I finally purchased a used 300/4 non-IS and am very impressed. This lens has it all over the 300/4 IS. The sharpness in the corners is much better and the lens has the snappy contrast that one wants from a prime tele. The 300/4 IS looks flat by comparison. I have not had a chance to compare the 300/4 non-IS directly to the 300/2.8 IS yet, but it seems to be in the same class.

EB

I have a question about the 300/4 non-IS tripod mounting ring, which is unmarked. Is it the tripod ring A, and what other lenses are compatible?

Thanks,
EB

EB,
Yes, it is a Mount Ring A. I believe it fits the 70-200 f/4, 80-200 f/2.8, 200 f/2.8 (I & II).
--Mark

Yeah, I like my used 300/4 non-IS too.

It's a very good lens. About the same image quality as the 300/4 IS. But not the same as the 300/2,8 IS lens.

Lars

But many Konor less than the 2.8.

On the 1Ds, or cropped? The 300/4 IS is fine in the center or for nature where the corners are not important. It's not so great for landscapes. I may end up keeping all three 300 mm lenses, who knows.

EB

EB-1 wrote:
I finally purchased a used 300/4 non-IS and am very impressed. This lens has it all over the 300/4 IS. The sharpness in the corners is much better and the lens has the snappy contrast that one wants from a prime tele. The 300/4 IS looks flat by comparison. I have not had a chance to compare the 300/4 non-IS directly to the 300/2.8 IS yet, but it seems to be in the same class.

EB

yes is sharper than the "IS" and a tiny behind than 300/2.8 IS .....good buy man!

I regret selling mine f4 non "IS"...........