Lewis From Greece, joined Jul 1999, 3716 posts, RR: 4 Posted (14 years 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 4062 times:
I will be buying a new lens the following month and I am between Canon's 75-300 USM IS, 75-300 USM and 100-300 USM? Which one has better performance? I read that the lens featuring Image Stabilizer has soft focusing beyond 200mm and I would like a user to verify this or deny it before i spend 430$ for it.
Aircanon From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 238 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (14 years 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3991 times:
I used to have the Canon EF 75-300 f/4.0-5.6 III. That is the cheapest 75-300 Lens from Canon. It was quite ok and i made nice pictures with it. Some of them though turned out blury so i decided to give it away and then i bought the Canon EF 75-300 f/4.0-5.6 IS USM. Since then i get sharper pictures. Yes on the upper end of the Zoom it does get a little soften but so did the other one. The only thing you have to keep in mind is that using the IS takes about one second before it works. Also the autofocus is a little bit slower with the 75-300 lens. Not slow with my Canon EF 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM. And yes of course... You can switch the image stabilzer off when you do not need it. When using a tripod you should definetly turn the IS off.
IS works best when taking pictures of static objects. It works ok when panning moving objects but you have to practice and find out when it suits best.
Just to give you an idea.. The photo below i made with the EF 75-300 IS lens. I scanned it from a print not a slide.
Oh.. I almost forgot! I decided for the 75-300 and not for the 100-300 so i am more flexibel and do not have to change lenses so often. "L" lenses would be the best but they cost a looooot of money hehe..
Hope i was of some help.
Lot´s of luck with your new lens whatever it will be.
A380-200 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (14 years 2 days ago) and read 3981 times:
I would go for the 100-300 USM.
I recently traded my 75-300 F4-5.6 USM for this lens and it is a whole lot better.
The 75-300mm is what I call a "consumer" lens. I would call the 100-300 USM a serious amateur lens. It has better optics, internal focusing, is quicker, quieter and sharper. Here in England the 75-300 USM (without IS) costs about 170 GBP - I paid 200 GBP for a used 100-300 USM when I traded the 75-300...you get what you pay for at the end of the day.
Rindt From Germany, joined May 2000, 930 posts, RR: 12
Reply 6, posted (13 years 12 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3934 times:
I use a 35-70mm and an 80-200mm with one camera body... and I switch lenses all the time. Even though I have two camera bodies, I like being able to shoot about 4.5 fps with my F90x ALL the time... in the very distant future I'll have two F5s, but unless I win the lottery, this won't happen for a while.
What other people think of you is none of your business!
Cfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (13 years 12 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3944 times:
I've used both lenses. The quality of the 100-300mm lens is definately better than the 75-300mm, but having that lower limit of 100mm was really a pain in the ass. I almost dropped lenses a couple of times because of hurried lens changes.
Out of frustration, I bought Sigma's 28-300mm hyperzoom. I don't have to worry about lens changes anymore, and the lens is even smaller than the 100-300mm Canon lens, but the image quality I find is slightly inferior.
Try the Canon EF 75-300 f/4.0-5.6 IS USM, like Aircanon suggested. The optics should be a little better in that one.