Used 300 2.8 L IS Mk I

[can0nfan2379]

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

 

[Loswr]

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]

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]

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

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

 

[Loswr]

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]

True enough....

 

[tron]

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.

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...

 

[Loswr]

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

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

 

[Northstar]

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]

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]

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]

Thanks for the suggestions Northstar and Ankor!!!!

 

[bdunbar79]

I use one:

 

[pwp]

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]

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

 

[Northstar]

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

Which one did you get?

 

[can0nfan2379]

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

 

[Dylan777]

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]

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]

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.