hi. i'am from poland. i want to buy 100-300 4.5-5.6 USM soon. can you tell me some words about this lens? is contrast and sharpness at 300 mm is better than in 75-300 4.5-5.6 USM? thank you for your help. krzysiek

-- krzysztof (krzysiek@radnastudio.pl), March 02, 2000

Answers

I've got a chance to compare 100-300/4.5-5.6 USM and 75-300/4-5.6 IS USM. My opinion is that both are bad at 300mm. No matter how much stopped down. But 100-300 is somewhat more contrasty at 100-200 and has ring-USM with FTM. So I've got a 100-300. I think that 75-300/4-5.6 (non IS) is not worth its price. Sincerely, VB.

-- Vladimir Bogdanov (vb@soft-pro.ru), March 02, 2000.

I tested several samples of both lenses and there is really very little, if any, difference between them. Both are a little soft at 300mm, but quite good at the shorter end of the zoom range.

-- Bob Atkins (bobatkins@hotmail.com), March 02, 2000.

I have previously used the 100-300/4.5-5.6 USM, and my girlfriend currently owns one. For the price, I believe it's a very respectable EOS zoom that you'll really enjoy using. Pair this lens with the 28-105/3.5-4.5 USM or the 28-135/3.5-5.6 IS USM, and you have a very nice start-up system. While the 100-300 may not be spectacular at the longer end, it's still a solid performer when one considers its reasonable price and USM technology. Do use a tripod, mirror pre-lock and so on, whenever feasible. And, don't forget the lens hood. I urge you to feel good about purchasing this lens!

-- kurt heintzelman (heintzelman.1@osu.edu), March 03, 2000.

I've owned 2 of the 100-300 USM, one 100-300 5.6L and currently use the 75-300 USM/IS. The 100-300 5.6L was only slightly sharper and more contrastly than the other 2 lenses. The 100-300 USM and the 75-300 USM/IS perform about the same optically: very sharp and contrasty at the short end and a little softer at 300. However, I have many 11 x 14 pictures on the wall shot with the 300mm end of the 100-300 USM and they are sharp and contrasty enough even when viewed at 12 inches. Of course, I used a tripod and cable release (my hand held photos at 300mm were often soft due to my unsteady grip). However, the "realtime" manual focus, super fast inner focusing elements and distance scale (so you can prefocus) make the 100-300 USM a better lens than the Canon 75-300 models. Even the "IS" lacks these important features. I wish the 100-300 USM had IS too.

-- Kun of Kukui (lccplucker@aol.com), March 04, 2000.

I just wanted to second Kun's remarks above. I have had almost identical experiences. I have taken some very nice portraits shots at 300mm. Remember in shooting people there are times when they prefer a bit of "softening" in the image.

I have also taken action shots of soccer using the 100-300 USM version that wound up as very nice posters.

Remember this is a "consumer grade" telephoto lens and I believe it does it job well. The advantage of FTM and that quick and silent USM motor give it some real advantages over comparable lenses in this price range.

Dick

-- Richard Snyder (rsnyder@lc.cc.il.us), March 19, 2000.