100-300 f/5.6 non-L

[R Schade]

I recently puchased and really started to use the 100-300mm f/5.6 lens non-L.

:) This is an awsome lens. It's big, heavy and it's strange. Strange to use a push pull zoom lens. Although it's not a fast lens, It does do a pretty good job . Esspecially at higher ISOs and keeping the arpeture open. I took some long shots with this lens at 300mm, ISO 400 and again at f/5.6 and was pleasantly surprised. I would like to know if any of the rest of you have used this lens pro-cons.

I have taken some lanscape pictures and included them here.



The first Picture is at 300mm and the second at 200mm
Same Picture Latrobe Country Club as seen from the High School , thats approximately 700 yards ther and about. The light is waning late afternoon 5:15pm and its clowdy, weve just had a little snow.

[R Schade]

Gee I think I did something wrong. The size didn't follow

[FRiver]

I agreed. The old 100-300mm f5.6 (non-L) is a decent lens - slightly warm, good contrast and fairly sharp (100 to about 270mm), even at wide aperature. Image-wise, very close to its "L" twin, which I also own.
I used this lens when the outside lighting is good.

My only two complaints - it pulls in dust and the AF is slow.

[R Schade]

:o Yeh Ive been told that, sort of like when you push and pull it will pull in dust. Anyway I think I know what went south when I posted these images, so Ill Try it again

[R Schade]

:D I was more impressed when I enlarged the 300mm post in PS that I could actually see in the first window first floor the ceiling lights which were there. As I said that was impressive, at least to me.

[nosquare2003]

I agreed. The old 100-300mm f5.6 (non-L) is a decent lens - slightly warm, good contrast and fairly sharp (100 to about 270mm), even at wide aperature. Image-wise, very close to its "L" twin, which I also own.
I used this lens when the outside lighting is good.

My only two complaints - it pulls in dust and the AF is slow.

I also own the L and non L version and I absolutely agree with you.