Cheep VS L....

ok I have seen it ask but i have never seen them compared..

CanonEF75-300mmf no IS vs CanonEF100-400mm

lower one looks nicer to me. Must be the kit lens.

I vote for #2 also...SURVEY SAYS!

#2 for me as well, brighter and crisper.

The cheapo is definately a "you get what you pay for lens" but using a 100-400 L is hardly a good comparison to the zoom lens. Try a 70-200mm L at 200 Vs the cheapo at 200 and then be wowed at the difference.

Both taken at f18??

Not a very usefull comparison at all i'm sorry to say

Redo it at normal apertures -somewhere from wide open to f11 .It will be relavant to normal users then

Sorry it wasn't useful... I'll try to be better..

and the 70-200 L could you lend it to me?

umm... f18?

Please consider that on a 1.6x camera at f/18 you will get some influence from diffraction. So it will most likely not be as sharp as the same image @ f/11.

To see any kind of meaningful difference, try to use the lenses wide open (say, at f/5.6). Most lenses should give decent results by f/8, even more so by f/11.

To put it another way ... if you always have enough light to take your image @ f/11 and don't need the shallower DOF, you don't need to spend the money on the L...

BTW, I also think that the 100-400L was the second crop.

Best regards,
Andy

I was going to mention the uselessness of f/18 tests but it appears I don't need to.

hmm, i didn't notice the aperture at first and was almost going to believe that the ef 75-300mm is any good!

foolish me.

The 75-300 III USM is an exceptionally decent lens for the money. There are also some decent 3rd party options as well.

At f/5.6-f/8.0 you'd very probably get a nicer IQ with the likes of the 300 f/4 and the 100-400. The 70-200 ain't any good at 300 mm, that's obvious....you'd need to get a TC to bring DA ZOOM to that FL. However, take a look at the cost of those L lenses too.

Besides, L is for sociaLLy inept !

lensview wrote in post #2016758
The 75-300 III USM is an exceptionally decent lens for the money.

Not for my money.

I'll ignore the very last absolutely absurd part of your post.

holland_patrick,
I agree completly
I also have the 100-400L and the 75-300 and here is another comparison of both lenses mounted to a 5D and set at 300mm f/8:


100-400L @ 300mm f/8

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Click for Specs and to vote which is best to your eyes

John_B wrote in post #2017303
holland_patrick,
I agree completly
I also have the 100-400L and the 75-300 and here is another comparison of both lenses mounted to a 5D and set at 300mm f/8:

100-400L @ 300mm f/8


75-300 @ 300mm f/8


Here are 100% crops of the photos
100-400L @ 300mm f/8 100% crop


75-300 @ 300mm f/8 100% crop


Click for Specs and to vote which is best to your eyes

By golly, this is pure entertainment, thank you so much, men. Excellent photography work