Well, depends on what you will use for but ... I used the 100-300mm 5.6 , older style, constant f5.6. Quite sharp, nice contrast. I bought it on the advice of Peter K. from this list, and was happy. No, you won't catch action well with this lens, it focuses slow, but then I am not sure if the (75)100-300mms would really be great lenses for those either.
You can find it for $150-$250 at keh.com and adorama.com. I recommend it a lot. it was a very nice lens. I found a buyer who paid good money for it and upgraded to 70-200 f4L. -e > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2002 2:29 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: EOS Canon EF 75-300mm vs EF 100-300mm lenses > > > I have owned both lenses and currently use the 75-300 IS. The > 100 to 300mm is > internal focusing (non- rotating front barrel), and this > produces much faster > focusing. It is also easier to use with a polarizer. The 75 > to 300mm is less > expensive, except for the IS function, which really does work > quite well. > Optically, both lenses are somewhat soft at the longer range, > which is > typical for a non-pro zoom. The 75-300 is fairly good from > 75-200 when > stopped down, which is easier to do with the IS. If you're > looking for really > sharp, contrasty slides or negatives for larger prints taken * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
