Older L lens 100-300 F5.6

[mmartinfan]

http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/reviews/canon100300.htm


anyone use or have used this lens before???

I found one here in town for $170 bucks is it worth it?

[DocFrankenstein]

Doesn't seem that nice. :?

Photodo's rating of this lens is either 3.0 or 3.3 It's a bit too low for a SLOW L zoom like this.

In comparison, the sigma 70-200 2.8 is 3.9 All L 70-200 zooms are 4.1

75-300 is 3.1 :shock: And it has a wider range and is one stop faster at the wide end. :shock: :?

I'd stay away...

On the other hand I'd maybe get it, if it's in good condition. Just because of the metal body and really right build. But it's not gonna be sharp.

[Ballen Photo]

Doesn't seem that nice. :?

On the other hand I'd maybe get it, if it's in good condition. Just because of the metal body and really right build. But it's not gonna be sharp.

LOL! The review link posted by mmartinfan said this lens has a Plastic body with a metal mount, shoddy build for an L lens, but could hold its own in the sharpness department.

There are just TOO many contradictions here. My suggestion would be to mount the lens on your camera and take some test shots before you buy it. The price IMHO seems reasonable.
-Bruce

[mmartinfan]

if someone would let me post a pic on thier website to show everyone it could be helpful

[WestFalcon]

I have the lens and it's a steal for that price...buy it. There is nothing for that price that will outperform this lens. They usually for around $300 the last time I checked Ebay.

[DocFrankenstein]

I have the lens and it's a steal for that price...buy it. There is nothing for that price that will outperform this lens. They usually for around $300 the last time I checked Ebay.
Beleive this guy. He has it, we don't. :?

[mmartinfan]

Also I forgot to say....... This lens would be used for a lot of aviation photos. (I.E planes landing and taking off) and stuff like that I have an EF 75 to 300mm II now that does a good job but just lacks contrast. So is it fast enough with the old style motor in it?

[nosquare2003]

The price is very good. Note that there is another lens 100-300/5.6 (non L). The appearance is exactly the same but without the red ring.

[mmartinfan]

Well I got the lens.......... good overall. Here is an example. http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=361687
and also this one http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=361694

[Ballen Photo]

Well I got the lens.......... good overall. Here is an example. http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=361687
and also this one http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=361694

Well, It certainly seems to be Sharp enough. :D
I think you'll be happy with it. :wink:
-Bruce

[nosquare2003]

Glad you like it. Hope this lens on a 10D is fast enough for your plane shots.

(I've this lens for some time. Now it's my travelling lens...seems to be lighter than the new DO lens.)

[karusel]

mmartinfan: if what you posted are not 100% crops, than any judgement of sharpness cannot be accurate...

[drisley]

For $170 it's definatelty worth it.

[12345Michael54321]

The EF 100-300mm L f/5.6 is an ergonomic disaster, uses a mediocre focusing motor, has a rotating front element which makes awkward the use of certain types of filters, sports a very slow f/5.6 maximum aperture, is not particularly well suited to manual focusing, etc.

It is also the sharpest 75/100-300mm zoom Canon's ever produced. (And there have been several 75-300mm and 100-300mm lenses introduced over the years.)

I would note that its faults aren't due to any particular incompetence on Canon's part. Rather, this was one of the original Canon EF lenses, designed back when auto-focusing SLR lenses were still new and manufacturers hadn't yet learned all the tricks and techniques.

But if you're willing to overlook its faults, this dinosaur offers superb optics. Absolutely of "L" standards.

At the $300-350 good examples of this lens often cost, I'd pass. Since mint condition EF 70-200mm L f/4 lenses can typically be found for around $500 (or $550, brand new, from a reputable retailer), are fantastic optically, have excellent ergonomics, USM focusing, non-rotating front elements, and are a stop faster than the 100-300mm L. And 200mm is pretty long, given that my cameras have 1.6x "crop" factors, for the equivalent of a 320mm long end.

But for $170? I'd have purchased it in a hot NY minute, assuming it was in good shape. You were smart to buy it. Heck, even if you wind up hating the lens, you can always sell it for more than it cost you.

As an aside, serveral of Canon's older design EF lenses can be found on the used market, often in excellent condition, at extremely reasonable prices. And while they may lack USM motors or be a little on the slow side, they often offer splendid optical performance. For example, less than 36 hours ago, I had the opportunity to purchase a mint condition Canon EF 28mm f/2.8, for $105 (including shipping). I stupidly failed to buy it, but I'll tell you this much - that lens is optically superior to any of Canon's $1000 wide angle zooms at 28mm. (And Canon's best wide angle zooms are very, very good lenses of their type. It's just that virtually no wide angle zoom is going to out-perform a wide angle prime, even at many times the prime's price.)

And the classic example is probably Canon's EF 50mm f/1.8, which uses ancient focusing technology, and is made with lots of plastic. But in terms of pure optical performance, this $80 lens will blow the doors off the finest $1000+ zoom, and it's at least 1 1/3 stops faster, too.

Okay, sorry to have rambled.

[drisley]

What he said...

Btw, I almost won an ebay auction once last spring for this lens.
But, it got to over $600cdn and that just was not worth it.