The lens is in an uncommon state of preservation, and chances are good that someone might get years of excellent performance out of it, because it would seem that the lens has been used relatively little. One flaw the lens has is a " small cleaning mark" on its glass. (Some "pro" might have tried to clean the lens with the bottom of his zippered jacket or something like that .) The flaw is probably of no consequence from the lens performance standpoint.
The seller is one of the best there is: Matsuiyastore from Japan. The quality of his merchandise, his integrity and the most expedient manner of business dealings is rather well known.
If I didn't have two 300 f/2.8 IS lenses already, I would have perhaps bought that lens myself.
These days it is not easy at all to get a dependable (read "lens in good condition") type of 300 f/2.8L performance and quality for $2,348. Heck, one has to pay that much for a new 24-70L II.
I can assure you, based on my own first hand experience with it, that 300 f/2.8 L non-IS is a very fine and substantial lens.
p.1 #8 · A great 300 f/2.8L non-IS with a minor flaw
saneproduction wrote:
Don't do this to me Peter!
Mike, I'd never do anything like that to you.
BTW, have I mentioned it to you that 300 f/2.8 non-IS has the same weight as 200 f/1.8 ?
Furthermore, their AF and MF design and performance is practically identical so switching between those two lenses would be real natural and easy.
p.1 #9 · A great 300 f/2.8L non-IS with a minor flaw
My concern with this, or any other 300 2.8 non-IS is the lack of support available from canon. How soon (now?) before parts are not available even in the secondary marketplace, and we're left with a $2000 paperweight? Hopefully I'm over thinking this...can someone advise?
p.1 #10 · A great 300 f/2.8L non-IS with a minor flaw
Prevelige wrote:
My concern with this, or any other 300 2.8 non-IS is the lack of support available from canon. How soon (now?) before parts are not available even in the secondary marketplace, and we're left with a $2000 paperweight? Hopefully I'm over thinking this...can someone advise?
Bob
Bob, that's a big part of why I got rid of my 200 1.8 and moved to a 300 2.8 IS... the fear of having a paperweight. I used to do this as a business and so something like that would have been a bummer, but I could easily justify replacing the item as a cost of business. Now, I don't have much in the way of extra funds and so if I lost a big white to unrepairable state, it would likely take me a very long time to replace it. I'd rather not take the risk.
p.1 #11 · A great 300 f/2.8L non-IS with a minor flaw
When one buys an obsolete lens like this one, there is always some risk of terminal failures. The failure probability goes up with cummulative lens (ab)use. Similarly, one would expect that a lens which has apparently been used very little has lottsa useful life left in it before something decides to fail. In addition to "spontaneous" (wear-out or random) failures, there is always a possibility of induced failures such as when dropping the lens, or fungus develops as a result of humid storage environment for the lens.
Perhaps in something like 80% of the failures, this particular lens model may not be repairable.
However, obsolete lenses are usually priced in a way which reflects that kinda repair difficulty. My own philosophy has been to buy such lenses only if in excellent condition, and then stop worrying about failures, and enjoy the lens.
It's been now 7 years that I have been using my 200 f/1.8 (in moderation), as well as 6 years of good 50 f/1.0 use, also in moderation, and no problems at all.
p.1 #12 · A great 300 f/2.8L non-IS with a minor flaw
However, obsolete lenses are usually priced in a way which reflects that kinda repair difficulty. My own philosophy has been to buy such lenses only if in excellent condition, and then stop worrying about failures, and enjoy the lens.
Hear hear. The Drainpipe that I bought from this seller looks and performs like it was made yesterday, and it too was reasonably priced. (thanks again Petkal!)
And to further allay any fears, Matsuiyastore will accept returns, a notable clause in a top-tier but non-factory-serviced item such as this.
p.1 #13 · A great 300 f/2.8L non-IS with a minor flaw
outlawyer wrote: My own philosophy has been to buy such lenses only if in excellent condition, and then stop worrying about failures, and enjoy the lens.
.
That is a great philosophy.
I can understand the concerns regarding the non servicability of a lens and each photographer must make the determination on their own, but I whole heartedly agree with you once a person makes a decision to buy one of these they should just enjoy it.
Just like Peter and you mention these lenses may still have a long useful life ahead. I know I still enjoy my 200L 1.8, 500L F4.5, 50L 1.0 and 50-200L and I recall someone mentioning the 85L MKI is heading that way. I have had these for several years and enjoy their use. Heck my avatar was shot with the 200 1.8 just after sunset and that is one image that will always have special meaning for me.
p.1 #14 · A great 300 f/2.8L non-IS with a minor flaw
OK, That makes me feel a bit better. I have relatively little experience with older lenses, and have little sense of how frequently they fail. Now if someone would only buy my 10-22 to free up some $$ in the budget...
p.1 #15 · A great 300 f/2.8L non-IS with a minor flaw
Supertelephoto lenses appear to fail seldomly, and they take all kinds of physical abuse, yet many of those beat up derelicts, you can see on ebay, keep on functioning.
Judging by numerous nicks, dents and paint loss on the barrel, bent/fractured hoods and lens front lips, cracked distance windows etc., such lenses must have had a rough life in the hands of some photographers. For example, people have witnessed heavy telephoto lenses tossed by their owners into car trunks as if they were sacks of potatoes.
Yet, ocasional failures do happen, and I have heard of a number of people who have lost their 300 f/2.8 non-IS and 400 f/2.8 non-IS lenses because a replacement for the failed part could not be found. The legendary 200 f/1.8 fails here and there too, and sometimes in a most unusual manner: an FM member might have lost his 200 f/1.8 due to a doublet lens element bond separation. He has gone thru some hoops trying to have that fixed, and I am not sure if he has ever succeeded.
p.1 #16 · A great 300 f/2.8L non-IS with a minor flaw
Along those same lines- I've seen supertelephoto's sell online broken for reasonable prices...I can only assume the buyers either plan to part it out and sell the 99% of the lens that works, or they plan to hold onto the lens and figure that if they can come across a replacement part, they'll have a great lens for a huge bargain.
I have a 20 year old 300mm 2.8 non-IS that has seen better days, but the glass is clean, almost no dust, with fast and quiet AF. Got it for an incredible price due to it's overall condition. If it breaks and I can't get a replacement part, that's the way it goes, I'll be patient and figure out the best option in that case.
One thing to consider is usage- if I was using this lens a lot, I'd be more inclined to spring for an IS version (and am constantly looking at the new IS II and wondering if I should make some big lens changes so I could acquire one), but for now, I'll live with what I have and be happy.
p.1 #19 · A great 300 f/2.8L non-IS with a minor flaw
Rob, I can not say for sure what the import duty on that lens would be, however, I have bought several lenses from Matsuiyastore, all sent via Japan Post/Canada Post EMS, and I never paid any import duty. However, what I had to pay was the Ontario sales tax, the inevitable 13% on the declared value of the lens. Fortunately for me, the declared value was modest, and then so was the amount of tax paid.
p.1 #20 · A great 300 f/2.8L non-IS with a minor flaw
PetKal wrote:
However, obsolete lenses are usually priced in a way which reflects that kinda repair difficulty. My own philosophy has been to buy such lenses only if in excellent condition, and then stop worrying about failures, and enjoy the lens.
It's been now 7 years that I have been using my 200 f/1.8 (in moderation), as well as 6 years of good 50 f/1.0 use, also in moderation, and no problems at all.
I think that philosophy would probably vary depending on one's level of disposable income for such purchases. $2400 puts this within reach of many ordinary amatuers, albeit at not an insignificant cost. Having the lens fail for one of these users would be a bit more catastrophic.
.) The flaw is probably of no consequence from the lens performance standpoint.
How do you continue to find these things?