Anyone tried the new 90-300mm USM lens

[yat_tang]

I was going to get a 70-300mm USM or 100-300mm USM lens, but now I

notice there is a new 90-300mm USM lens too. The 100-300mm was my

first choice because it has rear focusing with full time manual

focus. Has anyone tried this 90-300mm lens yet ? It seems to be much

cheaper than the 100-300mm and only a little more than the 70-300mm.

Is this better than the 70-300 ? I like to know before I decided.

Thanks

[h._p.]

I've no knowledge of the 90~300 but I use the 100~300 and can recommend it. If the 90~300 is cheaper then there must be a catch, Canon don't give anything for nothing.

[fj5]

It seems to be an add-on for consumers to buy kits with the 28-90mm and thus, 90-300mm. I looked at a picture of this lens and it looks to be the same "cheap" plasic build quality of the 28-90mm. Sure, you will probably save more money and it'll probably serve its purpose if you were new to the field of SLR photography but I doubt the quality would be much better or even hold the same as that of the 28-90mm (if you can call that quality).

 

If you're on a tight budget... consider the 75-300mm (probably not much more in price but it gives you better optics, statistically, as well as a wider reach).

 

Good luck!

[fj5]

My previous claims were all based on assumption and the online picture I viewed of it. I advise you to take a look at it personally and if you can, use another body to take pictures with it in the store. If it is indeed cheaper in price than the 75-300mm (a lot cheaper), then watch out. If the barrel is almost perfectly cylindrical, watch out. If the weight is very light, then watch out. =)

 

It surprises me that it costs more than the 75-300mm III USM. I mean, maybe just because it's new but... I've read that the 75-300 is better than the 100-300 (optically, that is) but no FTM or ring USM.

 

Canon's produced a new line of "cheapies" (by the looks of it, but don't get me wrong, they ain't CHEAP cheap). The new 28-90, 28-105, and now the 90-300 all seem to have the same build. I haven't heard many great things about the 28-90 and I myself replaced it with an older 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5, but based on many forums, everyone advises to stay away from the new 28-105mm f/4-5.6.

 

Let us know if you buy it then you can give us a review! =p

[canon man]

In tah range I would recommend the 100-300USM> it focuses very fast has rea focus and FTM. It is prone to zoom creep but only if you poitn the lens staright down. They are built very well, and the zoom tube stays tight and does not develop slop in it liek some other zooms do. If you get fooled into the 75-300 IS zoom then if I were you I would just skip that altoghetehr and get a 70-200 F4 L for $100 more.

[fj5]

If you can afford the 100-300, then it might be a good choice. The ring usm and FTM of that lens make it great! I didn't have a choice when I got my 75-300 but I'm happy with it. Of course it's not as smooth as the 100-300. I don't believe the 75-300 IS is worth the extra money... and again, Daniel's right that if you were to go with that, it's probably better to get the 70-200 f/4L (just for the optics, but you do lose the reach). I'm content with my 75-300 and I don't think I'll be making any upgrades in the telephoto end for a while. I like the extra 25mm on the wide end for more versatility anyway.

 

Again, good luck! Oh, btw, to better help us, it might be a good idea to tell us what your budget is like as well as what lenses you have currently, what camera you are using, and what you like to shoot.

[canon man]

FYI there is a 100-300 5.6L in the classifieds here at photo.net under the 35mmSLR category that is only $350 shipped. That is a very good price as these fetch close to $400 to $500 on ebay and they have a reputation for being sharp lenses with the awesome color cast of the L lenses. Way sharper than anything that has been mentioned thus far aside from the 70-200 F4 I mentioned.

[yat_tang]

I think I will go for the 100-300mm USM which was my first choice anyway.

 

Thanks

[b_friedman]

I just got a used 100-300 from KEH in Excellent (I think it was) condition for $165. When the lens arrived I couldn't figure out why it wasn't listed as Like New. The lens is absoluteley scratch free. Of course KEH is known to be conservative in their grading. I haven't shot with it yet but why not look into it? The price is certainly attractive.

[gareth_harper]

I bought an EOS30 kit with the 28-90 and 75-300 USM's.

The 28-90 was dreadful and was quickly replaced by a Tokina 28-80 f2.8 which is 100 times better. I'm still using the 75-300 as it's quite a reasonable lens. It does get a little soft at the 300mm end and comparing it to the results I get from the Tokina I know it's not the best but it doesn't stink like the 28-90. I hope one day to replace it with a 70-200 f4l Canon or similar but I don't feel there is a need to rush into this.