Canon lenses: 75-300 vs 100-300
Henk-Jan Olde Loohuis
I have a Canon Rebel 2000, a 50,,/1.8 lens and a 28-105/3.5-4.5 USM.
I'm thinking of getting another zoom lens and am wondering about the
difference between the Canon 75-300mm lenses and the 100-300mm USM lens.
The price difference seems to be rather substantial. I realize the
75-300 comes in USM and non-USM versions. I also realize the USM is not
a "ring" USM, whereas the 100-300 is a "true" ring USM. Does this
account for the price difference, or is the 100-300 better optically?
Oh, "L" lenses are not an option I'm afraid, my wife would kill me ;-)
Any comments are appreciated,
Thanks,
Henk-Jan
Bill Tuthill
> I'm thinking of getting another zoom lens and am wondering about the
> difference between the Canon 75-300mm lenses and the 100-300mm USM lens.
> The price difference seems to be rather substantial. I realize the
> 75-300 comes in USM and non-USM versions. I also realize the USM is not
> a "ring" USM, whereas the 100-300 is a "true" ring USM. Does this
> account for the price difference, or is the 100-300 better optically?
In the vote-based Lens Performance Survey, the 75-300 rates better
wide/closed, although both are similarly poor. The 75-300 autofocus
is so slow, even with USM, that you might as well get a 3rd party lens.
Canon's 100-300 has faster autofocus. Overall Minolta makes the best
300mm zooms, but you'd have to trade your Rebel2000 for an HTsi Plus.
Sorted by Easy Lens Guide score:
focal length & speed wgt len cost close fltr EZavg Photodo
Minolta 100-300mm f4.5-5.6 APO 436g 102mm $450 150cm ø55 3.09 3.2
Canon 100-300mm f5.6 L USM 695g 167mm $600 140cm ø58 3.05 3.6
Minolta 75-300mm f4.5-5.6 525g 122mm $210 150cm ø55 3.04 ?
Tokina 100-300 f4.0 ATX trpd 1540g 230mm $800 200cm ø77 3.03 3.1
Pentax 100-300mm f4.5-5.6 FA 605g 146mm $350 150cm ø58 2.85 2.4
Tamron 70-300mm f4.0-5.6 LD 510g 116mm $249 150cm ø58 2.83 2.4
Nikon 70-300mm f4.0-5.6 ED 515g 74mm new 150cm ø62 2.83 2.4
Canon 100-300mm f4.5-5.6 USM 540g 121mm $295 150cm ø58 2.65 2.4
Sigma 70-300mm f4.0-5.6 APO 584g 117mm $287 150 M95 ø58 2.60 ?
Canon 75-300mm f4.0-5.6 USM 495g 122mm $215 150cm ø58 2.58 3.1
Chuck Ross
> Hi,
>
> I have a Canon Rebel 2000, a 50,,/1.8 lens and a 28-105/3.5-4.5 USM.
> I'm thinking of getting another zoom lens and am wondering about the
> difference between the Canon 75-300mm lenses and the 100-300mm USM lens.
> The price difference seems to be rather substantial. I realize the
> 75-300 comes in USM and non-USM versions. I also realize the USM is not
> a "ring" USM, whereas the 100-300 is a "true" ring USM. Does this
> account for the price difference, or is the 100-300 better optically?
>
> Oh, "L" lenses are not an option I'm afraid, my wife would kill me ;-)
>
> Any comments are appreciated,
>
> Thanks,
>
> Henk-Jan
The 100-300 is almost universally considered optically superior to the
75-300, but I had a 75-300 that was astonishingly good. Lucky, I guess.
--
Chuck Ross
http://www.enteract.com/~ckross
Digital Photo Gallery
Anthony Kohn
that I had to consider a few months back.
Firstly there is the question of the 100-300 having 'superior optics' to the
75-300. When considering this, it is important to consider that neither lens
will be as good as a prime, or the L zooms. I took two samples of each lens
and took photos with each and a set of focal lengths and apertures, all of
the same subject. What did I find? That to my eyes, and those of the shop
staff, the differences between the 75-300 and 100-300 lenses was so minor
that it should NOT be a factor in the purchase. I did find however, that the
75-300 is 1/2 stop faster at 200mm than the 100-300.
Right now I will say to not even look at the non USM version of the 75-300,
if you can justify the cost. The 75-300 focusses slow enough with the USM,
that the non-USM version would almost be unbearable. This is one aspect of
the lenses that I did not test, so I do not know how the 100-300 is for
focussing speed. The 100-300 does have non-rotating front lens which is very
handy if you use a polariser, it also has Full Time Manual Focussing which
is handy if you use it (do you use this feature with th 28-105, if not you
probably won't use it with th xx-300)
The next issue is that there is a 75-300 version that has Image Stabilising.
This is the feature that made me buy the 75-300 IS, even with the increased
price. Get the IS if you can afford it, but if you want to hand-hold a lot.
Basically, no-one can tell you which is the better lens for you. Go into a
good camera store and try out a couple of samples of each to test the
optics. Shoot slide film and examine the results under a strong loupe. Test
the build of each, and see if the fact that the 100-300 is very simialr in
use to the 28-105 is important. Evaluate whether you need Image Stabilising
or a non-rotating front element. And how important is focussing speed. If it
is, then test it in the store.
The most important thing now. Whatever you decide on, enjoy it. Do not
question yourself afterwards, because in the end the lenses will give you
similar results. Remember it is the photographer not the equipment.
FareTower
<s950...@minyos.its.rmit.edu.au> writes:
>Right now I will say to not even look at the non USM version of the 75-300,
>if you can justify the cost. The 75-300 focusses slow enough with the USM,
>that the non-USM version would almost be unbearable.
And how about the IS version? Is the (slowness) USM the same on the IS as on
the non-IS version?
cheers, S.
William Jameson
: In article <3746E511...@minyos.its.rmit.edu.au>, Anthony Kohn
: <s950...@minyos.its.rmit.edu.au> writes:
Yep, both the 75-300 USM and the 75-300 IS USM have micro-USM, while the
100-300 f/4.5-5/6 USM has ring USM with full time manual focusing.
Bill Jameson.
(quite happy with the 75-300 IS)