Neil K. wrote
clipped
> for what it's worth, I believe the 100-300 4.5-5.6 USM is
> slightly sharper than the 75-300. At least the ones I've tried.
clipped
> Of course, neither lens is particularly brilliant. In fact, I'm kind
> of depressed by how ho-hum photos taken with either one turn out. I'm
> seriously thinking of ditching the 100-300 USM and getting the old
> 100-300 5.6L instead. I'd much prefer a gain in image quality even if
> it means sacrificing modern conveniences like full-time manual
> focusing.
Neil,
I've also got the 100-300 USM.
Pros: Genuine USM, Non rotating front element, Light weight, Fairly
inexpensive.
Cons: As above
Never tried the 75 - 300.
The 70 - 200 f4 L with a 1.4 x Extender would seem to be a better option. Or
the f2.8 of course.
It's just a matter of how much you're (I'm) prepared to pay. I haven't
decided yet.
Canon's replacement for the 100-300 5.6L is presumably the 100 - 400 L IS.
F5.6 is too slow in my opinion (For use with extenders), but how many would
buy one if it was one stop faster for three times the price.
Choose any two out of 'Good', 'Fast',or 'Cheap', but you cannot have all
three :-(
Cheers
Keith
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
