I'll soon be purchasing a second hand telezoom. I had been thinking about getting the 100-300usm, but here in the UK the 70-210usm is about the same price (second hand from a photo retailer with warranty). Obviously the range isn't as big, and as I have the EF28-105 I wouldn't have as much flexability with the 70-210, but I have heard that this is the better lens. Is this true? Which is sharper at 200mm, wide open? Would it be worth losing the 300mm length for better sharpness at 200? I recently sold my 80-200 mk2 (non USM), but found the 200 end useful for candid shots.

Any thoughts!!

Sarah

-- Sarah Needham (sarah.needham1@orange.net), May 09, 2002

Answers

Do you have interest in, and pounds for, any of the L-series zooms? To my mind, optical quality always trumps focal length.

-- Preston Merchant (merchant@speakeasy.org), May 09, 2002.

The differences between these lenses at 200mm is insignificant, only at 300mm does the 100-300 show some softness. The main advantage this lens has however is obviously that additional range. If you are shooting landscapes, 300mm does a wonderful job providing compression, to a much better degree than 200mm. Since your 28-105 already fills in the 70-100 gap I would go for the 100-300usm good luck JC

-- joe cap (joe cap@yahoo.com), May 09, 2002.

Preston asked a good question, the reason why the 100-300 gets a little soft at 300mm is because there there is no elements of florite or ed glass to compensate for chromatic distortion. The 100-300 L uses both. If you can save for this or the 70-200f4L, you will certainly see the difference.JC

-- joe cap (joemocap@yahoo.com), May 09, 2002.

Try this link, Sarah: a review of the 70-200 4.0L USM.

http://alaike.lcc.hawaii.edu/frary/canon_ef70-200usm.htm

-- Preston Merchant (merchant@speakeasy.org), May 09, 2002.

Sarah,

I have both the 70-210 USM and 100-300 USM (I previously owned a 75- 300 USM but sold it when I got the 100-300). After your question I put the two on my desk next to one another and the strange thing is that physically they are externally identical dimensions but obviously different optical configurations. Incidentally I bought the 70-210 on eBay in UK for 85 pounds (far cheaper than through a dealer) and have seen a 100-300 recently at around 100 pounds.

Which is better? It depends. My inclination is now towards the 70-210 because of the following: I find the 300 at f5.6 max aperture and long focal length is not ideal for hand holding and also get some vignetting at max aperture (only noticeable on slide film) and is too slow if I also put a polariser on so for quality hand held tend not to go much beyond 200mm so the 70-210 has the advantage in that its faster and has extra mm at the wide end. Only time I really used to use the 300mm end was with fast film for shooting my son's football matches. In fact having answered this question I think I'll sell my 100-300!

While everyone raves about the 70-200 F4 L it is expensive - certainly here in UK. For significantly less than that I bought a secondhand 200mm F2.8 L Mk 1 which is a fabulous lens and has the advantage of speed and prime lens quality but is heavy to carry around all day!

Regards Derek

-- Derek Linney (dlinney@aol.com), May 10, 2002.

I made this choise back in 1996, and went with the 100-300USM because of the additional range. If I had to do it again, I think I would have gone with the 70-200USM, primarily due to the resons described by Derek above. Except for both my son's soccor games (hey, I'm a Yank), I rarely use the lens beyond 200mm because the image quality erodes. I subsequently sold the 100-300USM and bought the 70-200 F4L. It only cost about $600, and I have been absolutely thrilled with its performance.

-- Kenneth Katz (socks@bestweb.net), May 10, 2002.