Somebody can tell me wich of this lens has the better optic? Is it worth to buy the 100-300 usm?

Thanks!

-- Agostino Cascardo (a.cascardo@hwa-gmbh.de), April 29, 2002

Answers

This subject has been the topic of many discussions for the last 5 years so you'll find plenty of opinions if you do a search. Personally I like the EF100-300 USM better due to it's internal focus, ring-USM, super fast focus, distance window, non-rotaing front element and fulltime manual focus. Optically, they're mighty close. However, some claim the EF100-300 USM as a slight edge. Whatever, it handles much better. There was a recent discussion on these lenses you might enjoy:

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch- msg.tcl?msg_id=008juV

-- Puppy Face (doggieface@aol.com), April 29, 2002.

Take a look at the Sigma 100-300 f/4 HSM. Itīs one of the best telezooms around...

-- Magnus (magnus@hotmail.com), April 29, 2002.

Please do not take that Sigma advice.

-- joe cap (joemocap@yahoo.com), April 29, 2002.

Now there's an in-depth response, what do you have against that Sigma?

From what I can see it sounds like a decent lens, is noticably faster, but it's much heavier and more expensive than Canon's 100- 300. For that price you can get the Canon 70-200 f/4L.

-- Steven Fisher (steven_fisher@hotmail.com), April 29, 2002.

As you have noticed in the past, I have a big issue with Sigma for a number of reasons. 1. Many of the Sigma lenses made only 5 years ago will not work with eye controll Canons. These include the 24mmf2.8, 50mm macrof2.8, 35- 135 af just to name a few. In fact the Sigma 24mm makes a great paperweight on my desk. 2. Quality controll- it stinks, the variation with sigmas lens performance is the worst of all of the brand name independents, just ask anyone with the current 28-105, its either wretched or very good. 3. Sigma has one of the highest repair rates of any manufacturer, just check with your local dealer.

beyond these valid reasons is that Magnus is appears to be a Sigma rep, all of his previous comments were for all of the latest Sigma products, nice try but this is a Canon advice forum , not a Sigma sales forum.

-- joe cap (joemocap@yahoo.com), April 29, 2002.

In fairness, the newer Sigmas can be rechipped and will work fine with a new EOS body. My 1999 50 2.8 Macro EX didn't work with my Elan 7E or EOS 3, but Sigma rechipped it for free. However, it is a pain in the arse if you buy a new EOS model every year and own lots of Sigma glass! I eventually decided I liked Canon glass better--especially for FT-M and ring-USM--and sold my Sigma lenses.

-- Puppy Face (doggieface@aol.com), May 01, 2002.

http://www.photo.net/nature/x-300

-- Steve Dunn (steved@ussinc.com), May 02, 2002.

I have the 100-300 and like it enough that I've kept it even though I have the 70-200/2.8L and 1.4x extender.

The only thing I have against Sigma is that it is not Canon. I did not buy into the EOS system to use somebody else's lenses. Sigma makes camera bodies, too. Why not buy into the Sigma camera system and use Sigma lenses.

On the other hand, if it was a choice between not being able to make the photos I want to make and having to use third party lenses, I'd certainly use Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, Vivitar, Brand X or whatever.

-- Lee Shively (Leemarthakiri@sport.rr.com), May 02, 2002.

I used the 100-300 5,6 L lens and liked it very much although it is a bit slow. Lens quality is superb, autofocus is slow.

-- Frank (frank_bunnik@hotmail.com), May 06, 2002.