Does anyone have any experience with them. I have been reading reviews, and out of all the reviews i read. Although this is not L glass it is still rated as a very sharp lens. Also it has a Fairly fast AF because of the USM ( which I know doesnt make it a GREAT lens ) but it also has to have a faster AF then the Sigma 70-300 f/4-5.6 that i shoot now. Also it has the Rear Focus Ring which means the Objective doesnt spin like on the sigma i have now. Which is going to take some getting used to.
One review that i read was from a guy who owned the 100-300 and the 100-400 L and he wrote that although the 100-300 didnt have the Color of the 100-400. He tested them both at 300mm on a tripod ( not sure of what he actually did to test ) but he said the Sharpness of the 100-300 surpassed the 100-400.
The only reason i really want to know is because i just picked up a 100-300 off Ebay for a Decent Price ( well i think anyways ). I looked them up on B&H and a couple other sites. B&H wanted 295$ for a USA model, Ebay had 2 or 3 more for 350-400, and another site had them for over 400$.
I picked it up for 178$ shipped, Glass looked clean in the pics, and it had both caps. ( didnt ask the Age as i wasnt concerned for that price ) I believe the person selling it didnt know anything about cameras because it looked like the mostly sold electronics.
What im looking to get out of this lens is a decent all around lens. When the Rebel Xt comes back from canon im giving it to my Girlfriend to use with the Sigma 70-300 ( and i wanted to get something with USM ). I seem to be getting decent results with the Sigma, and i think i will get at least the same if not better results from the Canon glass. Im also picking up some Kenko Extesion tubes ( Set of 3 ), and im going to use them with this lens for macro work ( grant it this is only till i can afford the 100-400 EF IS ).
I miss the one I had for just walking around or shooting birds in the yard. It doesn't compare to my 70-200/2.8L but for the price and my skill level then I couldn't complain. I bought it from ebay for $160 and sold it 3 years later for $150. Only problem I had was the lens would creep when hanging down. I wrapped a rubberband around it and it stayed in place while walking. Enjoy it.
I had 1 but sold it after getting the 70-300 IS. the 100-300 was not a bad lens by any means and is light and has a great fast Ring USM AF (faster and better than the 70-300is) IQ on mine was not quite upto the 70-300 and it did lack a bit of contrast.
But I think that for the just over £100 i bought it for and just sub £100 I sold it for it made a great lens at a bargain price.
I bought one of these about 9 years ago when I was shooting with film. I've used it for a lot of things with film. Just started using it on some digital shots. I am debating getting something different - but I'm at a loss for what because there are so many choices.
Here are some shot from the sidelines at the Buffalo Bills Training Camp (Night) Handheld. I think they would have been better if 1) I used a monopod 2) upped the shutter speed on some. 3) some are not in focus.
At the prices you mentioned on ebay, those might be the 100-300/5.6L, which has a great reputation for sharpness, and goes for around $400. The 100-300, 4.5/5.6 is an altogether different lens. I've hear of a few people who had very sharp ones, but they were few and far between. The one I had was ok, stopped down to f8 fairly good. AF was great however and that in iteslf, make it much better than the Canon 75-300. I also tried the new Sigma, which I found sharper and has a macro function, but the AF was no where near as good. I sold mine to try the much higher rated 70-210 3.5/4.5, which looks very similiar, but has better optics. That, I still wish I had for a walk around tele. I now have the 70-200,2.8.IS, which is more than I want to carry around at times.
