Is 100-300 better than 75-300?

[cosiecki]

I currently have the non-USM, non-IS version of the 75-300mm EF-III. I bought this before I really knew much about lenses other than focal length. It does ok on the short end, but I have a hard time getting quality images at the 300mm end. Soft and lots of CA, even when stopped down. The lens also has a definite color cast making everything warmer than my other lenses (DRebel kit lens and 50mm f1.8.) I would really like to have a quality zoom that's good at the long end and isn't a fortune. I think $500-$600 is the most I could go. I was looking at the Canon 100-300, but I don't know if it is really any better. I don't think I would go for the 70-200 f4L. I would miss the extra 100mm. Any suggestions?

Chris

[nosquare2003]

I have never used any 75-300 or 100-300 USM. But here is a review:

http://www.photo.net/photo/nature/x-300

If budget is not a problem, it'd be better to get 70-200/4L + 1.4TC.

[Icecamp]

It is a little slow and uses the old arc form focusing motor, but image quality is supposed to be very good. I see them on Ebay used from time to time. Usually they go for around 250-300 usd.

[nosquare2003]

It is a little slow and uses the old arc form focusing motor, but image quality is supposed to be very good. I see them on Ebay used from time to time. Usually they go for around 250-300 usd.

In fact, I have a 100-300/5.6L (and also a non L version to be sold) as my travelling lens. Yes, it's cheap, lightweighted while the optics is good. (Certainly it's not the league with 300mm prime.) The autofocus speed is slow, push-pull zoom, and the build is not that good. And these are the reasons why the lens is so cheap in used market.

[ron chappel]

I've owned several 75-300's.The only 100-300 i had easily beat the 75-300's at the long end.Others have said the same

Oddly,the review of Bob atkins linked above finds them very similar in image quality.I don't know what to think of that because Bob has lots of experience and does very good reviews.
Besides increased sharpness at the long end i found the 100-300 to have excellent contrast and colour-very reaslistic ,like an L lens but not as sharp.

The 70-200/4L you would love ,but as you say would you miss the lack of 300mm?
I guess only you could answer that.
One possible hint .Can you crop instead of zooming right in?How much are you enlarging the pics?

[cmM]

I have the USM 75-300 lens.... not the best quality lens, but
is this really that bad? (shot at the long end...)
http://www.cmuntean.net/images/aug21cyc12.jpg
But then again... I've never owned an equivalent L

[xuxu1]

Can´t say anything about the 100-300 cause i never had one of those. But i had a 75-300IS USM. It was a nice lens for the money. Made lots of nice shots with it. Although it´s a little slow.

Finally i decided to sell it what i did and went for the 100-400L IS USM.

Yes i know... there is a huge price difference. But just like somebody else on this forum said.... You pay for what you get.

Regards
Ed

[Jim_T]

I've got a 100-300 that I use when I don't want to lug my 100-400 around.. I also use it with a 500D close up lens installed for macros.

It is a little soft, but acceptible enough to keep. My main complaint is that the 100-300 is prone to purple fringing.. You see it where there are bright points of light..

I can't comment on the 75-300.

Here's an example.. Straight crop, no processing.. Note the purple on the boat and the touch of softness.. (The softness does respond well to sharpening)

http://www.mts.net/~jwt/fringe.jpg

[cosiecki]

Jim_T posted a great example of what I have problems with. It's not on every photo taken at the long end, but a lot of them. I may just have to save up for a long time and get the 100-400 L. *sigh

Oh, that pains of photography :)