100-300 f5.6L advice

[tomas_vernon]

I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts on the Canon 100-300 f5.6L

lens. Although slow and outdated, I hear that the lens is rather

sharp. I like to shoot tripod mounted nature and night photos and I

am giving consideration to this lens. I have a chance to buy a mint

version at a very low price. I am currently saving for the elusive

70-200, but thought that this would be a great "in-the-mean-time"

lens. Thanks.

[bobatkins]

At the right price it's a good buy. It's a bit slow and clumsy compared to USM lenses, but it's sharper than the 75-100 or other 100-300 zooms at the telephoto end. It's not that much better than the other lenses at the short end though.

 

As to what "the right price" is, thats a matter of opinion. I'd pay maybe $200 for one. $300 would be high, $400 would be too much.

[tim__cumbria_]

The canon 100 - 300 F5.6L has very very good optics, you wont be dissapointed with the results, however it is a push pull zoom lens and does suffer from zoom creep, it is also very heavy and very well built, I think the weight is an advantage with this lens because it helps to keep it very steady, some very slow shutter speeds are posible when hand holding, focusing is also quite slow and a little noisy, but its not that bad, very usable. See if you can try one first before you buy.

If you can buy the mint one you mentioned at a reasoable price, say less than £220 I am not sure what that is in dollars, but it would certainly be a bargin, just check the zoom creep before you buy.

Good Luck.

[cgo]

I love mine. I actually bought mine new at a good price. It works well with both by Elan IIe and my 10D. A little outdated. A push-pull zoom which I hadn't used for a long time. A little slow, a little noisy but very nice.

[stacy_f]

I think this lens would make a great "in-the-meantime" lens. I recently bought one for my Eos 5 and think the optics are superb. It does autofocus slow, however.

[jimvanson]

Thomas...I don't know what the buzz over the 100-300L is all about.<p>I tried a 100-300 f5.6 L and a 75-300 IS several years ago. I shot about a dozen rolls of B&W print film with the two lenses over a weekend. I ended up buying the 75-300 IS because even though the IS lens was not as sharp on the 300 end (and I really am a "must have more sharpness" guy) it, the IS lens, <i>handled much better and allowed me to shoot handheld in conditions unheard of before IS</i>. The 100-300L was (I'm about to hear a howl here); a pig to hold, had autofocus so slow it was almost non-existent (there was no FTM to help out if I remember correctly) <i>and it was no great hell, wide open, at the 300 end</i>.<p>Now, having soiled the 100-300 L's reputation I will say that I did take some hand held shots with it at f11 using a flash that were pretty damn sharp�<i>but f11? In rainy Vancouver?</i><p>To close�my suggestion�as Bob says if you can get it for $200 Ok...I guess. Otherwise I�d consider a few suggestions:<p>First you can get a 100-300 Ultrasonic for about $150 used.<p>Or second (what I think is the right thing) Save your $$$ till you have $540 of the always hard to come by little beasts�then pounce on a 70-200 f4L.<p>And if you need a 300? Well You'll have to try and find a used 300 f4L but we're into real cash by now...

[jorge_ituarte3]

You must have had a bad sample. Mine is tack sharp wide open at all focal length. But very light weight (1.5lbs) and portable. Shares 58mm filter size with Canon primes like the 50mm 1.4, 24mm 2.8. L class optics in every respect! Ergonomically a dog. I consider it a top best buy. Optically if you want better get a 200mm 2.8 but not by much. I have them both. Get it you won't regret it. I'll always keep mine. Nothing comparable for weight, size, reach and optical quality.

[jonathan_bundick]

I bought mine new just as they were discontinued, and never regretted it. Used on a tripod it delivers incredibly crisp images that you won't be disappointed with. It tends to be a slightly warm lens. As for price I don't think $250-325 is out of line, particularly if the alternative is a current non-L series offering from Canon.

[mikemilton]

Well, I had one (my son now has it) and, with all the quirks cited about focue and

push-pull zoom, it was a wonderful lens. We also have a 70-300IS lens in out kit and

it has SIGNIFICANT challenges with contrast IMHO. From an optics perspective, there

is nothing that beats this old clunker (and I own the 70-200F2.8IS as well as the

300F4IS). When I had it, the 100-300L was the lens I grabbed most (over the 300F4

except in low light BTW)

 

You may find it is a great in-the-mean-time and you may find you want to persevere

with its quirks and fill other holes in your kit before you end that mean-time

 

m

[eos 10 fan]

I wonder how the 100-300mm f/5.6L would compare to a 70-200mm f/4L USM + 1.4x TC?

 

--

[sivakumar m. maniam]

Its an "L" series lens, its definately has good image. But is heavy and bulky. Or u can get just 70-200 with the extender 1.4x.

[jorge_ituarte3]

The 70-200 f.4 is almost exactly the same size and weight. Both are 3" diameter, 6.8" long and 1.5 lbs. The 100-300 L is sharper a 300 than the 70-200mm f.4 L with 1.4x TC at 280. The 70-200mm f.4 plus TC will run you about $850.00 the 100-300mm L in "like new" condition about $275.00 at KEH. Don't get me wrong the 70-200 f.4 is a fabulous lens. I just want the original poster to realize that all he is compromising with the 100-300 L is USM, smooth manual focus, 1 stop of light in the 100-200 range, and a two touch zoom. I must tell you those things are very nice but as far a image quality is concerned you cant go wrong with the 100-300 5.6 L. The most important thing is that you will still have money left over for a couple of good primes like a 24mm and a 50mm. If you make some money selling your work then you can justify the luxury of upgrading to something more comfortable to use.

[bruce johnson]

Maybe it depends on which 70-200 you're saving for. I'm saving for the 70-200/2.8L with IS and a 1.4x TC so I find the 100-300/5.6L to be a fantastic "in-the-meantime" lens. In fact, the 70-200/2.8L IS and 1.4x TC is such a heavy combo that I'll definately keep the 100-300/5.6L for those times where weight is a concern, and weight is often a concern for my outdoor pursuits.

 

ADVANTAGES OF 100-300/5.6L: Outstanding optics for price, lightweight and relatively small

 

DISADVANTAGES OF 100-300/5.6L: f/5.6 is slow, not great at throwing the background out of focus, more difficult to compose and check (or manual) focus in low light; no FTM or USM; slow AF, hunts a bit; rotating front element (a nuisance for me - polarizers aren't too bad, but hard-stop ND grads are a killer); and push-pull zoom which suffers from lens creep (only bugs me when I'm aiming the camera down with a 500D close-up lens and the lens creeps, quite rare circumstance)

 

I guess for me the most important thing is the ratio of size, weight and optics for the price, I can work around all that other stuff most of the time. Like you I almost always shoot from a tripod and I usually have the time to set up this lens properly. If my primary use was sports, portraiture or wildlife I might pass and save for the 70-200, but otherwise I can recommend this lens wholeheartedly. BTW I've had good success using this lens for sports and wildlife too, but one really should have both a faster AF and wider aperture.