70-300 range

[Mircula]

Hey I am looking at buying something in that range.

I am on a really tight budget although I have a 75-300 III lens and I would like to buy something a bit better, especially on the long end.

What do you think of the old 100-300 5.6 L lens? (I can't really find it anywhere for sale though)

Or are there any other lenses from different manufacturer worth considering?

Thank you.

Mirc.

[Dylfish]

Hi Mircula,

To be honest the 100-300 5.6 is not too bad, pretty well constructed but can suffer from some chromatic abrasion and isn’t the fastest lens on the earth, but the range is pretty good for the size of the lens (Compared to the 100-400 Ground to Air Missile)

I’m selling mine atm, so if your interested send me a PM and ill answer any question you want re: the lens.
Regards,

Dylan

[Wobbles]

Hey I am looking at buying something in that range.

I am on a really tight budget although I have a 75-300 III lens and I would like to buy something a bit better, especially on the long end.

What do you think of the old 100-300 5.6 L lens? (I can't really find it anywhere for sale though)

Or are there any other lenses from different manufacturer worth considering?

Thank you.

Mirc.

Mirc,
save your money for a 70-200f4 L... otherwise you will just be disappointed and want to by another lens again!:Doh:
https://www.dwidigitalcameras.com.au/store/product.asp?idProduct=69
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/195-canon-ef-70-200mm-f4-usm-l-test-report--review



Cheers
John

[ausguitarman]

I've been enjoying my 70-300 IS USM of late. I keep toying with buying other lenses (I really have bad G.A.S. issues) but this is nice to hold and the more I get used to it and DSLR in general the better the shots I'm getting.

Here's a few pic's I recently took:

http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?t=60858

http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?t=60874

[Mircula]

Hey, thanks for the responses. Nice photos too.

I definitely do not have the money for the 70-200 L lens.

What do you think of the Tamron AF 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di LD Macro 1:2?

Are there any other comparable lenses around that range and price?

Anybody experience with the 100-300 5.6L lens?

Thanks again!

[dulvariprestige]

I'd agree with wobbles, just save your money and get the 70-200 f4 non-is, it'll be worth the wait.

[Mircula]

hmmm...yeah, I just don't have this kind of money unfortunately. I would love to give the 5.6L lens a go but i cannot find it anywhere at all.

Anybody here wants to get rid of theirs?

[dulvariprestige]

How much do you have to spend

[Mircula]

hey,

well it depends a bit on what lens i would get. i certainly cannot spend 1000$ on it though.

I would really like to hear about the 5.6 L lens from somebody. Apparently it was sold a couple of years ago for less than $400.

Up to 500 would probably be my absolute maximum at the moment, maybe even less....from what I have read so far the L lens would give me by far the best IQ in that price range, although slower and not so nice to handle.....

[Mircula]

Hmmm...really seems to be rare this 5.6L lens.

Is nobody here using it?

I thought especially on 1.6 crop this 100-300 range would be really handy for all sorts of things. Especially because all these lenses are reasonable small.....

Would be grateful for some more suggestions on this matter!


Thank you.

[mikec]

The lens you are after is at least a 10 year old lens (see here (http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/x-300.html)) I think you are really going to struggle finding one of these. I assume you've tried ebay and other online 2nd hand retailers, there is a good one based in the USA but the name escapes me at the moment.

I honestly think trying to get L quality on such a limited budget is going to be very hard. Have you factored into your budget what you would also get if you sold the 100 - 300 you have now? Looking prices you'd almost struggle to buy that lens with that kind of money second hand.

Honestly, save some more money and try to pick up a 70-200 F4 second hand. Could probably do it for around $700 I'd imagine.

[Wobbles]

The lens you are after is at least a 10 year old lens (see here (http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/x-300.html)) I think you are really going to struggle finding one of these. I assume you've tried ebay and other online 2nd hand retailers, there is a good one based in the USA but the name escapes me at the moment.

I honestly think trying to get L quality on such a limited budget is going to be very hard. Have you factored into your budget what you would also get if you sold the 100 - 300 you have now? Looking prices you'd almost struggle to buy that lens with that kind of money second hand.

Honestly, save some more money and try to pick up a 70-200 F4 second hand. Could probably do it for around $700 I'd imagine.

For a little bit more, you cna buy a brand new one here - https://www.dwidigitalcameras.com.au/store/product.asp?idProduct=69 - save the extra $$ you won't regret it.

[Mircula]

Thanks guys!!!

Might have found a 5.6L and hopefully it will be much cheaper than the 70-200.
It should be really, for such an old lens....
The thing with that is that i would need a TC then as well to get the range i want to. That would cost another $300 or so.

[dulvariprestige]

A small crop could give you the 100mm you lose and still maintain IQ, try not to let focal length determin your purchase, I made that mistake when I bought a 28-300 over a 70-200, luckily I didn't lose too much when I repurchased.

[Mircula]

hmmm...fair enough. But the 5.6L will be not so much worse in IQ i guess. And it is cheaper. I think the 5.6 should be fast enough for outside shoots.

I will just see how much the price difference is and then decide.

The only thing which concerns me a bit is the slow af....

[dulvariprestige]

Forgot to ask, what are you going to be shooting?

[Mircula]

Was gonna shoot maybe some birds and rock climbing, and wherever i need to get close to. Might as well do some other sport photography if i get the chance. Of course all of that will be limited by the slow af and 5.6 of the lens.
But if i use tc and the 70-200 it will have the same maximum opening of 5.6....

I do not go out very often just for the purpose of photographing but take my camera everywhere i go....

[Mircula]

Sorry to ask again. but does anybody here actually owns the 100-300 5.6L ?

There are sooo many photographers here, would surpriser me if nobody is using this fine lens...

[Wobbles]

Sorry to ask again. but does anybody here actually owns the 100-300 5.6L ?

There are sooo many photographers here, would surpriser me if nobody is using this fine lens...

I think you will struggle to find a copy of this +20 year old lens...

I have read that it is opticaly matched by the current 70-300is but offers slightly better contrast.

I had a EF 100-300mm f/5.6 (non - L) for a while, which I picked up for a few bucks out of curiosity and the useful focal range. Apart from the higher spec glass and 'red ring', I believe they are mechanically identical.

In this respect I would not recommend it! I have never experienced a rougher, clunkier, noisier lens in my life (...think jam tin filled with sand, gravel and killer bees! :p) even the 'nifty-fifty' is smooth and refined in comparison. :rolleyes:

You get zoom creep if you tilt lens up or down, autofocus hunts a lot, no FTM focus, manual focus - refer sand & gravel. The push pull zoom can be useful, but takes a bit of getting used to. There's been a lot written (unsubstantiated imho) about the 100-400L being a "dust pump"... well this one definitely is!! After 12 months it had more dust than the Kalahari and enough fungus growing in it to supply a chemist with penicillin for a year!

Good Luck

[Mircula]

hmm..okok that sounds very negative.

I will see. seems like i cannot get the 5.6l because nobody has it.

Anyway if anybody has it still and wants to get rid of it, please let me know!