Hi there, I posted a question about up-grading an EOS300 to an EOS30 and want to thank everyone for the replies. On reflection I am getting an EOS30 this weekend(new), and am also getting an EF28-105USM(secondhand), both from my local photographic retailer - Jesspos. I am trading in my 300 and 28-90lens. I am also thinking about trading in my EF80-200 lens and saving up for a EF100-300USM(secondhand). Do you all out there think this is a good trade-up? Are these lenses really much better than the 28-90 and the 80-200? Look forward to some responses.

-- Sarah Needham (sarah.needham1@orange.net), April 14, 2002

Answers

The 80-200 is really not bad optically. The 100-300 won't be a huge improvement in that department. However, the better construction and Ring USM will make it a much more enjoyable lens to use. The EOS 30, 28-105 and 100-300 is a very solid, good quality setup, which is well matched. You would then do well with further lenses, even into L series (if you get that serious), which will still work well with your EOS 30 body.

The move from the 28-90 to the 28-105 will probably be the most noticeable, as the former is reputed to be very poor, while the latter is known to be very good for a consumer lens.

-- Isaac Sibson (isibson@hotmail.com), April 14, 2002.

Sarah, I have the 29-105 lens and it's great. I use it with my EOS 50 (older than your EOS 30)and it takes great picks, always sharp and quick focusing. I use it almost always for portraits and for wider angle shots. A really good general purpose lens. Good luck!

-- Latham Portous (latport@hotmail.com), April 14, 2002.

if you want better optical quality go for 70-210 f3.5-4.5 USM in stead of that 100-300. there is one more version of 70-210 with apperture fixed at f4. this is not as good as the former.

-- sajeev (chack74@yahoo.co.in), April 15, 2002.

Do you want snapshots or photography? The Canon 100-300 USM is one of the worst lenses optically in existence. It's almost sufficient for snapshots but worthless for everything else due to the light falloff near 300mm, the grainy film it requires, and is extremely soft past 200mm.

If you want good pictures I would recommend the 100-300 L, it's not USM but is far better optically. Or better yet something like a 70- 200 f/4L (USM and can use better film).

I replaced my 100-300 USM with a Tokina 80-200 f/2.8 whose autofocus has always been broken (for about the cost of the 100-300). I haven't been happier.

-- Steven Fisher (steven_fisher@hotmail.com), April 15, 2002.

Steven obviously got a very bad sample of the 100-300 USM, as we've never had a problem with the one we have in our family. Sure, it's not as good as my 70-200 F4L, 300 F4L IS or my father's 100-400L IS, but it's nowhere near as bad as Steven suggests.

-- Isaac Sibson (isibson@hotmail.com), April 15, 2002.

Over the years, I have owned three 100-300 USM lenses. The first one was as bad as Steven suggests. There was something definitly wrong with it & I sent it back. The other two were quite good. Decently sharp up to 200mm. Past that it was a bit soft wide open but was much improved when stopped down.

Of course this is all subjective, and you may insists that for your needs the 100-300 USM is just not good enough. The 100-300 f/5.6L is certainly a step up in image quality. As is the 100-400 f/5.6L.

-- Jim Strutz (j.strutz@gci.net), April 15, 2002.

The 100-300 USM is the worst Canon EOS lens listed on www.photodo.com, so I have no little to believe I had a bad lens (nor did the buyer complain). I'm just pickier than most, and am annoyed when people here make misleading (if not outright incorrect) statements like:

"The 80-200 is really not bad optically. The 100-300 won't be a huge improvement in that department."

Since the 80-200 is rated quite a bit better than the 100-300 (3.0 vs 2.4), it seems that it would be a step *down* for Sarah, unless she absolutely positively can't live without the extra 100mm of low quality glass.

Even with the 100-300 at 180mm, the 80-200 scores higher at 200mm. At f/5.6, it's .58 vs .67. That's similar in degree to the difference between my 50mm lens at f/1.8 vs f/2.8, which I find to be quite noticable.

-- Steven Fisher (steven_fisher@hotmail.com), April 15, 2002.

Photodo is notoriously inaccurate.

For a start, the lowest scoring Canon EF lens is, in fact, the 28-80 mkIV USM, at 2.2.

Furthermore, if you take Photodo as gospel truth, then the 100-400L IS is a better 300mm lens than the 300 F4L IS. I can tell you from experience that this is simply not the case, and many others who have used both lenses will agree. In fact, there is much evidence to say that even with the 1.4X TC, the 300 remains a better lens (at 420) than the 100-400 at 400 without a TC.

I owned the 80-200 for some time. I replaced it with a Sigma 70-300 APO macro, which I subsequently replaced with my present pair of L series. The 80-200 was not better than the 100-300 we have. The Sigma was similar optically to the canon (perhaps slightly sharper), but the slow, noisy AF and poor design (extension/rotation during focus) made it a considerably less good lens overall than the Canon.

Everything I've said has been based on my own experience with these bits and pieces, and not on the ratings of a widely questioned website.

-- Isaac Sibson (isibson@hotmail.com), April 15, 2002.

FWIW, I've used and compared a 75-300 USM II, a 100-300 USM and a 100-300 5.6L.

The 75-300 was the worst by far. The 100-300 had much better build quality, had all the USM benefits (silent, full-time manual, really fast) but optically it was just a tiny bit better than the 75- 300. The 100-300 5.6L is better than either two, but not mind- blowingly so. It's reasonably sturdy but with a slow and inconvenient AF motor.

-- NK Guy (tela@tela.bc.ca), April 15, 2002.

Optically, I think the EF100-300 4.5-5.6 USM is better than most internet cry babies make it out to be: very sharp at 100 and a little soft at 300. Many folks try to hand hold it at 300 mm and whine because their images are soft. However, you can always get a nice 11 x 14 enlargement if you stopdown to F8 or 11 and use good technique and fine grained film.

I've owned 4 similar telezooms during the past 12 years, EF100-300 5.6, EF100-300 5.6L, EF100-300 4.5-5.6 USM, Sigma 75-300 APO, and the EF75- 300 IS USM. They're all optically about the same as all of them except for the L series zoom, which was a little better (but a piece of trash otherwise). However, with all things considered, they're all about the same. That is, each has different strengths and weaknesses that tend to level the playing field. With one you get great AF, with another fine optical quality, another IS, etc. But, unfortunately, you can't get everything that's good and desirable in one zoom. Canon saved that for the EF100-400 4.5-5.6L IS USM.

Now if Canon would combine the ring-type USM and rear element focus of the EF100-300 4.5-5.6 USM, the optical quality of the EF100-300 5.6L, the IS of the EF75-300 IS USM, and sell it for $500, that would be a near perfect consumer telezoom. I'd buy it tomorrow. I'd even pay a couple hundred more for a pretty white barrel. Of course, we would still whine and cry about the tendency to suck in dust, the dark viewfinder, the price, the lack of a tripod collar, yada, yada. That's human nature (ever notice bad news is mainly reported on CNN?).

Nevertheless, I'm much happier with the performance, feel and build of my EF 70-200 4L USM than I was with any of the above telezooms.

Here's an image I took with the EF100-300 4.5-5.6 USM:

-- Puppy Face (doggieface@aol.com), April 17, 2002.

Yeah, a .5 megapixel scan is a great way to show off a lens. ;)

Ignorant people like you need to realize that often such a lens is used for sports where f/8-f/11 isn't possible (unless you use 3200 film, but who wants to do that).

Even the few times I've been able to use a tripod at f/11, it's too soft for my taste.

-- Steven Fisher (steven_fisher@hotmail.com), April 17, 2002.

Steven, we heard your opinion that the 100-300 is a soft lens. However, many people here have had very acceptable (and maybe even "good" results) results from this lens.

However, as soon as anyone has dared venture that they think it's a perfectly reasonable lens, you start to take it personally. I would say you're the one making "misleading (if not outright incorrect) statements like" calling puppy face ignorant. He has been a member of this forum for some considerable time, and has always very moderately put his views.

Is it not "misleading" and perhaps even "outright incorrect" to base opinions of one lens vs. another on a single source of data?

Sarah's original question seems to have been lost sight of, and in my experience (of the 28-105, 80-200 and 100-300) and also taking opinions from many other people across the web and friends also, I think the plan she has is perfectly good. For someone who, apparently, is fairly new to SLR photography, I don't think the 100- 300 is at all a bad lens. Not everyone wants to or needs to spend thousands on L glass.

Giving your opinion is welcome, but insulting long-time contributors is unecessary and rude.

-- Isaac Sibson (isibson@hotmail.com), April 17, 2002.

Thanks Steve. It's apparent you're a sweet and intelligent guy deep down inside somewhere. I bid you joy and happiness in your life.

I believe your lens sample was a lemon. It happens sometimes. I'm sorry for your misfortune. My EF100-300 4.5-5.6 USM was very good for a consumer zoom. Sharp 11 x 14 prints were no problem when I stopped down and used a tripod. Handheld was a different story as I had to shoot wide open to avoid camera shake.

The original image was a Kodachrome shot with an EOS 10S/EF100-300 USM/ RC-1 remote on a Bogan 3001 tripod. I locked AE on a medium toned section of sky (partial pattern) used F16 in Av mode and manual focus. A 11 x 14 print (R-process from a local prolab) hangs on my wall. The color and sharpness are surprisingly good. Viewed from 10 inches (the nearest I can see), even the edges are sharp and clearly defined. You'll have to take my word for it as I can't show you the original chrome. This jpeg was scanned on my LS-1000 at 2700 DPI and is also surprising sharp from edge to edge. I didn't think you would appreciate viewing a 28MB Photoshop file so did rez down to 72dpi.

Aloha,

-- Puppy Face (doggieface@aol.com), April 17, 2002.

Well, Steven, I also have to disagree. Maybe the 100-300 really IS Canon's worst lens. If that is the case, it says a lot about the high quality of the other lenses Canon makes.

I've seen numerous postings over the years saying this lens and the 75-300 lenses are poor. They all mention photodo's rating. Okay. I can only say the 100-300 I have has proven to be pretty good. Wide open. At 300mm. At closest focus. That's mostly using a heavy Gitzo tripod, under good light, carefully adjusting the focus manually and using Fujichrome Velvia, Provia 100F, Sensia 100 or Kodak E100VS. I have numerous needle sharp transparecies and several fine 8x10 ink jet prints on the wall done with this "poor" lens.

Last weekend, I crawled around on my belly shooting Texas wildflowers. I used my 70-200/2.8L and even my 400/5.6L lens with extenders some of the time. Some of my best photos were done with the 100-300 handheld and a Nikon 5T close-up lens. Closeups of backlit Indian Paintbrush. Lovely rimlight and each hairy stem was tack sharp. For non-tripod shooting on your belly, the 100-300 is easier to use than the big 70-200 and the results are not bad at all.

Years ago, when I shot Nikon equipment, I owned one of the old 300/4.5 Nikkor manual focus lenses. I can say without hesitation, the 100-300 is better at 300mm than that old Nikkor prime lens ever was. I don't use it much anymore--the 70-200/2.8L is faster and certainly optically superior--but it's not a bad lens by any stretch.

So, Sarah, the 100-300/4.5-5.6 is not a loser lens. It may not be up to L-series standards but it's capable of satisfying results. There may be some variations in the samples and it's a good idea to shoot a roll of a fine grained transparency film such as Velvia or Provia 100F with the new lens as a test. Use a tripod and shoot at a range of focal lengths, distances and apertures. Check the slides closely under a loupe and satisfy yourself as to whether or not your particular sample is sharp enough for you.

-- Lee (Leemarthakiri@sport.rr.com), April 19, 2002.

Puppy face, don't give us that innocent garbage, we're not that naive. You're the one who with extreme arrogance and prejudice typed "...is better than most internet cry babies make it out to be..." just because some people have different opinions than you.

-- Steven Fisher (steven_fisher@hotmail.com), April 19, 2002.

Ssshhhh, quiet!! - don't anyone tell my Canon 75-300 f4.0-5.6 IS that I'm too ignorant to know that it's too slow to take these shots. It might not do it anymore....

-- Dick Tope (RTope@yahoo.com), April 20, 2002.

Dick,

Cool images! That truck looks very mean. Sheesh, I though only L lenses were allowed to do that.

Aloha,

-- Puppy Face (doggieface@aol.com), April 20, 2002.

I think its time for Stephen to say ALOHA! ALOHA!

-- joe cap (joemocap@yahoo.com), April 20, 2002.

Can someone point out where I stated non-L lenses aren't capable of doing something? I've never even owned an L lens.

When did I ever make any comment of any sort about the 75-300 f4.0- 5.6 IS?

I gave specific information about my experiences and the documented evidence with the 100-300 USM lens that contradicts some peoples opinions.

Please folks, start reading and be curious and open minded instead of simply making assumptions that supports your agenda.

-- Steven Fisher (steven_fisher@hotmail.com), April 21, 2002.

Ignorant people like you need to realize that often such a lens is used for sports where f/8-f/11 isn't possible (unless you use 3200 film, but who wants to do that).

Looks like a sports event to me.
Shot with a consumer zoom.
Not shot at f8-f11.
Not shot on 3200 film.

-- Dick Tope (RTope@yahoo.com), April 21, 2002.

You might not have not taken my statement in context. My statement was in response to Puppy saying, "However, you can always get a nice 11 x 14 enlargement if you stopdown to F8 or 11 and use good technique and fine grained film."

And I stated that's not always an option, especially here in the often-overcast Pacific Northwest when your subject is a race car.

At the moment it is zone 10 outside according to my Pentax spot meter. If I were to use f/8 with fine grained film (ISO 100, let's say) that's 1/15th of a second (200 would still be just 1/30th). I usually pan in the area of 1/90th to 1/125th of a second. Pro photographers often manage to shoot at 1/60th of a second or slower, but I drink too much coffee and they probably burn through a lot more rolls.

Yes 3200 is an exaggeration for most shots, but I'd still need film that's too grainy for me. =)

-- Steven Fisher (steven_fisher@hotmail.com), April 21, 2002.

Steve writes, "Can someone point out where I stated non-L lenses aren't capable of doing something? I've never even owned an L lens...When did I ever make any comment of any sort about the 75-300 f4.0- 5.6 IS?"

You didn't Steve. Moreover, nobody said you did. Those comments were my personal observations directed at Dick's nice images.

First of all, this is coming from an ignorant guy, so pardon my lack of sophistication. Nevertheless, this thread is not about an individual opinion. In other words, not every comment revolves around you. This thread has evolved into a free wheeling discussion about consumer telezooms. Obviously, you were not happy with the EF100-300 4.5-5.6 USM. However, many others have expressed a positive opinion and reveled in their good results. That's how life is. Some they do, some they don't. Now wouldn't life be boring if we all thought and acted the same?

-- Puppy Face (doggieface@aol.com), April 22, 2002.