps a little bit on the 50. The 120-300 meets a perfect focal range for fiel sports as soccer football rugby etc. focus is fast and the 2 IS types are great. Couldn't ask for more, and the lens is 2999(here in canada) and 3199 at BH. the cheapest 300 2.8 available

 

[discojuggernaut]

I picked up a discontinued 28-70 f2.8L on a whim since it was at a great price. Have spent several hundred dollars, a couple months waiting, and lots of phone calls trying to get it properly fixed. Finally on its way to me so i can actually shoot the thing.

I'd be prepared for this sort of thing if picking up one of the defunct canon lenses (magic drainpipe, 100-300 5.6, or the non-IS 300, 400 2.8's or the 4.5 500mm).

Can you live with a busted aperture diaphragm and have to shoot wide open? Possible ERR codes? Busted autofocus?

Maybe it's a good idea to see what the KEH warranty situation is, whether they have parts, and maybe find a local independent repair shop and chat them up. See what usually goes bad on the 300, and whether they have parts in stock.

Worst case scenario if you have an expensive paperweight is that you either have to sell yours or part it out, or find someone who is willing to do the same, live with it as is, or do the legwork to find a place that has the part and either buy it or have them repair it.

The further up in price you go, the more risky it gets. If you call either Canon repair place in NJ or CA, you'll get the same response that they won't touch it, and most repair places will do the same, as their 'service' is just to ship it to Canon for you, while some are real grassroots tinkerers that know their stuff and horde parts.

 

[pwp]

While the old 300 f/2.8 is a very competent piece of glass I wouldn't overlook the fact you can expect little maintenance/repair support from Canon as it's passed it's official support use-by date. Personally I reckon it's overpriced.

A great suggestion made by other posters is the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8, especially the new stabilized version. And I'd even go for a gray market version ahead of a very old, unsupported EF 300 f/2.8.

One of the primary reasons there has been an explosion in the awesome quality of sports images this century is powerful, dependable AF on nice bright, long lenses. Do a search for award winning sports images from 1990 and you'll see what I mean. A great number of those award winners wouldn't even make it to publication in 2012.

-PW

 

[hd02fatboy]

Thanks everyone, excellent feedback. So far I've leaned away from getting the older Canon 300mm and leaning more towards the Sigma120-300 f2.8 (waiting to see the price of the newer "S" version as the call it)

 

[bdunbar79]

Thanks everyone, excellent feedback. So far I've leaned away from getting the older Canon 300mm and leaning more towards the Sigma120-300 f2.8 (waiting to see the price of the newer "S" version as the call it)

If you get sideline passes to either football or soccer, the 120-300 will be really cool. Just be prepared to move around. If you want head-on end zone shots, bring a shorter length lens or back up and shoot at 120mm.