Which EF telephoto lens

[MarkT8]

I am looking at buying a standard cheapish Canon telephoto zoom lens, circa 70 to 300mm. I noticed that Canon make the following zooms: 75 - 300mm, 90 - 300mm and 100 - 300mm.
My criteria is that the lens must be a USM. I am not interested in IS or L.

Can anyone tell me what the difference is between these 3 lenses and which one is best for a 300D.

Thank you.

MarkT8

[FlyingPete]

From those three I have found the 100-300 to be the fastest and best built, the other two, esspecially the 90-300 seem quite budget. Can't speak too much for optical quality though.

[colblaha]

i was in the same boat as you, but i was looking at the 100-300 and sigma 70-300apo.
The trend seems to be that the 100-300 is a little better than the 75-300 optically up to ~200mm, but i just ended up buying a used 100-300 tuesday.
some people like the IS on the 75-300, but others don't think it's worth having on a lens with somewhat lackluster performance.
I don't know much about the 90-300. There's a ton of stuff out there already if you do a search here for the 100-300,75-300 or sigma 70-300.

[FlyingPete]

i was in the same boat as you, but i was looking at the 100-300 and sigma 70-300apo.
The trend seems to be that the 100-300 is a little better than the 75-300 optically up to ~200mm, but i just ended up buying a used 100-300 tuesday.
some people like the IS on the 75-300, but others don't think it's worth having on a lens with somewhat lackluster performance.
I don't know much about the 90-300. There's a ton of stuff out there already if you do a search here for the 100-300,75-300 or sigma 70-300.

I have the 75-300IS and it is a slow lens (when compared with others I have). I often toss up the option of replacing it with the 100-300, at the loss of IS. Unfortunalty the IS works quite well, not sure what to have more fast focus speed of IS?

For now I am sitting tight until I can afford a 100-400L :D

[ssim]

I have the 75-300IS and it is a slow lens (when compared with others I have). I often toss up the option of replacing it with the 100-300, at the loss of IS. Unfortunalty the IS works quite well, not sure what to have more fast focus speed of IS?

For now I am sitting tight until I can afford a 100-400L :D
I have the 100-300 which has now migrated to my son. It provided reasonable quality but not anything like the L series would give you. I can post a couple of examples if you want.

[Penguin_101_1]

I have the 75-300 USM on order right now. ETA is Monday :)

[ron chappel]

The 75-300 are cheap lenses but do ok.These pics were taken with one.
http://members.dodo.net.au/~l8r_ron/
Note that all of the 75-300's have the same optics,even the expensive image stabilizer model.
Other facts:
They are kind of cheaply built,focus slowly (even the so-called USM versions!) and have very strong out-of-focus blur (not ness a bad thing-i kinda like it).Colour and contrast is low (i.e realistic)
There is alot of talk on the net about the 75-300 and 100-300 being near identical optically but,having used five 75-300's and two 100-300's, i have found the 100-300 to be definitely better.Here is a comparison showing full frame examples and 100% crops
http://members.dodo.net.au/~l8r_ron/index_2.html (+ next page)
Other stuff:
The 100-300 is nicely built,has a genuine fast focussing ring USM motor and has good colour and contrast.If you need fast focus in a consumer telezoom then this is your only choice

The 90-300 is another cheap lens but it's characteristics are quite different to the 75-300.It's cheaply built and focus is slow'ish (i haven't tried the usm version but it's not proper usm)
The main optical difference is that this one has stronger colour and contrast compared to the 75-300 plus the background blur is softer.I had one for a little while but it drove me nuts trying to get sharp pics!I didn't like it at all

[mdr]

Sold my 100-300mm USM and bought a 75-300mm IS. Boy do I regret this :cry:. Optically, the 100-300mm is much better throughout the full range and it beats the 75-300mm IS hands down on AF speed with its superior ring USM.

I would sell my 75-300mm IS and buy a second hand 100-300mm USM if I hadn't got the L fever since I bought the 17-40mm L. I'm now saving up for the 100-400mm L IS and hope that Canon announces an improved replacement next month as rumours suggest.

A mint second hand 100-300mm USM is the best you can buy in this range if you can't afford L.

[MarkT8]

Thanks for your replies.

Looks like the 90-300mm lens is off my list. The 100-300mm USM is currently top of the list with the 75-300mm USM close behind it.

MarkT8

[Tom W]

There is alot of talk on the net about the 75-300 and 100-300 being near identical optically but,having used five 75-300's and two 100-300's, i have found the 100-300 to be definitely better.Here is a comparison showing full frame examples and 100% crops
http://members.dodo.net.au/~l8r_ron/index_2.html (+ next page)


Interesting link there. Indeed, I've heard a lot of talk saying that the 100-300 wasn't a very good lens, and that the 75-300 was better. This link shows otherwise. And, I do like the 100-300's features like USM and such. Now, if they could add IS to this lens, it would be a great mid-range tele zoom.