Canon EF 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM

[G35Driver]

Please post some samples here of pictures taken with this lense

[aladyforty]

I dont use mine anymore, moved on to L lenses but hubby still uses it. Good results can be possible.

Here are some I took with this lens, all handheld
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/69/21...fa87cf78_o.jpg

[aladyforty]

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/88/20...3916f51d_o.jpg


http://farm1.static.flickr.com/114/2...b56fb04a_o.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/103/2...bd5bb43d_o.jpg

[aladyforty]

Originally Posted by G35Driver

Looks sharp to me, enyone have any more pics

A few more:
The lens is not that bad. You just have to use it to the best of it's ability. The problem many people have is that they expect it to be an L and it is not. My Hubby uses it nearly 100% of the time now and he is getting good shots out of it as well. I found it quite versatile as the shots below show.


I would read these reviews, its not a top of the line lens but it is pretty good for the price.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...&cat=27&page=1

[photobitz]

OK, well I take back what I said somewhat... at high f-stops it's pretty sharp. I took these during the week.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...d.php?t=348182

I still find the zoom creep incredibly annoying though.

[msowsun]

Here are some of mine shot with a Canon 10D and a 17 year old 100-300mm USM .....

100mm, f/4.5, 1/1000, ISO 400



108mm, f/7.1, 1/250, ISO 400



115mm, f/10, 1/500, ISO 400



300mm, f/9.5, 1/125 ISO 100

[photobitz]

Yeah, from previous experience I think it's worst at 300mm and unless you stop it right down it gives a very soft image. Up to 200mm seems to be fairly good at whatever aperture. Problem is, if you are buying this lens, it's probably because you want the reach to 300mm.

After using my wonderful new Sigma 100-300 f/4 for the last couple of weeks, there is definitely no comparison between these 2 lenses. Comparing the Sigma to the Canon is like comparing a razor blade to a spatula in terms of sharpness.

[George E.]

I'm really happy with my 100-300 considering the price. I sold my 70-200 f/2.8 L because I couldn't justify the difference in IQ for the price I paid for the L lens. The lens is nice and contrasty like the L lens; focus is almost as fast but it's not quite as sharp (especially at full reach). Definately not the L but really not that far off.

Shot 280mm wide open at ISO 800. There was a lot of dirt in the air as the girls were hacking for the ball.

[voxnihil]

Thought I would share some 100% crops from testing my recent ebay win. This is a cheap -I mean inexpensive- way to try a longer lens (with USM, non rotating front element, FTM etc.). I now know that 300 at f5.6 screams for IS. 200 at f4 needs IS in my caffeine addled brain and hands. Answers the question for me if IS is worth it. If this lens gets enough use...

[scottcolbath]

A recent rodeo.






S.C.

[imager993]

Considering I've dropped mine a few times, once breaking it and having to glue together a crack in the body, it still takes decent photos. The best feature is the internal focusing. I will be upgrading to the 70-200 2.8 IS in a few weeks though. A long time a waiting...

Here are a few recent shots with the 100-300. It has served me well

[Disturbed UTT]

My question is, do I keep this lens now that I have the Canon 70-200 F/4 L USM (non IS)?

[msowsun]

Canon has THREE different 100-300 lenses. This thread is supposed to be for the for the 100-300 4.6-5.6 USM only . (still available new from Canon)


100-300 5.6

100-300 5.6L

100-300 4.5-5.6 USM

[In2Photos]

The thread title has been fixed. It is now:

EF 100-300 f/4.5-5.6 USM


If you would like to post images from the L let's start another thread. If there are some shots here from the L I can move them. Just let me know.

[LiquidSword]

This thread needs more pics. Guess I'll start helping with that.