Tele zoom

[benjamin_ng]

Looking for some advises please!

 

I'm planning to buy a tele zoom. EF70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM has

been quite attractive to me, but it's just too expensive. How would

you compare the other Canon lens in this range? Say,

 

EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM

EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

EF 90-300mm f/4-5.6 USM

EF 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM

...

[jt]

<p>Bob Atkins has written a short review at <a href="http://bobatkins.photo.net/photography/reviews/x-300.html">http://bobatkins.photo.net/photography/reviews/x-300.html</a></p>

[benjamin_ng]

Well, 75-300 lenses is more expensive, but "At 300mm as far as I can tell the resolution is the same as the 100-300USM. In the 100-300mm range, there's very little difference in the optical performance of any of the 75-300 lenses and the 100-300 USM."

 

As concluded from the review, it seems EF100-300/4.5-5.6 USM should be good to me. But this lens has been replaced, would 90-300 just the same or ever better in quality?

[ron c sunshine coast,qld,a]

I found the 100-300 to be definitely better at 300mm than the various 75-300's i've used.Some others have too.

<BR>This is abit of a mystery because Bob has tried several of each as well to come to his conclusion.All i can say is that they definitely do have a different look to them.

<P>Overall i'd describe them as follows:

<p>75-300(all models) Low contrast and modest resolution,softer above 200mm ,slooooow focus,some purple fringing.This is the minimum quality telelens i would recommend-does the job,just.Feels like plastic

 

<p>100-300.Really quite nice.Good contast and quite good resolution.mine was allmost as good at 300mm as it was at 100mm.Well made with fast focus and instant manual focus overide feature.recommended!

 

<P>High contrast,mostly low resolution,slow focus,some fringing.I only got one good pic from it and sold it.Didn't like at all!

<BR>Note that 'strong contrast/low resolution' is something i detest - others may like it more

 

<P>One other option that belongs amoungst these models,the sigma 70-300 APO macro super II.I haven't used it personally but owners do say it is as good or slightly better in image quality than the canon 100-300.

[rob_murray]

My opinion on the 75-300 USM and 100-300 USM.

 

I have owned them both and I like the 75-300 better for several reasons. 1. that 75mm to 100mm is handy to have, mates with my 22-55 nicely. 2. manual focus on the 75-300 is on the far end of the barrel where it should be for balance, it is smoother manually focusing too. The 100-300 has a tiny vague feeling focus ring almost at the back end of the lens. if your at 300mm and want to manual focus you have one unsteady handful. 3. Optically I have found them to be about the same. 4. the 75-300 USM is cheaper and has a rebate usually. 5. The 100-300 becomes F5.6 sooner than the 75-300 does when zooming out. The 75-300 also starts at F4 instead of F4.5.

[awindsor]

I am not sure purple fringing is attributable to any lens defect. I see purple fringing only in my scanned images where is attributable to CCD capture. On my 75-300 there is some chromatic aberration at the long end. It is definitely soft beyond 200mm. Certainly not unusable though.

 

The 75-300 has a rotating front element that I absolutely detest. Makes the use of polarizers and grad filters extremely difficult.

[bobatkins]

I don't know why I found the 75-300 essentially identical to the 100-300 while some others have found a difference, but I did. As I recall I've tested 3 samples of the 75-300 (one IS, two regular) and 2 samples of the 100-300 and there was virtually no difference. Actually this isn't too surprising (except that I'd expected that the IS lens, whith more elements, might be slightly worse - but it wasn't). The 75-300 and 100-300 have virtually identical optical designs (same number and shape of elements in same order - see the Canon Lens Work book), and the MTF plots are virtually identical. Neither uses any sort of special glass.

 

The 100-300 costs more because it uses a ring USM motor with full time manual focus and a non-rotating front element. These add to design complexity and cost.

[lotsawa]

I had a 75-300 (no USM or IS) with my 300D, but didn't like it too much. Looked a bit cheaply built. I found image quality was nice up to ~200mm and stopped down to f8, but got worse over 200mm. I finally sold it on E*ay and got a used 70-210/3.5-4.5 instead which seems to be much better.

[lee_shively]

As Bob noted, the 100-300 has USM which, to me, was worth the extra cost. Optical performance is not bad. The only thing I don't like is the looseness of the zoom--it zooms to 300mm when tilted down. That makes it hard to use on a tripod sometimes. I have a 70-200/2.8 that I often use with a 1.4x extender to get virtually the same focal length range but the 100-300 is smaller, lighter and takes smaller (cheaper) filters, so I keep it and still use it.

[suman]

I think the ring USM motor, non rotating front element well worth the extra 70-80 dollars. Once you use a ring USM lens, you will hate the rest.

[yakim_peled1]

If I were in the market for such a lens I'd probably opt for a used 100-300/5.6 L.

 

Happy shooting ,

Yakim.

[steve_dunn2]

<p>When I was in this position, I bought the 100-300 due to its mechanics - non-rotating front element, proper ring USM, and full-time manual focusing. It's a decent lens by the standards of a consumer telephoto zoom, which is to say that it gets softer at the long end.</p>

 

<p>I eventually replaced it with the 300/4L IS USM, as I wanted IS, a faster lens, and sharper pictures, and I had noticed that I usually used the 100-300 at the long end anyway.</p>

 

<p>Opinions on the 90-300 are hard to come by, in part because it hasn't been around anywhere near as long as the others, and in part because Canon doesn't sell it in some markets (including the U.S.).</p>

[igsman]

I own the 75-300mm 4.0-5.6 III USM lens. I think that by and large it gets a bad rap and it doesn't deserve it.

At the short end (75-100mm), it is extremely sharp, especially at f/5.6 & f/8.0. So sharp, in fact, that I wouldn't even bother investing in a more expensive 70-200mm f/4.0 or f/2.8 or even an 85mm 1.8 or 135 f/2.0 unless I needed the low light capability and an almost unnoticeable increase in sharpness. I challenge anyone to prove the opposite. It is the best bargain portrait zoom that Canon has made (that I know of). Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

At the long end (200-300mm) f5.6 the problems begin: softness, very noticeable vignetting, strong pincushion distortion and low contrast. But at f/8.0 things get much better. Sharpness improves, vignetting goes away almost completely and contrast is not as much of an issue. Yes, it is still not nearly as good as, let's say, 300mm f/4.0 L, but it is not as expensive either. I use the 300mm end for wildlife all the time, including macro photography (1:3.9). I set it at f/8.0, shoot Portra 400UC or Provia 400 and I get very good results this way. Seriously.

 

If you are on a tight budget, and are looking for a decent and cheap zoom in this range, I wouldn't hesitate to recommend this one. I'll be more than glad to e-mail you examples or you can just check out my portfolio.

 

Here's one, for example. 300mm, f/5.6 (!):

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/2213137&size=lg