100-300mmf4.5-5.6 usm or 100-300m f5.6L

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Canon EOS FAQ forum : One Thread

I am thinking of getting telephoto lens to take picture of my 2 year old daughter outdoor. I would appreciate if anyone can give me a suggestion which lens is better. 100-300mmf4.5-5.6 usm or 100-300m f5.6L. I know usm can focus faster but the 100-300mm f4.5-5.6 usm is not as sharp as 100-300m f5.6L. It is really that important to have usm lens If I am taking picture outdoor where ambient lighting is sufficient. The focusing would be just as fast anyway.

Thanks peter

-- peter li (pli@hatch.ca), April 25, 2001

Answers

For normal use, the USM lens is sharp enough. By normal use I mean you're not trying to sell your work and you're not making big prints (bigger than 8x10). The "L" lens really isn't all that much better than the USM lens until you zoom out to 300mm and even at 300mm most "average" shooters probably wouldn't notice a big difference.

If you shoot mostly at 300mm, want to sell your work and shoot from a sturdy tripod, it's probably worth getting the "L" lens and putting up with the lack of full time manual focus and the slower focus speed.

-- Bob Atkins (bobatkins@hotmail.com), April 25, 2001.


I agree with Bob. The 100-300 USM isn't bad. It's a bit soft at 300mm when shooting wide open, but it's not that soft and improves greatly when stopped down a bit. The focusing is greatly faster than anything else in it's class, even in bright light. The "L" is longer, clunkier and is a push pull design that is not as easy to use.

I know some people are critical of this lens since it costs more, but isn't sharper than all the other 70/75-300's out there, but it's actually a nice lens. Considering the alternatives, it's a good buy. If you are very picky about sharpness, get the "L". Most people are better served with the USM version.

-- Jim Strutz (j.strutz@gci.net), April 25, 2001.


You're getting very good advice, but I can add a few more thoughts. I've owned both lenses and found the "L" zoom to be not only slow at AF, but it had difficulty, even in good light, achieving focus. My experience was that it tended to rack back and forth as my subject quickly danced away. It was especially crappy on pro cameras like the EOS 1N. It works a little better on amateur cameras like the A2 or Elan.

Now the 100-300 USM was an amazing lens as far as AF is concerned. It was so fast and accurate, AF appeared nearly instantaneous with my A2 and Elan. Using a tripod, slow film and stopped down to F11, I got many very sharp 11 x 14 enlargements.

You may wish to consider the 75-300 IS USM. It doesn't AF nearly as fast as the 100-300--but is better than the "L" version--and it has the added benefit of image stabilization, something which you'd find very useful for hand held candids.

-- Puppy Face (doggieface@aol.com), April 25, 2001.


I had the 100-300 USM and couldn't stand its poor optical quality. When you get close to 300mm shooting wide open, a common occurance with a slow lens at a long focal length, anyone can notice the severe light falloff. I'll leave comments on sharpness to photodo.com's MTF graph. =)

Judge for yourself with these photos. I could just be more anal than most 100-300 USM owners, but these shots are unacceptable unless you're going for a portrait with an old vignetting look.

http://www.srf.com/Photo/index.asp?Action=ShowPicture&PhotoID=84&Acces sKey=zx92

http://www.srf.com/Photo/index.asp?Action=ShowPicture&PhotoID=83&Acces sKey=xz092k

I upgraded to a used Tokina 80-200 f/2.8 and haven't looked back, but haven't used the 100-300 L. USM is great, but I haven't found any need for it even when shooting cars at the track.

-- Steven Fisher (srf@srf.com), April 30, 2001.


Here's another option, although a more expensive one. Buy the 70-200 f/ 4L and the Canon 1.4 converter. The 70-200 is a stellar lens. Very sharp and has very fast AF. You may find that the range is sufficient as it is, otherwise, add the 1.4x, which will still give great results, definitely better than the 100-300 USM, a lens which I never cared for very much.

-- Ron Scheffler (ronscheffler@hotmail.com), May 25, 2001.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ