Sharpest zoom in the range 100-300

[matthias_meixner2]

Hello all!

<br>

I want to upgrade from my EF 100-300 USM which has no IS and is soft wide open.

I have several options:

<ul>

<li> EF 70-300 1:4-5.6 IS USM </li>

<li> EF 70-300 1:4.5-5.6 DO IS USM </li>

<li> EF 70-200 1:4 L IS USM + extender 1.4</li>

<li> EF 100-400 1:4.5-5.6 L IS USM </li>

</ul>

But which one gives the best image quality and is sharp wide open?

<br>

As I also want use the lens for astrophotography I have also a question

regarding the 100-400 and its push/pull zoom: Does it hold its focal length when

pointed straight up or does it creep down following gravity which would ruin

long exposures?

[gdanmitchell]

All four of the Canon 70-200 lenses are generally regarded as being among the sharpest

telephoto zooms available - select from among them based on price and the features that

best fit your needs.

[mike_earussi1]

Doubt if any of those are better than my Sigma 100-300 f4.

 

http://www.pbase.com/mikeearussi/sigma_100300_f4_lens_test

[mark_chappell]

I don't know much about astrophotography but the 100-400 seems kind of slow for that: it's

f5.6 at 400 mm. Also, most owners -- including me -- report that it's only moderately sharp

wide open at focal lengths about 300 mm. Stopping down just a little improves IQ

substantially. The lens has a lock ring that will prevent any zoom creep.

[andrew robertson]

How about the old 100-300 f/5.6 L? It's the sharpest 100-300 that Canon ever made, and

it's available for a fraction of the price of the others.

 

The focus action isn't nearly as smooth, the AF is slower, it's only f/5.6, and it lacks IS, but

you asked about 'sharpest' not 'best'.

 

I sold mine, in favor of using the 70-200 f/4L with 1.4x TC. I sold that once I got a 300

f/4L IS.

[carnagex_carnagex]

Out of you choice the 70-200 is the top pick in terms of sharpness, AF speed, and

usefullness all around. But if your more likely to use the long end, you may want the 100-

400L (comparison: http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/400v400.shtml ) Also

as someone else mentioned, the Sigma 100-300 f/4 is probably the best choice for you.

For a Sigma lenses, it blows away the choices by Canon. If you have the chance to

compare side by side, youll be amazed, especially when compared to the Canon 100-

400L. (hopefully someday soon they replace the Canon 100-400L with a new lens design,

since its just awful right now when compared to third party lenses like the Sigma 100-300

f/4 and the Sigma 120-300 2.8).

[DickArnold]

The 100-400 has a friction clutch which you can lock tight to hold the focal length. I own one and it works for a lot of things as it is very versatile.

[david_lau3]

I don't have the Sigma 100-300 but I very much doubt that it is better than my 70-200/f4 IS. This zoom equals my 200/f2.8 prime in sharpness even at f4, except some vignetting at f4.

 

Looking at the test report by Photozone, the Canon zoom is also sharper than Sigma:

 

Canon: http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_70200_4is/index.htm

 

Sigma: http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_100300_4/index.htm

[William Michael]

Of the options you listed: the EF 70-200 1:4 L IS USM + extender 1.4.

 

I have used this lens, and the extender, and the Canon 100 to 400L.

 

I also report the 100 to 400 soft around 300mm and beyond.

 

I have not used the other two lenses you mention, but they do not rate as highly (from sources I respect) as all 70 to 200L options.

 

It is not clear what you prime criterion is: you ask about sharpest, and zoom lock, but imply IS is also relevant: consideration of constant aperture and speed, might also be worth a closer look.

 

Along this line of thinking: the 70 to 200 F2.8L IS would be worth consideration.

 

Two points:

 

. it will become a constant aperture F4 lens with the x 1.4MkII (as opposed to F5.6)

 

. it is a `useable` F5.6 constant aperture 140 to 400 zoom with the x2.0MkII teleconverter also.

 

I have not used the Sigma 100 to 300. I understand the Sigma does not have a similar function to IS.

 

WW

[JDMvW]

No one has talked up the 70-300mm lenses, and I think for good reason,in this company. However, losing the 200-300mm range is a cost of going to the 70-200mm L lenses.

 

Here's some info on the two 70-300mm that may be useful to those not familiar with them.

 

EF 70-300 1:4-5.6 IS USM

This is an upgrade of the original IS lens, the 75-300. It is optically improved, but it is still a good "consumer" lens rather than an L lens. As I understand it, the front lens element rotates in focusing, making use of polarizers, graduated filters, etc, awkward.

 

EF 70-300 1:4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

This is another kettle of fish altogether, despite its superficial similarity in specs to the other 70/75-300 lenses. It has diffractive optics that allow this complex lens (18 lens elements in 6 groups) to be less than 10 cm long. This is an extremely fine lens, according to reviews, but one complaint is that it is susceptible to lens flare, so finally even Canon now gives its lens hood to the buyer (it used to be an extra charge). It is expensive, definitely in the L class in that regard, and might be an answer if you need the 300mm range.

[bobatkins]

If you want sharp, get a prime. 135/2L, 200/2.8L or 300/4L.

 

No, they aren't as convenient as the zooms, but they are sharper, faster, vignette less, don't creep and are possibly even cheaper!

[matthias_meixner2]

> Along this line of thinking: the 70 to 200 F2.8L IS would be worth consideration.

 

I have ruled this one out due to its weight. As I will mainly use it for travel f/2.8 is not that important but the high weight is a problem. I have only listed the 100-400 as there is no lighter variant of that zoom.

 

I want IS as I will not carry a tripod for the same reasons: Weight and bulkiness.

[tapani]

While I haven't used the 70-200, all reports indicate will be way superior without TC, that is up to 200mm. It may be best even with the 1.4x TC, but not not so obviously anymore.

 

Of the 70-300's I'd say the DO is better most of the time but not always, especially in backlit situations (it is sensitive to flare as many have already noted). The DO is also smaller (though no lighter) and thus easier to carry, and has better AF motor.

 

The 100-400 beats both 70-300's hands down (at least mine does, some reports suggest there's significant individual variation), and it's the only one of the lot with no zoom creep problems whatsoever (the zoom can be easily locked to any position and it stays there). And it goes up to 400mm.

 

Anyway, you'll have to compromise. If you really have no need for the 300-400mm range and weight is a major concern, the 100-400 is probably overkill (although I've traveled quite a lot with it). If 200mm is enough most of the time, the 70-200 is obvious choice. If you almost always shoot at or near 300mm and not only weight but also length matters, the 70-300DO might be best. If price matters and good focus motor isn't critical, the non-DO 70-300 is very good for the price.

 

Finallu, consider Bob Atkins' advice and look at primes, too. Unfortunately there is no IS model of the 200/2.8 (nor 135/2), and the 300/4IS is already rather big.

[William Michael]

>>> > Along this line of thinking: the 70 to 200 F2.8L IS would be worth consideration.

 

I have ruled this one out due to its weight. [. . . ] etc. <<<

 

Thank you for your detailed answer.

 

With the added detail / clarification, I suggest you really need to confirm how often you want / need the 280mm to 400mm FL.

 

And, in any event, I tend to (re)suggest the 70 to 200F4L IS and the x1.4MkII, because if you really NEED 400mm often, it is be better to consider a 400mm prime.

 

Good luck

 

WW

[ellis_davison]

Echo Dan Mitchell on the 70-200s, by reputation. I don't own one. Echo Andrew Robertson on the old 100-300 L, which I do have. Focus is not USM, so slow & noisy, plastic body, push-pull zoom and no tripod collar, but it is sharp. Based on my experience with the 100-300 L, push-pull is out for astrophotography - it will creep at high angles unless you have it all the way back (short end) anyway. Two points:

1. If you are using it on a tripod, IS is probably not worth paying extra for. If you are hand-holding it is essential.

2. Think about what maximum shooting aperture you want, rather than concentrating on sharpness wide open. The lenses that are demon sharp wide open are not on your list (except for maybe the 70-200 f/4) - long 300mm+ primes. If f/5.6 is what you are using, you are better off with an f/4 or f/2.8. Brighter image, faster and more accurate focusing, and the sharpness, particularly in the corners, has started to pick up.