> GreenScreen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> 2. I've started saving already, because I don't really see
> too many other options. (not because I HAVE to have an L
> lens) The 100-300 USM seems to consistently get reviewed
> as junk at 300mm wide open - even by armatures like me,
I'm a self-same amateur (if you mean amateur as in "beginner" -
if you don't then don't read on :-) ) with the 100-300 USM,
bought over the 75-300 IS due to it's ring-USM and non-rotating
front. Actually, the non-rotating front has not been a big thing
with me, as I rarely polarise the thing (I'm usually looking for
more speed to avoid camera-shake, which is where I sometimes wish
I'd bought the 75-300 IS, which wouldn't necessarily have the
focus-speed for sport)
I have to say, for my own standards, I've not found the 100-300
to be junk, even wide open, at 300, while shooting some sports (I've
tried Touch Footy and Softball and now have a *real* appreciation
for photog's that shoot team sports of the football/hockey variety -
bloody hard work and I'm a failure so far <g>). It's "relatively"
quick focussing (comparing to 28-80 IV 3.5-5.6 USM - for my mind,
I love the way the 100-300 "snaps" into focus so quietly and quickly)
and I'm amazed what it keeps up with, especially considering my
somewhat eratic handling/framing. My softball shots (which I actually
play, plus it's predictability with regards to where the action'll
be, is easier to shoot for me) turned out quite well (by my standards).
I'm impressed. They even put one in the local rag (well, sort of - it's
really just a filler "ad'" for our Softball club in the sports section,
and newspapers don't exactly need the same standards of 'sharpness' -
especially "local rags" <g>).
On the other hand, with 800 film of a late afternoon when the setting
sun pops behind a cloud and I'm trying to shoot touch-footy at the long
end and the shutter is showing 1/45 wide open....well, a bit more speed
would be nicer.
On the other hand (that's three hands! *That'll* make it easier to
adjust
my pan-tilt tripod <g>), I sometimes wish I'd bought the 200 2.8L and
a 1.4 extender, as I've been enjoying the 50 1.8II prime. The
"restriction"
for me has been a little "liberating", by making me work and think more,
and improve as a result.
Anyway, the point is, if you can get your hands on one (of any
of your suggestions), give it a try and see if you're happy with
the results (if you were in Sydney, Oz I'd happily lend you
mine). The 100-300 is demonstrably less sharp (or even "soft") according
to charts and experience, but only you can judge your satisfaction in
the
results. If you can wait and save for something like the 70-200, well
you can't blame your equipment for the results, and more power to you
(I'm jealous <g>) - seriously, having the 50 1.8 and knowing it's good
reputation means I know that the results I get can in no way be blamed
on the equipment. If you've been given the impression that your lens is
a dog, you wonder if it's you or it. Now I know it's just me [sigh] :-)
> Heck, while I'm at it... I typically shoot 100 speed film,
> (color and b/w) always print, and make about 4 or 5 enlargements
> a year for myself and maybe that many for friends, etc... and my
> main lens now is the 28-105 USM.
Well, ya see, I've not really blown anything up yet. Maybe my standards
and satisfaction would cop a real spear-tackle if I did. FWIW, I
believe the 100-300 USM and the 28-105 USM were released at
approximately
the same time and operate similarly. They also share the same
filter-size.
If I had the money, I'd get the 100-400IS (and probably contradict
everything I've just said).
Cheers
Marc
Sydney, Oz
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
