 |
|
|
Nikon EF
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 19, 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 126
|
|
Review Date: Oct 15, 2011
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $150.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast AF, good IQ, inexpensive, great value
|
|
Cons:
|
IQ isn't that great at 300mm
|
|
|
This is an excellent lens for a bargain price. The AF is fast, the IQ is good, and it's not expensive. Sure, the AF isn't as fast as my 70-200 f4L, but honestly, it's pretty close. It has ring USM with FTM (full time manual) focusing - a feature usually not found in lenses of this price range. Sweet! The 100-300 USM has great build quality. The focusing ring is nice. The zoom ring is a bit on the loose side, but it's okay. The IQ isn't that great at 300mm, but that's to be expected of any lens in this price range.
Canon lists the 100-300 USM on their EF lens page, but I can't find it new anywhere. Used copies are generally easy to find. You can expect to pay $150-200 for a good used copy. It's a bargain. For about the same price as a 75-300, you can get a 100-300 USM. The 75-300 AF is SLOW. The 100-300 USM AF is FAST. The 75-300 doesn't have ring USM or FTM - the 100-300 does.
I think the focus is off a bit on my copy. This is the second one I've had; the first one was fine. I'll have to send this one in to Canon.
Just make sure you get the USM version - Canon makes a non-USM version, which is old and cheap and not worth it IMHO. They also make an L version, which can be found for around $300. It's discontinued and somewhat hard to find a copy. And the 100-300 L doesn't have USM.
This is a GREAT sports lens for people who don't have the budget for a 70-200. I think it should be recommended more often to people starting out who want a budget telephoto lens - this lens is up near the L-series lenses.
|
|
 Oct 15, 2011
|
|
Leftimage
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 22, 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 5
|
|
Review Date: Nov 22, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
IQ from 100-250mm, build quality, ultrasonic motor, price, full-time manual focus works effectively, size.
|
|
Cons:
|
IQ at 300mm, zoom ring, lack of IS/aperture limit use.
|
|
Bought this lens (gently)used from a gentleman on craigslist. Information on this lens is relatively limited online, so my expectations were somewhat uninformed. Essentially, I was hoping I'd be getting a better-built, silent-focusing, FTM version of the new 55-250mm. I had been looking hard for alternatives to Canon's newer zooms, having been bitterly disappointed by the 18-55 IS's performance on my T2I (especially regarding IQ).
I was about to pull the trigger on the 70-300is until I ran into this baby on CL. Did a quick check up and went for it.
______________________
Impressions:
- build: Wow, a ''throwback'' build that can be described as a less modern version of the 70-300is standard: mostly metal, will survive fumbles and tumbles just fine (classic ''mid-range''). More than pleased with this aspect.
-functionality: AF if decent light works very well, quite fast, in complete silence. Very little creeping with good precision. FTM as advertised, works perfectly even if I don't know the age of this one. Zoom ring sucks; maybe just my copy, but i'm better off turning camera and holding ring to change length.
-IQ:. Very, very impressive sharpness and color rendering. NOT what you'd expect in entry-level telezoom today, but rather what you'd expect from mid-range with a 600$ tag on it. And bokeh quality was a pleasant surprise, lens very useful for portraits.
___________________
Conclusions:I've since tried it side-by-side with a 55-250m and a 70-300m and their owners; we all agreed the 100-300m was much closer to the 70- than to the 50- in every respect, and agreed the main diff with the 70- was the more limited range, weaker IQ at 300 and lack of IS.
What I like most about this lens is that it's limitations are stated in the lens' title, like most of Canon's mid-ranges. In this case it means forget about hand-held in less-than-ideal light. In good light? great results, period. (the 55-250m IS overstates it's capabilities, which are better represented by it's price imho)
If you're shopping for a telezoom in the 100-300$ range, buy this lens, period. If you're looking closely at the 70-200m f4 and 70-300m IS, and your main concern is budgetary, then you take a look at this one before deciding.
__________________________
Modern supersensors like Canon's latest, and the use of RAW will result in terrific images. Take a look at a few shots I took with this lens and a T2I (Keeping in mind they're in reduced-quality JPEG format, and they're all HAND-HELD!)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/leftimage/5185822395/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/leftimage/5182733059/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/leftimage/5182729233/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/leftimage/5172904376/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/leftimage/5164867079/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/leftimage/5164867533/
Finally, If you really want to be shocked, look how it compares to the 70-300 on the digital-picture blog's iso chart:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=288&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=358&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=0
___________________________
Hooray for this lens!
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2010
|
|
Annapurna
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 29, 2004
Location: Denmark
Posts: 90
|
|
Review Date: May 12, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sometimes very sharp
|
|
Cons:
|
Sometimes not so sharp.
|
|
|
This lens still surprises me. Sometimes it is very sharp, but sometimes I am not satisfied with the images it produces.
Good for trekking, when weight is an issue. But remember fast shutterspeed, tripod or enough light.
|
|
|
May 12, 2010
|
|
isaacw
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 3, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 310
|
|
Review Date: Mar 13, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $160.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
-FAST autofocus
-Compact design
-Good for the money
|
|
Cons:
|
-Not as solid feeling as a L lens (but it's not one, so there!)
|
|
Bought this as my first telephoto from a friend who upgraded to the 70-200mm f4L world. This lens has served me well for 4 years, and has been a GREAT motorsports lens. The fast AF is really nice when panning and tracking race cars and motorcycles. This is probably the best bang for the buck. I myself just upgraded to a 70-200mm f4L non-IS, but it took a while to convince myself. Here is my parting shot taken with my 100-300mm:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/isaac_eos/2699472817/
|
|
|
Mar 13, 2009
|
|
stevej2001
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 12, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 45
|
|
Review Date: Dec 4, 2008
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 3
|
|
Pros:
|
Inexpensive
|
|
Cons:
|
Soft, especially at the long end.
|
|
|
I bought this lens about 1990 for my Eos 650. It was ok given that I had very limited skills.
When I bought the original Digital Rebel (300D) I figured I could use this lens-- boy was I disappointed. The image quality was dismal.
So I bought an 70-200L4. What an eyeopener. Of course the L lens is much more expensive, but the difference between the two was incredible.
I will say the lens is pretty robust-- much better constructed than newer canon inexpensive lenses.
I still have mine-- I tried selling it but the bids were less than the cost of shipping.
|
|
|
Dec 4, 2008
|
|
chuborama
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 18, 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 73
|
|
Review Date: Jun 18, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Lightweight, metal mount, Ring USM, full time manual
|
|
Cons:
|
zoom creep, soft when pushed to its limits (but that's why they're called limits...)
|
|
|
I was looking for a cheap, sturdy telephoto zoom to complement the 70-200 f2.8 I plan on getting this summer. I wanted something that I wouldn't mind throwing in the bag and maybe getting a little dinged or dented - field work, packing light on a hike, causal sporting events.
This lens didn't disappoint, especially at the price I got it for. I
I bought this lens used, in Japan, for JPY 9,000, or at the current exchange rate, $US83. There was no hood, box, or manual included.
I don't use hood anyways, nor read the manuals, and the box would just collect dust...so I got this at one hell of a price!
It's easy to use, and zooms very easily (too easily! It creeps alot when pointed down). What sold me though was the rear-focusing Ring USM - I'm into sports photography, particularly ultimate frisbee. I had tried the more expensive 70-300 IS but was disappointed with the AF speed, and found that more than being a little soft on the long end, many of my pictures were actually out of focus! (The lens couldn't keep up with the subjects, so I'd get nice clear backgrounds and out of focus subjects) While this lens gets soft at 300mm, you'd have to be peeping to not be pleased with the quality you get from 8x12 or A4 size prints. And AF is blazing fast - Canon's famous AF does not disappoint in the least.
For less than US$90, I got a lens I won't be afraid to take with me to messier, dirtier sporting events, with great color and bokeh and more importantly awesome AF. If you can get this at a good price, you won't regret it.
|
|
|
Jun 18, 2008
|
|
James Roberts
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 25, 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 15
|
|
Review Date: Mar 13, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Great Value for Money if you can't quite afford 100-400, quiet AF,
|
|
Cons:
|
Tiny MF ring, Can be slow AF in dark conditions, gets very soft after f10
|
|
|
This lens has been a great companion for me during one season of motorsport photography, it has managed to get me through damp races even though it is not weather sealed and it's a trustworthy lens. Although it can accumlate dust very easily in the inner elements most of the images produced are at a high quality and is perfect for a rookie starting out at sports photography. It comes with a decent lens hood and helps to reduce some of glare caused in the bright light, it would of been a much better lens if they could of fitted IS onto it like the 75-300mm but it's a lightweight telephoto lens that is a great point about it. But after upgrading now to a 70-200mm L f2.8, the quality difference is by far noticable but is still capable of producing great images in the right hands. The tiny focus ring is a bit of a pain being behind the zoom push n pull system and would of worked better with it at the front. Good Lens, not to be missed.
|
|
|
Mar 13, 2008
|
|
dellis
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 11, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Apr 12, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $190.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Quick and Quiet AF. Pretty sharp pictures when stopped down one f-stop. Great price
|
|
Cons:
|
Needs a lot of light, zoom will extend by itself when angled down, I don't take any important shots past ~150mm...it loses quality quickly after that.
|
|
|
This is a good lens for the money. It's probably unusual, however, I use this lens quite often for portraits. It's a little long for a portrait lens on a 1.6 crop, but I like the bokeh. As others have said, if you can't afford a L, get this lens. It's definitely a step up from the 75-300. Buy this lens instead.
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2007
|
|
emandavi
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 15, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 1014
|
|
Review Date: Apr 1, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $120.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
light. Inexpensive. Beautiful images once you've learned to use it.
|
|
Cons:
|
You can't overide AF, without switching to manual focus on the camera.
|
|
Because I've had this lens since 2003, and used it as my all-around lens, most of the best images I've ever created came from this lens. I think those who give it a bad review just haven't learned to work with the lens before giving up on it. As with ANY lens, you need to know its strong points, and its limitations (and all lenses have a strong point, and a limitation), and if you work within them, you will have awesome images.
see some of the recent images taken here:
http://www.efelarca.smugmug.com/gallery/2574601#P-1-15
If you don't have a zoom in this range, or if you can't afford the Canon 70-200 2.8 L IS, then you'll want this.
|
|
|
Apr 1, 2007
|
|
aladyforty
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 3, 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 2027
|
|
Review Date: Nov 11, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
lightweight reasonably sharp
|
|
Cons:
|
zoom creep
|
|
I have used this lens for many forms of photography and have no problems with it. Images a fairly sharp and Ive won quite a few competitions with photos I used this lens to take them with. Im often asked what lens Im using so I guess it can be compared to better lenses in the right conditions. Mine was secondhand off of Ebay and I think I got a good copy somehow.
here are a few quick snapshots with Ive taken with it, very little PP work apart from crops
http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v176/aladyforty/
|
|
|
Nov 11, 2006
|
|
shutterbug guy
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 18, 2005
Location: Thailand
Posts: 525
|
|
Review Date: Oct 17, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $279.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast focusing and sharp when stopped down to F8. Very handy lens and great value for the money.
|
|
Cons:
|
Slow aperture and no IS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 17, 2006
|
|
Ross T.
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 14, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 191
|
|
Review Date: Oct 15, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Small...Lightweight...sharp...very fast autofocus!
|
|
Cons:
|
It's f/5.6...no IS.
|
|
|
It's a Great little lens for the money...Small...Lightweight...Sharp...Great Zoom Range. I use to be the LasVegas, Nevada Zoo photographer & had to shoot through alot of chain link fences...this was the lens I used much of the time. Would put this lens right up against the fence & shoot. Worked perfectly because the front element doesn't rotate during focusing.
This Lens is not the sharpest lens in the Canon line-up, but this is Still a Great little Lens...For a Great Price... Takes Excellent Pictures!!
|
|
|
Oct 15, 2006
|
|
irabkin
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 10, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 4
|
|
Review Date: Sep 1, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $175.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Excellent lens for the money, relatively sharp, non-rotating front element, USM, Buttery smooth bokeh.
|
|
Cons:
|
Slow lens, non IS
|
|
|
If your wallet can't handle an L telephoto, this is definately the way to go. As long as you're outdoors, this lens is plenty fast, although forget about using it indoors. If you're on a budget, and want to take stellar shots of people, birds, animals, etc... (Especially if you use a crop body, as I do), this lens is perfect.
|
|
|
Sep 1, 2006
|
|
shybull
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 18, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 13
|
|
Review Date: May 16, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Hard to beat for the money. Very fast focusing and realitivley sharp
|
|
Cons:
|
No negatives I can think of
|
|
|
I too bought this lens back around 1990 when I bought my EOS 10S. I used it while the kids grew up and my son played ball. I have been very satisfied all those years. When I bought my DRebel I wasn't sure what to expect with it and I didn't use it at all. But we went to Disney Animal Kingdom recently and I rediscovered this lens. Very sharp and fast. I was thinking of replacing it with the 70-200 F4L but no need to spend the money.
|
|
|
May 16, 2006
|
|
hewcanon
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 26, 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: May 6, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Decent build, fast and accurate AF, natural colours and contrast
|
|
Cons:
|
f5.6 @ 300mm
|
|
|
Good value for money .. Decent build, fast and accurate AF, natural colours and contrast, definitely better than the 75-300mm III USM lens in about everything
The quality of build and shots are identical to the 28-105mm f3.5-4.5 USM II, except for the higher f-stops. This makes it a superb lens in good weather and sunny days .. otherwise you would need to set a higher ISO to avoid the camera-shake .. and even on a tripod with a low ISO in dull weather the pictures are not superb .. This lens needs a lot of light to function, although I have to say that the fast acuurate focusing was not affected by grey dull weather, unlike it's cheaper siblings that tended to hunt a lot.
The USM FT-AF is another plus.
Please do not try to compare results to an f2.8 IS L-lens or to the 50mm f1.8 prime as you will be disappointed. The results are however very good under the ideal circumstances .. and I also produced some very sharp indoors pictures with a flash on a 20D.
|
|
|
May 6, 2006
|
|
rosscova
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 25, 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 433
|
|
Review Date: Feb 18, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp for it's price. Light weight. Cheap.
|
|
Cons:
|
Zoom creep. Slow.
|
|
|
I bought this lens about 6 months ago because it was the best quality telephoto zoom i could afford, and i would do the same again if i was back in that position. The optics are as good as can be expected for the price, and FAR better than the canon 80-200mm which i have used before.
Unfortunately, most of my shots are taken with the aperture at f8 or wider, which makes the image a bit soft. If using with ISO 100, the aperture basically needs to be left wide open to get any reasonable shutter speeds, and this gives pretty average results, especially at 300mm.
I do find though, that using the shallow DOF that 300mm and greater than f8 gives to remove foreground and background distractions (like cages and people) is great, especially in zoos, where my lens does a lot of it's work.
All in all, i would recommend this lens to anyone who can't afford L, and isn't prepared to go prime. I am confident that anyone in that situation will be as happy as a pig in the proverbial with their purchase. Personally i plan to upgrade to the 200 f2.8L prime, with a 1.4x TC for versatility as soon as i get the cash, simply because it will be tougher, faster, and a hell of a lot sharper. But it was the 100-300mm that has built my love for long lenses, and i think it can do the same for you!
I also recommend the lens hood, as i found lens flare a bit of a problem until i fitted one to mine.
|
|
|
Feb 18, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
34
|
192093
|
Oct 15, 2011
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
85% of reviewers
|
$207.89
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
7.83
|
8.83
|
7.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
