I am torn between two lenses. I would like to get some input on these two lenses to make my decision. The lenses are the ef 100-300 5.6 and the newer ef 100-300 4.5-5.6. also is there more than one 100-300 5.6 I have seen some with an L after them and also an AD before them. I have a canon Rebel 2000 so wich 5.6 would fit mine if they are different. Thanks

-- Rob Jennings (rmjblue222@aol.com), March 06, 2002

Answers

There are indeed two 100-300 F5.6 lenses, one being the L lens, which remained in production very much longer than the other. The L version is rather better optically than the non-L version. The 100- 300 F4.5-5.6 USM is better than the plain 100-300 F5.6, and has USM and twist zoom, so handles rather better.

AD....Surely AFD? Arc Form Drive is the motor used in the older lenses, which is slow and noisy. The more recent lens uses USM, which is silent, and much faster.

All three lenses would fit your rebel 2000.

As for which lens to go for....If you can get one, get the 100-300 F5.6L, for its superior optical quality, otherwise get the 100-300 F4.5-5.6 USM, for its excellent handling. I would not go for the plain 100-300 F5.6.

-- Isaac Sibson (isibson@hotmail.com), March 06, 2002.

Isaac sums it up well. I guess what you should ask yourself is what type of photography do you do?

Do you want something to carry around and take photos of quickly, regardless of optical quality? Or do you want something that's slower to focus and more inconvenient to use but which offers much sharper optical quality? For the former get the 100-300 4.5-5.6 USM. For the latter get the 100-300 5.6L. The 100-300 5.6 (non L) combines the worst of both lenses.

Remember that both lenses are slow lenses, which means they don't let in a lot of light. So you can't use them effectively without a tripod in lower light levels unless you use flash or fast film.

-- NK Guy (tela@tela.bc.ca), March 07, 2002.

I considered the 100-300/5.6L lens. Considering it's limitations-- push/pull zoom, rotating front lens element, no USM, size, etc., I went with the optically inferior 100-300/4.5-5.6 lens. No regrets.

-- Lee (Leemarthakiri@sport.rr.com), March 07, 2002.

I have owned the 100-300 f/5.6 and the 100=300 USM f/4.5-5.6, and found that the older 100-300 f/5.6 was sharper wide open and still sharper at f/8. The difference wasn't all that significant and it certainly wasn't as sharp as the 100-300 f/5.6L. The 100-300 USM was smaller, focused faster and handled better, so I kept it and sold the other.

-- Jim Strutz (j.strutz@gci.net), March 09, 2002.

Go for the Sigma 100-300 f/4 instead! It's one of the best telezooms money can buy!

-- Magnus (magnus@hotmail.com), March 11, 2002.

See my answer to the similar topic - bit newer.

LK

-- Leon (Leonkaz@yahoo.com), April 03, 2002.