Difference between 100-300 USM and 90-300 USM zooms

[kevin_c]

Hi All

Sorry if this has been answered elsewhere - did a quick search and no real answer to my question.

Apart from '10' :) ) what is the main difference(s) between the 100-300 USM and the 90-300 USM zooms. it seems a bit strange to have two lenses so close in range and price being sold at the same time - Is one an old model?

I think the 100-300 will match (in looks anyway) my 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 II USM.

Because of the slightly higher price of the 100-300 I assume it may be a better lens?

(Pleeeeeeease don't start trying to convince me to buy a nice piece of 'L' glass - I can't afford it :D )

Thanks for any replies.

[raylks]

And there is an old L lens, EF100-300mm L too. I would love to see if one can contribute a comparison between the three lens.

[Tom W]

According to Canon's Lensworks III book, the 90-300 USM is a front-extension focus lens with micro USM rather than ring-type USM, built somewhat like the 75-300 USM. It is not available in the US, but is in Europe.

The 100-300 is a rear-focus, full-time manual, ring-type USM lens with a focus scale. the front element does not rotate when the lens is focused.

Also, it appears that the 90-300 has a plastic mount while the 100-300 incorporates a metal mount. This could be a problem if you change lenses very, very frequently. Most of us don't.

[kevin_c]

Thanks for that Tom, I find the 'full time manual focus' really useful (saves having to flick the switch :) )

I think I will go for the 100-300 mainly because of this. I read a review of it in a magazine and it got quite a good rating for such a low(ish) price piece of glass.

[ron chappel]

I've used both and can heartilly recommend the 100-300 usm over the 90-300.
The 100-300 is about the best consumer telezoom available with good build,very fast focus and and is quite sharp at the long end.

The 90-300 has some good points (good colour,contrast and silky out of focus effects) but drops the ball completely with lack of sharpness at the long end.Even at the short end sharpness is lacking.Focus is slowish (all versions) and it really feels like plastic.
I got a couple of good shots with the 90-300 but they were entirely due to good subject (nothing to do with the lens) or good contrast (contrast makes up a little for lack of sharpness in some circumstances)

[mdr]

The 100-300mm beats the 90-300mm, 75-300mm USM and 75-300mm IS hands down. You won't get any better unless you invest in L glass.

I cannot see any reason why one would buy the 90-300mm usm if it costs the same.

[kevin_c]

Thanks to all for the advice etc. I went out yesterday and bought the 100-300 and so far I am very happy with the results. I will try and get out this weekend and use it properly, rather than taking lots of close-up pictures of the cats and back garden :D .