Canon 100-300/5.6 macro...anyone?

[Wrench]

Anyone have any experience with this lense? Found it on ebay.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3864269234&fromMakeTrack=true

[Citizensmith]

There is a 100-300 f/5.6 L lens that is great, but this lens isn't it. At $150 this lens is way overpriced as its old, slow, crappy autofocus, dust sucking push-pull, and dubious quality.

For $170 you could get a brand new 75-300 USM. While not optically the greatest lens it eliminates the first 4 problems. Or spend $250 on the 100-300 f/4.5-5.6 USM which is about as good as a consumer tele-zoom gets.

[nosquare2003]

There is a 100-300 f/5.6 L lens that is great, but this lens isn't it. At $150 this lens is way overpriced as its old, slow, crappy autofocus, dust sucking push-pull, and dubious quality.


Hmmm...100-300/5.6L is also an old, slow, crappy autofocus, dust sucking push-pull lens. The quality is not up to the equivalent prime lenses...

[ron chappel]

Allmost totally agree with citizensmith .

Also,from some tentative tests i've done i think the cheap modern 75-300 zooms may well be a fair bit sharper !
Your best options are:
75-300mm (the usm versions focus a little faster) .new about us$190(?) 2nd hand $150
100-300/4.5-5.6usm . New $260,2nd hand $140
Sigma 70-300 apo macro super II. New $210, 2nd hand ..?