dshrode wrote:
I've seen a few of these floating around... only physical (visible) difference in appearance seems to be the lack of a red ring.
My question: How big of a disparity in image quality?
fantastically huge difference in image quality!! 200-300mm the non-L is a washed out dreary hazy mess and the 100-300L has strong contrast (stronger 300mm contrast than the newer 70-300 IS non-L or anything else that isn't the 70-300 IS L or a 300mm prime although the tamron 70-300 VC is closer for contrast and perhaps sharper and has much faster AF and VC and 70-99m and faster apertures at the lower end)
it has the same noisy, crazy slow AF of the non-L though, it used to be called the Meat Grinder
skibum5 wrote:
200-300mm the non-L is a washed out dreary hazy mess
Rubbish. The shot 'Malaysia, 2002' on my flickr page is taken handheld in fading light with a 75-300mm @ 300 f5.6 (scanned negative, small jpeg - original in another country). The lenses aren't stunning but used well they are a 'decent' budget choice. I have an 8x10 print back 'home' and it looks great. Now you aren't going to get crystal clear water droplet hummingbird shots but you can still create compelling images with these lenses.
I had both the 100-300L and the Tamron VC, both were outstanding. Slight edge to the L but the excellent Tamron has VC which is invaluable as you head towards 300. Now coming back to Canon after a fling with NEX, and will probably look for a Tamron 70-300 real soon on the B&S board. I know it will hold up to my new 6D very well.
Great image quality overall. 300 end better when stopped down to f/8, but creamy bokeh at 5.6. There's nothing lighter this long with contrast and clarity of an "L". Much better than the non-L version and even bests the newer 100-300 USM version. I still have a copy, but don't use it much since getting the EF 70-300 IS L. But it's a great hiking lens for landscape and slow-moving objects in good light.
Feb 21, 2013 at 08:22 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
I bought the 70-300L IS two months ago. And have been using it nearly every day since then. I needed a 300 zoom that was small/short for travelling. It's a very good lens with good IQ. In IQ and everything else is more like the different 70-200 lenses than the other 70-300 lenses. It's a huge step up from the other 70-300 lenses
+1 on the 70-300 L. I think I have tried every lens in the range over the past six years and now satisfied that I have at last found the ultimate travel lens in that range. When I got the 70-300L I did a five-way test against it with the 100-300L, 70-200 f/4 IS L, the EF-S 55-250 and the Contax 35-70 Vario-Sonnar. The 70-300L at 70 even bested the outstanding Contax zoom at 70mm. The 100-300L place third overall. The 70-200 f/4 IS L has been sold. If the 100-300L had had IS, I wouldn't have tried so many lenses in the range. It's that good.
I had the 100-300 non L (USM) and the image quality stopped down was pretty decent and it focused fast. It worked great at airshows and even for butterflies with a 500D close up lens on it. It was limited wide open though, so I sold it and bought a 100-400L.
No experience with the 100-300L but I've read the focusing was slow, another poster seems to confirm that.
shutterbug guy wrote:
I had the 100-300 non L (USM) and the image quality stopped down was pretty decent and it focused fast. It worked great at airshows and even for butterflies with a 500D close up lens on it. It was limited wide open though, so I sold it and bought a 100-400L.
No experience with the 100-300L but I've read the focusing was slow, another poster seems to confirm that.
Roger
The 100-300 L has a totally different motor. If you noticed someone in the beginning of this thread referred to the nick name meat grinder.
The older motors are louder and slower than the USM.
