EF 10-300 vs EF 70-300 IS

Currently in the market for a reasonably priced telephoto lens to pair with my EOS 20D. Unfortunately I can't afford an L series.

I've been using a borrowed 75-300 USM III in recent years (and had decent results from it) but need my own ASAP. I was interested in the 70-300 IS as a step up from the 75-300, but someone suggested I look at the older 100-300mm. My worry with lens, being so old, is focus speeds - I shoot airshows and motorsports...

Appreciate any feedback.

EDIT - obviously, the topic title is wrong. Appreciate if a mod could fix it for me...

yes, 70-300 IS is defintely a step up from 75-300. Better optics, and obviously IS. Also, take a look at the new ef-s 55-250 IS as a nother option. Half the price and delivers pretty much the same stuff. Also, 10-300 is hardly possible. 30x zoom?

I believe that he means 100-300.....

The 70-300 IS is a great performer - lightweight, inexpensive, and very good IS. All the tests and comparisons I've seen on line put it well ahead of the 75-300 that precedes it. I haven't heard any great reports about the 100-300. I wish I did as it does have USM focus and a respectable build quality.

I have the 70-210 version of the 100-300 usm. It has ring USM and FTM , and it's a pretty quick focusing lens for around $230 used. If this is your price range, I wouldn't hesitate to pick one up.

I have the 100-300 and use it when the 70-200 is just too heavy to carry around.

Up to 200 mm it is a good optic but it starts to soften up after this especially when reasonably wide open. It behaves much like the 75-300 but has the advantage of ring USM and a non-rotating front element which is good if you use a polarizer a lot.

I have heard the newer 70-300 IS beats both of the older optics in all respects, the only reason I think you would want a 100-300 is if the rotating element on the 70-300 is a deal breaker (when using filters etc.)

I got the 70-300mm IS. Been very pleased with the image quality. AF speed is only so-so, but I get by with my kids baseball and soccer games. If the 70-300mm IS is within reach, then the 70-200mm L F4 is probably within reach as well which is close in cost. And this is an "L" lens!

I agree that hte 70-200mm F4L is a better idea. It is $20 more on BH right now. You loose 100mm but gain faster af, a full stop in the long end, far better image quality, and L build quality.

I never liked the 100-300 when I owned it. IQ was passable when stopped down but it was never that impressive. On the other hand people rave about the 70-300IS.

The 100-300 does have the advantage of ring-USM (with FTM focus) and non rotating front element if that sways your decision any.

The 70-300mm IS is a very good lens IQ wise. It just loses a bit on build quality and USM implementation, but not a deal breaker. If you want 300mm then a 70-200mm isn't gonna do it and IQ is pretty close between the two having owned both IS and non-IS versions of the L. The 100-300mm is a budget model and when it was a more popular option a few years back the concensus was still that the Sigma 70-300mm DG APO beat it. Too weak at 300mm.

70-300 all the way. I'm starting to use mine over the 100-400. Sure I don't get the reach, or the build, but Christ, that is one under-rated lens. Excellent IQ.

Have to agree with the Aussie, I have fallen in love with my 70-300 again...the 100-400 is going.

Thanks for the feedback guys. Looks like the 70-300 IS is the one for me.

Canon Soldier wrote in post #5556587
Also, 10-300 is hardly possible. 30x zoom?

As stated in my original post, I made a typo in the title and asked for a mod to correct it...