canon 100-300 USM

[russell2]

After getting a 10D and a 24-85 the 100-300 was the only zoom I could afford short of the 70-200L

after reading lots of reviews I was a bit dubious about the quality I would get. Also lots of reports of the zoom not holding if you hold the lens vertically.

After taking a few pics could not be happier with the quality (within the limits of the lens) and the zoom holds fine.

Would recommend it to anyone thinking of it other than jumping up to the 70-200L expect I needed that bit of extra reach over 200

[Motorsports Photo]

I heartily recommend this lens too. Its been my primary lens for years BUT......

Canon say they will NOT repair this lens anymore because its too old! It floored me when they said that. I sent my 100-300 in with my D30 when I started getting LOTS of error messages and the aperture didnt reset after a few shots.

I bought another one on eBay, and ended up sending my lens to one of Canons reccomended repair facilities. $100 later I had a spare re-built lens.

Yes, the lens can creep but nowhere near as annoying as a push-pull.

-Pete

[Jim_T]

I've got the 100-300.. I use it on my 10D.

It does extend on it's own when held vertically... It's never been that much of a problem however.

What I don't like about it is the fact it produces a bit of purple fringing around bright points of light. I shot the same subject with my 100-300 and 100-400L.. You can see the purple fringe near the windshield wiper on the driver's side of the car on the right hand image.

Despite that, I keep it :) It's *much* lighter than the 100-400L which makes it more portable and easier to hold for long periods of time.

The 100-300 is also good in combination with the Canon 500D close-up lens. It makes a great macro setup..

http://members.shaw.ca/jamestownsend/lens-comparison.jpg

[Tom W]

Both pictures look good, but the L lens on the left seems to have taken a little bit sharper or more defined photo. Its not a huge difference, but when you look carefully, there is a definate increase in clarity with the L.

JMHO, of course.

[Jim_T]

Yes.. The gravel and the marks on the upper windshield are a touch more clear with the 100-400L.. There's a bit more overall contrast too.

But as you say.. Not a lot. There isn't a screaming difference in image quality between the 100-400L and the 100-300.

The 100-400L lens is built better, has an extra 100mm and has the nifty image stabilzation. Whether it's worth the extra $$ is a tough call. Most of my shooting is long, so in my case it was worth it.. (I've been looking at Canon 300 and 400mm primes recently)

The purple fringe is my only real beef with the 100-300. Otherwise it's great.

(Both those shots were straight unsized crops out of the full sized 3072x2048 images). The lenses were both at 300mm.