75-300 v 90-300 v 100-300

[Fishbox]

Hi All

I have just purchased the 300D Enthusiast Kit :D I would like to get a 300mm zoom lens as i mostly shoot wildlife. living in Australia most of our wildlife is on the small side, so it's not always possible to get close enough with the 55-200mm kit lens.

My budget is limited to the following lenses:

1) EF 75-300mm 4.5-5.6 III USM
2) EF 90-300mm 4-5.6 USM
3) EF 100-300mm 4.5-5.6 USM

I am trying to determine which of these lenses is of the better quality. I would perfer to stick with Canon lenses, but am open to suggestions.

Any feedback appriciated

Cheers Brad

[Paul_O]

Brad,
I've got the 75-300 IS, optically similar to the 75-300 III USM. It works pretty well up to about 200mm then gets fairly soft all the way to 300mm. From what I've read (no experience though) the 100-300mm is optically the best of the 3 but the price reflects that too. I went for my model because of the IS which I find to work well.

Hopefully this will be of some help but I'm sure others will reply with their experiences.

Paul

[cmM]

I own the 75-300 (non IS) and I think it's a great lens for the price (and pretty light). MY copy seems quite sharp throughout the entire range, even wide open... but it seems to be only my copy :?

[montyl]

Shortly after buying my D60 and the 28-135 IS lens, I saw this one and am I ever sorry I did. Everytime I went to use it I would get the Err 99. When is would work, it was slow to focus, and clunky. Maybe I got a bad one I don't know, but I don't recommend it to anyone.

[RichardtheSane]

I have a 100-300 kicking about somewhere. I remember it being really good (better than a 75-300 IS of a freinds) but havn't used it for a while

[Jon]

My 75-300 IS works fine on my D60, and on the 20D. I think it's a different design than the non-IS 75-300, as Canon's specs show it having a different number of elements and groups. I suppose it's possible they added a group that shifts the image without otherwise altering the optical process, but that sounds a little bizarre.

[Bodog]

Fishbox, my only experience is with the 100-300 USM. I am happy with the lens. I would say the quality is better than you would expect for the price. Stopped down the images are as good as any, short of an "L". Focus is quick and precise. The size is only a little larger than my 28-105. The reviews I've read seem to place it above the 75-300 series in quality. Paired with the 28-105 or the 28-135, you won't miss the lower 30mm.

[DionM]

I chose the 100-300 when faced with the same choice.

Feels better built and better AF than the 75-300 (as its a proper USM). Image quality is supposed to be better too.

[ron chappel]

This is abit of a pet subject for me as i'm allways wanting to try cheap telezooms looking for the bargain amoung them :)
I've had quite abit of experience with the lenses you mention

The 90-300 i simply can't recommend at all :shock: .It does sometimes (very rarely) get quite good shots but d*mn it takes alot of crap ones! :evil: :evil:
One of these days i might try another one to see if i missed anything the first time round but i have strong doubts

The 75-300 is an interesting lens.It's a very cheap lens with odd image characteristics but it strangely does 'good enough' in most areas to get reasonably consistant good shots.Yes you'll still have many throwaway pics but mostly due to lowish shutter speeds more than anything else.

The characteristics of this lens are kind of interesting so i'll list them:

Focus speed-very slow.Even the 'usm' version is slow.NOT recommended for sports :shock:
Build-very cheap (same as the 90-300)
Sharpness-not as sharp as the 100-300 but actually looks quite good in many pics.Closely related is the background blur-this lens has VERY strong background blur which really looks good quite often
other points-contrast(ok),soft at the long end as mentioned by others,actually a genuine 300mm at the long end (!) ,that's very rare in cheap zooms,has strong purple fringing but it basically isn't an issue

The 100-300
This is a NICE lens.It has all the characteristics of a pro zoom but built slightly cheaper.
Sharpness is better than the 75-300 (*BUT* this doesn't allways show up in prints-depends on alot of factors) .
Overal consistancy is better with more keeper shots.(Page me and i'll email you some example tests i did last night-incl 100% crops...100-300 v 75-300)
Build is very good,focus is excellent and has manual overide,contrast is very good,background blur is very smooth (*completely* different to the 75-300!)

While some are having good results with tamron/sigma lenses,my limited experience has been disasterous
I haven't used one but FWIW, the sigma 70-300 Apo macro super II has a good reputation

[ron chappel]

This is abit of a pet subject for me as i'm allways wanting to try cheap telezooms looking for the bargain amoung them :)
I've had quite abit of experience with the lenses you mention

The 90-300 i simply can't recommend at all :shock: .It does sometimes (very rarely) get quite good shots but d*mn it takes alot of crap ones! :evil: :evil:
One of these days i might try another one to see if i missed anything the first time round but i have strong doubts

The 75-300 is an interesting lens.It's a very cheap lens with odd image characteristics but it strangely does 'good enough' in most areas to get reasonably consistant good shots.Yes you'll still have many throwaway pics but mostly due to lowish shutter speeds more than anything else.

The characteristics of this lens are kind of interesting so i'll list them:

Focus speed-very slow.Even the 'usm' version is slow.NOT recommended for sports :shock:
Build-very cheap (same as the 90-300)
Sharpness-not as sharp as the 100-300 but actually looks quite good in many pics.Closely related is the background blur-this lens has VERY strong background blur which really looks good quite often
other points-contrast(ok),soft at the long end as mentioned by others,actually a genuine 300mm at the long end (!) ,that's very rare in cheap zooms,has strong purple fringing but it basically isn't an issue

Here are some good sports shots from this lens-the shorter focal length examples are slightly better than average but the 300mm shot show the lens as abit worse than it really is

http://members.dodo.net.au/~l8r_ron/


The 100-300
This is a NICE lens.It has all the characteristics of a pro zoom but built slightly cheaper.
Sharpness is better than the 75-300 (*BUT* this doesn't allways show up in prints-depends on alot of factors) .
Overal consistancy is better with more keeper shots.(Page me and i'll email you some example tests i did last night-incl 100% crops...100-300 v 75-300)
Build is very good,focus is excellent and has manual overide,contrast is very good,background blur is very smooth (*completely* different to the 75-300!)


By the way-if you need to buy secondhand the 100-300 is quite a safe buy.There is very little that can go wrong with it.
I've had some sample variation and faults with the 75-300 though.


While some are having good results with tamron/sigma lenses,my limited experience has been disasterous

I haven't used the sigma 70-300 Apo macro super II but FWIW it has a good reputation

[Fishbox]

Thanks to everyone who took the time to reply to my post.

Your feedback comfirmed my thinking, that the 100-300 is the better lens ( hence the slightly more expensive price tag ). I did own one about 11 years ago & can't remember having any problems with the lens. Not sure if the specs are the same with todays model, although still the same name, (no II or III USM name).

Now the only thing to do is to shop around the net and compare prices.

Thanks again all. :D :D :D

Brad

[J___]

Hi All

I have just purchased the 300D Enthusiast Kit :D I would like to get a 300mm zoom lens as i mostly shoot wildlife. living in Australia most of our wildlife is on the small side, so it's not always possible to get close enough with the 55-200mm kit lens.

My budget is limited to the following lenses:

1) EF 75-300mm 4.5-5.6 III USM
2) EF 90-300mm 4-5.6 USM
3) EF 100-300mm 4.5-5.6 USM

I am trying to determine which of these lenses is of the better quality. I would perfer to stick with Canon lenses, but am open to suggestions.

Any feedback appriciated

Cheers Brad

in australia the kit lens is 55-200mm ??!! wow. i guess they have more dangerous wilf life there that so they give u a standard lens that'll bring u far away =)

[ron chappel]

:lol:
The 55-200 is *a* kit lens,not THE kit lens