Hello again,
I am trying to raise funds for a longer focal length lense. I have the original 300mm f4, dating from 1992. It is a superb lense, I don't really want to part with it, but with a longer lense costing gadsquillions, I feel compelled to at least ask this forum if it would be worth selling. The IS version can be had for 700 quid, which does not inspire me with confidence in any sale, but I read on various pages that the non-IS version of the lense is sharper, on MTF charts AND in the field, than its successor - and indeed I have taken many razor-sharp images with it. Given people's obsession with sharpness, would my lense therefore command any sort of meaningful premium that would make it worth selling to raise funds? Optical condition is excellent, focus is damn quick on a decent body, but the barrel however shows its age. If I could sell it for 500 odd I would consider it. If realistically it would only fetch 250, I won't bother. There is a decent argument for keeping it for a different type of photography, for example when birding is taking precendent, and I just want something light to hang over my shoulder, rather than 4kgs worth of monster lense.
Could people please advise me what they think I should do with my 300 f4?
Thanks a lot
Jonathan
A consideration would be do Canon still have parts for if it require repair?
[QUOTE=jalethbridge;1244030]...The IS version can be had for 700 quid, which does not inspire me with confidence in any sale, but I read on various pages that the non-IS version of the lens is sharper, on MTF charts AND in the field, than its successor -...[/QUOTE]
I too have the EF 300 f4L bought new at a discount, just as the dealers knew the IS version was shipping, and it's a sharp lens. I also remember the web reports that the newer lens wasn't as sharp, and I think much of this was due to an error in a Canon published MTF chart. Somewhere there's a rare Canon publication showing the MTF charts of the two lenses side by side, and from memory I think there's nothing to choose between them in this particular reference. (I've looked for a scan but can't find one.) I'd expect minor camera shake or poor AF calibration is likely to reduce sharpness more than the differences.
I'm glad that I kept my 300 f4L when I bought the 2.8 version, as the 2.8 was front focusing, and I was able to return to the f4 for a comparison, before blaming the camera. I've had so many problems with critical focusing with long teles that I'd recommend saving for the 1D MkIII where you can spend your own time optimising the AF MicroAdjust settings. To paraphrase a well known advert, It's worth it.