Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 27 Aug 2009 (Thursday) 17:16
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Is it worth it?

 
Muskydave22
Goldmember
Avatar
1,716 posts
Joined Jan 2009
Location: Menomonee Falls, WI
     
Aug 27, 2009 17:16 |  #1

I have a chance to pick up a EF 100-300 F4-5.6 for about $70 or so do you think this lens is worth it for just normal use and maybe some wildlife stuf?

dave


Facebook (external link)
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
MT ­ Stringer
Goldmember
Avatar
4,650 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2006
Location: Channelview, Tx
     
Aug 27, 2009 17:18 |  #2

I don't know. That MK II might go on strike! :-)


MaxPreps Profile (external link)

My Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
LightRules
"flat out embarrassing"
Avatar
9,909 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jun 2005
     
Aug 27, 2009 17:18 |  #3

If it's the USM version it's a deal.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DennisW1
Goldmember
Avatar
1,802 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Chicago, IL area
     
Aug 27, 2009 17:19 |  #4

Muskydave22 wrote in post #8534554 (external link)
I have a chance to pick up a EF 100-300 F4-5.6 for about $70 or so do you think this lens is worth it for just normal use and maybe some wildlife stuf?

dave


It's an older lens without IS and is relatively slow compared to the more modern offerings, but for 70 bucks it would be a great deal if its in good working condition.

examine it carefully first. some older lenses had a problem with mold forming inside them on the lens elements. a friend of mine has this exact lens that is basically unusable because of this and just isn't cost-effective to repair.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Citizensmith
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,386 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 7
Joined Dec 2004
Location: Sacramento, CA USA
     
Aug 27, 2009 17:23 |  #5

This lens came out about the same time as the craptastic 75-300s. Basically It was the improved versions of them, with the decent style USM (ring-USM for FTM, quicker and quieter) and staying decent in the 200-300 range that fails horribly for the 75s.

So yeah, for $70 (assuming it is functional and clean glass) its a great deal.


My POTN Gallery, Complete gear list,
Tradition - Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Muskydave22
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
1,716 posts
Joined Jan 2009
Location: Menomonee Falls, WI
     
Aug 27, 2009 17:28 as a reply to  @ Citizensmith's post |  #6

i have checked it out and there is no fungus and it is the usm version so you think it will be worth the money?

dave


Facebook (external link)
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gjl711
According to the lazy TF, My flatulence rates
Avatar
55,267 posts
Likes: 2301
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
     
Aug 27, 2009 17:31 |  #7

For $70, why not. I've never used that lens nor know much about it's reputation, but if it's functional and clean as you say, it's a nice way to get that 200 to 300 range you dont have covered for basically the cost of a cheap date. :)


Not sure why, but call me JJ.
I used to hate math but then I realised decimals have a point.
.
::Flickr:: (external link)
::Gear::

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Madweasel
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,223 posts
Likes: 58
Joined Jun 2006
Location: Fareham, UK
     
Aug 27, 2009 17:33 |  #8

It would be worth it if you didn't already have the 70-200/4L. I compared the two (my L and a friend's 100-300) and the L blew it away. You could crop the L at 200mm and have more detail than the 100-300 at 300mm. Contrast and sharpness of the two lenses are in different worlds. Even at that price I don't think you'd be happy with it.


Mark.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
helenachh
Member
106 posts
Joined Aug 2009
Location: Canada
     
Aug 28, 2009 10:33 |  #9

you can always give it a try. I think you won't lose much if you change your mind.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
wickerprints
"Shooting blanks"
Avatar
864 posts
Joined Jul 2009
     
Aug 28, 2009 10:38 |  #10

Personally, I'd much rather put that $70 toward the purchase of a nice EF 300/4L IS. Money is money. If you spend it on cheap stuff, all you'll ever have is cheap stuff. If you're going to spend it at all, spend it on quality.


5DmkII :: EF 24-105/4L IS :: EF 85/1.8 :: EF 70-200/2.8L IS :: EF 100/2.8L IS macro (coming soon!)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
Avatar
18,127 posts
Gallery: 45 photos
Likes: 2389
Joined Mar 2006
Location: S.F. Bay Area
     
Aug 28, 2009 10:44 |  #11

i'm not sure if it's really a deal...i think if i were you, i'd just get a 1.4TC and then have 280mm f5.6 with your 70-200mm...if you ever think you need the extra reach


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Madweasel
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,223 posts
Likes: 58
Joined Jun 2006
Location: Fareham, UK
     
Aug 28, 2009 14:56 |  #12

DreDaze wrote in post #8538520 (external link)
i'm not sure if it's really a deal...i think if i were you, i'd just get a 1.4TC and then have 280mm f5.6 with your 70-200mm...if you ever think you need the extra reach

Seconded. Here's a shot using that combination, on a 30D:

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://i72.photobucket​.com …/Scotland/IMG_6​537web.jpg (external link)

Mark.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CountryBoy
"Tired of Goldmember label"
Avatar
5,168 posts
Joined May 2006
Location: Okie
     
Aug 28, 2009 15:02 |  #13

Muskydave22 wrote in post #8534554 (external link)
I have a chance to pick up a EF 100-300 F4-5.6 for about $70 or so do you think this lens is worth it for just normal use and maybe some wildlife stuf?

dave

Yes it's a good deal if you need .


Hi

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

1,165 views & 0 likes for this thread
Is it worth it?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Kassket
1274 guests, 285 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.