Reading mode: Light Dark

100-300 USM or L

Go to last post
M

Matt Lewis

Well-known member
Messages
122
Reaction score
0
Location
Auburn Hills, MI, US
I have reviewed the other forum notes on these two lens' and would like to know if anyone can update on the USM vs. L? I have been checking prices and it seems the USM is down to $350-400, close to 'used' L's. I currently have a 28-105 USM (love it) but would like to get more reach. As an amatuer photographer, I don't want to waste money, I know the L is an older lens, so do I compromise technology and quality for price or is this not really an issue? Thanks for your comments.

Matt
 
If I were in your shoes I'd go for the 70-200F4 L lens and a 1.4xII teleconverter. The ouput of that combo is SURE to be superior to that standard line 100-300 Canon lens. And to boot you will have an example of just how sharp a Canon lens can be!
Matt Lewis said:
I have reviewed the other forum notes on these two lens' and would
like to know if anyone can update on the USM vs. L? I have been
checking prices and it seems the USM is down to $350-400, close to
'used' L's. I currently have a 28-105 USM (love it) but would like
to get more reach. As an amatuer photographer, I don't want to
waste money, I know the L is an older lens, so do I compromise
technology and quality for price or is this not really an issue?
Thanks for your comments.

Matt
Click to expand...
 
Matt:

100-300/5.6 L is an older telephoto zoom with great optics. Canon's newer consumer tele zoom 100-300/USM is somewhat inferior optically but has better handling characteristics (ie non-rotating front element). If you shoot subjects stopped down (F11-F16), I don't think you will notice a great difference and I would recommend the newer lens. If you shoot wide open (F5.6) then the older lens lens would produce better results. One word of caution. Canon used to manufacture a non-L 100-300/5.6 that is often available on the used lens market. This is definitely not the same lens as 100-300/5.6L. It looks similar (missing the L ring on the lens) but should be avoided.
Matt Lewis said:
I have reviewed the other forum notes on these two lens' and would
like to know if anyone can update on the USM vs. L? I have been
checking prices and it seems the USM is down to $350-400, close to
'used' L's. I currently have a 28-105 USM (love it) but would like
to get more reach. As an amatuer photographer, I don't want to
waste money, I know the L is an older lens, so do I compromise
technology and quality for price or is this not really an issue?
Thanks for your comments.

Matt
Click to expand...
--Greg
 
Lee,

Thanks for the inf. I have read reviews / opinions on the 70-200 and there seem to be varying issues on actual lens quality. Possibly I'm mistaken and am thinking of a non-canon lens. But this is where I get confused with the D30. Discussions suggest the 1.6x does not "extend" the length of any lens but affects the FOV. So with the 70-200 + 1.4xII, does this convert to a 156-448 effective lens on the D30?
Thanks,
Matt
Lee Rothman said:
If I were in your shoes I'd go for the 70-200F4 L lens and a 1.4xII
teleconverter. The ouput of that combo is SURE to be superior to
that standard line 100-300 Canon lens. And to boot you will have an
example of just how sharp a Canon lens can be!
Click to expand...
 
Matt Lewis said:
Lee,

Thanks for the inf. I have read reviews / opinions on the 70-200
and there seem to be varying issues on actual lens quality.
Possibly I'm mistaken and am thinking of a non-canon lens. But
this is where I get confused with the D30. Discussions suggest the
1.6x does not "extend" the length of any lens but affects the FOV.
So with the 70-200 + 1.4xII, does this convert to a 156-448
effective lens on the D30?
Click to expand...
I just checked some prices and with the 1.4x and 70-200 (combined $1100), why not just step up to the 100-400 IS L? $1400 approx.
Matt Lewis said:
Thanks,
Matt
Lee Rothman said:
If I were in your shoes I'd go for the 70-200F4 L lens and a 1.4xII
teleconverter. The ouput of that combo is SURE to be superior to
that standard line 100-300 Canon lens. And to boot you will have an
example of just how sharp a Canon lens can be!
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I have the 100-300 L - it was $269 used (in mint condition) from B&H. The price of this lens seems to vary a lot with geography - in the UK I've seen it listed new for over £600, or about $900! Thankfully B&H ships worldwide :-)

Optically it's superb, but I agree that it's clearly an old design of lens. The AF motor is slow and noisy, the front element rotates during focusing, and it's a push-pull zoom that can creep.

Only you can determine whether any of those matter to you, it's a question of priorities. To help you decide, I've posted an example pic taken with the 100-300L at http://home.btclick.com/andrew.cawte/IMG_2665.JPG

100-300 f/5.6L at 245mm, f/9.5, 1/180 sec, ISO 200, handheld.

Andy.
Matt Lewis said:
I have reviewed the other forum notes on these two lens' and would
like to know if anyone can update on the USM vs. L? I have been
checking prices and it seems the USM is down to $350-400, close to
'used' L's. I currently have a 28-105 USM (love it) but would like
to get more reach. As an amatuer photographer, I don't want to
waste money, I know the L is an older lens, so do I compromise
technology and quality for price or is this not really an issue?
Thanks for your comments.

Matt
Click to expand...
 
Greg,

Thanks for the clarification. I have seen diff. prices and through research / surfing, I thought there were two "older" lenses. I'm primarily shooting early morning / late even wildlife (large game), so the older F5.6 seems to be the best alternative. Price is a issue as an non-pro, I don't want to get crazy with multiple-high $$ lens just sitting in the case not being used. I was reading the other response, suggestion 1.4x and 70-200 ($1100), why not step up to the 100-400 IS L?($1400)
Comments / suggestions welcome.
Greg P said:
Matt Lewis said:
I have reviewed the other forum notes on these two lens' and would
like to know if anyone can update on the USM vs. L? I have been
checking prices and it seems the USM is down to $350-400, close to
'used' L's. I currently have a 28-105 USM (love it) but would like
to get more reach. As an amatuer photographer, I don't want to
waste money, I know the L is an older lens, so do I compromise
technology and quality for price or is this not really an issue?
Thanks for your comments.

Matt
Click to expand...
--
Greg
Click to expand...
 
Matt Lewis said:
I just checked some prices and with the 1.4x and 70-200 (combined
$1100), why not just step up to the 100-400 IS L? $1400 approx.
Matt Lewis said:
Thanks,
Matt
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Goodness! The 100-400 is a whole different animal. Have you seen the size of that thing? It's twice the size of the 70-200 f4. It serves a completely different purpose.

Rich
 
Matt,

100-300/5.6L is an extremely sharp and contrasty lens and it's glass is far superior to 100-300USM. AF of 100-300/5.6L is very slow, it sounds like a chain saw, and push-pool zoom is quite awkward. If you need better glass and can live with slow AF definitely go with 100-300/5.6L, if you still could find one. I love mine and got an impression that it might be even sharper than 70-200/2.8L (also own) at 5.6-11.
 
Andrew,

This is what I'm talking about!!!! I love it!!! There was discussion of 70-200 + 1.4x, so I asked about the 100-400 IS L, pricing,etc. If you have time please look at the details and let me know if you have input.
thx
Andrew Cawte said:
I have the 100-300 L - it was $269 used (in mint condition) from
B&H. The price of this lens seems to vary a lot with geography - in
the UK I've seen it listed new for over £600, or about $900!
Thankfully B&H ships worldwide :-)

Optically it's superb, but I agree that it's clearly an old design
of lens. The AF motor is slow and noisy, the front element rotates
during focusing, and it's a push-pull zoom that can creep.

Only you can determine whether any of those matter to you, it's a
question of priorities. To help you decide, I've posted an example
pic taken with the 100-300L at
http://home.btclick.com/andrew.cawte/IMG_2665.JPG

100-300 f/5.6L at 245mm, f/9.5, 1/180 sec, ISO 200, handheld.

Andy.
Click to expand...
 
Rich,

Nope, I only glanced at the inital specs from the EF lens Specs.page. I didn't even think about weight and size. As a non-pro, this lens selection stuff just and 1.6x (D30) and extenders, etc. I just got ahead of myself. Thx for clarifying!!!!
RichW said:
RichW said:
I just checked some prices and with the 1.4x and 70-200 (combined
$1100), why not just step up to the 100-400 IS L? $1400 approx.
RichW said:
Thanks,
Matt
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Goodness! The 100-400 is a whole different animal. Have you seen
the size of that thing? It's twice the size of the 70-200 f4. It
serves a completely different purpose.

Rich
Click to expand...
 
Mikhail,

From the other reviews / discussions. I'm now directed to the 5.6L, currently surfing the web for one. I have heard others say it is difficult to find. The challenge begins................
Mikhail Bogdanov said:
Matt,
100-300/5.6L is an extremely sharp and contrasty lens and it's
glass is far superior to 100-300USM. AF of 100-300/5.6L is very
slow, it sounds like a chain saw, and push-pool zoom is quite
awkward. If you need better glass and can live with slow AF
definitely go with 100-300/5.6L, if you still could find one. I
love mine and got an impression that it might be even sharper than
70-200/2.8L (also own) at 5.6-11.
Click to expand...
 
Hi Matt,

I'll throw in my 2 cents worth too. I have the 100-300 5.6L lens (to go with my 28-135 IS USM lens) and find it fantastic. I'm not all that bothered by the older auto focus method and find the focus as fast as (or perhaps a touch faster than) that of my 28-135. And in some circumstances find the slide zoom easier to use than the rotating ring. I found my lens on e-bay for about $270.00. One of the best lens purchases I've ever made.--Rick
 
It certainly has become hard to find over the last couple of months - I think it's gone out of production. That's a great shame, since there's nothing to replace it that offers anything like the sharpness/cost.

They do come up used from time to time, though - I've seen them on both B&H and Ebay. I'll probably sell mine when I can afford to replace it with a 100-400 L IS. If you're lucky you might still find new stock somewhere.

Andy.
Matt Lewis said:
Mikhail,
From the other reviews / discussions. I'm now directed to the
5.6L, currently surfing the web for one. I have heard others say
it is difficult to find. The challenge begins................
Click to expand...
 
Matt Lewis said:
I'm
primarily shooting early morning / late even wildlife (large game),
so the older F5.6 seems to be the best alternative. Price is a
issue as an non-pro, I don't want to get crazy with multiple-high
$$ lens just sitting in the case not being used.
Click to expand...
F 5.6 is fairly slow for what you are trying to do. But given budgetary concern, it's what you'll get to live with. Hope you are using a tripod.

If you are not committed to using zooms, you can also look into getting either an used Canon 300mm F4L (non-IS) or an used Canon 400mm F5.6L.

Optically, the 100-300mm F 5.6L is a good lens - much better than the consumer zooms. Static wildlife is OK but the focusing may be too slow for moving wildlife. You don't want to use it much for architecture either.

--xsy
 
Matt,

In addition to B&H and ebay check used equipment section at adoramacamera(.com) - I've seen used 100-300/5.6Ls there few times.
 
No, it's not the same. FD is Canon's old, manual focus mount. Although you can get adapters to allow it to fit an EOS camera, you'll only get manual focus.

The lens you want is the EF 100-300 f/5.6 L lens. It was just $349 new from B&H, so $500 is well over the odds anyway.

Andy.
Matt Lewis said:
Mikhail Bogdanov said:
Matt,
In addition to B&H and ebay check used equipment section at
adoramacamera(.com) - I've seen used 100-300/5.6Ls there few times.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Essentially YES but you must be mistaken on the reviews as I have NEVER seen a report of a bad or questionable one yet. This is as close to a perfect lens consistency as you will get. I repeat.....Go for this combo!
Matt Lewis said:
Thanks for the inf. I have read reviews / opinions on the 70-200
and there seem to be varying issues on actual lens quality.
Possibly I'm mistaken and am thinking of a non-canon lens. But
this is where I get confused with the D30. Discussions suggest the
1.6x does not "extend" the length of any lens but affects the FOV.
So with the 70-200 + 1.4xII, does this convert to a 156-448
effective lens on the D30?
Thanks,
Matt
Lee Rothman said:
If I were in your shoes I'd go for the 70-200F4 L lens and a 1.4xII
teleconverter. The ouput of that combo is SURE to be superior to
that standard line 100-300 Canon lens. And to boot you will have an
example of just how sharp a Canon lens can be!
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top