telephoto zoom lens comparison

Hi everyone,

 

Thank you for taking the time to read my post. First of all, I own

a Canon 10D. I am now looking into a telezoom lens. I am deciding

between the "EF 75-300mm 4-5.6 III USM lens" or the "EF 100-300mm

4.5-5.6 USM lens". aside from the obvious difference in focal

length and aperature range. i don't know which one to pick, or

which one is better? from looking at the obvious, it seems like the

latter is not as good with a lesser range and aperature range, but

the latter cost almost twice as much. please advise.. Thanks!

You might want to check out what <a href="http://bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/x-300.html"> Bob Atkins</a> wrote.

<A HREF="http://photonotes.org/reviews/ef-lenses/">http://photonotes.org/

reviews/ef-lenses/</A>

<P> Spending a lot on a body and little on lenses is - photographically - a <a href="http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html#whichdigitallens">very silly move</a>. It's like buying an excellent stereo system and attach it to a lousy speakers. A sheer waste of money. </P>

 

 

 

<p> Optically, your best bet is 70-200/4 USM L + Canon 1.4X TC. Your second best bet is the 100-300/5.6 L. </p>

 

<p> See <a href="http://www.photo.net/nature/x-300.html">http://www.photo.net/nature/x-300.html</a> , <a href="http://www.photo.net/canon/70-200">http://www.photo.net/canon/70-200</a> and <a href="http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html#telephotos">http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html#telephotos</a>. </p>

 

<P> Remember, avoid any <a href="http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html#kitlenses">cheapies</a>!</P>

 

<p> Happy shooting , <br>

Yakim. </p>

Optically, the 70-200 f4L + 1.4X has 17 groups, the 100-300L 10 groups. Has anyone compared these two for contrast?

Think about Sigma 120-300/2.8 EX IF APO HSM ... for reasonable price very fast and sharp lens (however a bit heavy...). I've used 75-300 IS USM and I've sold it out .......

Do not try to save money on lenses ....

Look at the thread a few below this one on the 100-300 f/5.6L. Yes it's sharp, but it has other drawbacks. Compared with the Canons you cite optically you'd do better to look at the Sigma 70-300 f/4-5.6 APO Macro Super II (recently released and with no compatability problems with the 10D) but the downside is slower AF compared with the Canons. Better still, and without the hassle of using a TC is the Sigma 100-300 f/4 EX HSM - excellent optically, fast AF, can give you 420mm with AF at f/5.6 with a 1.4x TC - downside is close focus is 1.8m, or nearly 6ft. Otherwise, you're looking at 70-200 +1.4xTC to reach 280mm.

So Yakim, do you keep that little blurb typed out and ready to paste into any thread that calls for it? Not that it's bad advice, it's just a little stale after reading it hundreds of times exactly the same down to the punctuation. :)

 

Maybe you could stick it on a web page somewhere and just link to it when you need it? Maybe create an archived thread with that as the first post, and link to it from then on. I think by now I can recite it from memory after seeing it so many times!

 

Please don't take this as criticism - it's great that you spend the time helping the newbies with some solid advice and I applaud you for it, it just sounds like some canned political propaganda it's been around so long - though no less true for that.

 

Cheers,

Brett

Not to start a battle, but if you stop any descent lens down 3 stops and use the center (ie a 10D or Drebel), you will get good performance, that MAY be equal or close to a L lens. But you need to stop it down! Now if you can't stop it down, save your money and buy a some good L glass.

 

Your choice is the 70-200F4L with a 1.4X converter, or the 100-400L, these are your cheapest high quality options. NOTE if you are looking for the ultimate in sharpness forget the zooms and only buy primes.

 

Gerry

The poster asks about an opinion on a $200 lens vs a $300 lens. Almost every post directs the user to either (1) the 70-200/4L ($575)+ 1.4TC ($250); or (2) 100-400/L ($1000+).

 

Yes OF COURSE the "L" glass is better. DUH.

 

Jason; The reason you are getting these responses is because both lenses are considering are somewhat soft beyond 200mm. Frankly, there are no stellar choices in this focal length and cost range. The 100-300 is reportedly a bit sharper than the 75-300. The aperature difference is practically negligable.

 

I have the 75-300. It is nice for the money. SUURE I upgraded to the 70-200 ==> about 10 years later.. . .

 

Can you see both lenses in a store? Maybe they will let you take a few test shots with your own camera. Frankly, I think both lenses are pretty equivelent

The 100-300 is supposedly slightly better than the 75-300 but most of the extra cost is improved build quality,easier to use,faster focusing(the 75-300 is sloooooow ),etc.

<br>Frankly though,the 75-300 is optically not very good.And if the 100-300 is only slightly better i can't see much point in it either.

<br>I have seen extremely good results from the sigma 75-300 apo (macro?) posted on another forum.It would be well worth looking into