 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / November 2005Canon 100-300mm
Does anyone have any thoughts on the Canon 100-300 4.5-5.6 usm lens. I'm an amature at best and use my 20D for family sports photos. I know "L" lenses are great but not in my price range. Thanks........ > Does anyone have any thoughts on the Canon 100-300 4.5-5.6 usm lens. I'm an > amature at best and use my 20D for family sports photos. I know "L" lenses > are great but not in my price range. Thanks........ For sports and long zoom ranges you might get value out of IS. I have the 75-300 IS lens and it's a solid performer for what you're describing, and a strong bang/fbuck. Not the sharpest lens I've owned by any stretch, but for the money, it's really nice to have IS sometimes.... -- Todd H. http://www.toddh.net/ >> Does anyone have any thoughts on the Canon 100-300 4.5-5.6 usm lens. I'm >> an [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > by any stretch, but for the money, it's really nice to have IS > sometimes.... Or a monopod, which is $400 less than IS... Dave > >> Does anyone have any thoughts on the Canon 100-300 4.5-5.6 usm lens. I'm > >> an [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Or a monopod, which is $400 less than IS... ???? B&H prices: Canon 100-300 4.5-5.6 usm $279 Canon 75-300 4.0-5.6 EF IS $399 (after $15 rebate) Their cheapest 3-section monopod you can stand with is $58. Nikon users don't currently have IS lens options in this price range, but Canon users do. Best Regards, -- Todd H. http://www.toddh.net/ > "David Geesaman" <dgeesamannospam@yahoo.com> writes >> Or a monopod, which is $400 less than IS... [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Nikon users don't currently have IS lens options in this price range, > but Canon users do. I stand corrected - I should have checked the price list. IS usually adds a few hundred to the price tag. That lens really is a great value. But again, IS will not slow down your subject, will it? I thought is only compensates for camera movement by acclerometers, rather than stabilizing the subject in the image. If so, than in sports photography your shutter speed will be rather high and the utility of IS would be almost zero. I wish I could speak from experience though - please inform. Dave >>"David Geesaman" <dgeesamannospam@yahoo.com> writes >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Dave Although IS doesn't work for sport photography, it is a very nice feature to have for such a long zoom lens for many daily casual uses. Unless you know you have a special photography mission that day, it'd be rare to carry a tripod or even a monopod out and about. > Although IS doesn't work for sport photography, it is a very nice > feature to have for such a long zoom lens for many daily casual uses. Where does this gem come from? Personal experience, or reading, or speculation? > Unless you know you have a special photography mission that day, it'd be > rare to carry a tripod or even a monopod out and about. I keep both in the trunk (boot) almost all the time.  Signaturejohn mcwilliams >> Although IS doesn't work for sport photography, it is a very nice >> feature to have for such a long zoom lens for many daily casual uses. > > Where does this gem come from? Personal experience, or reading, or > speculation? I have 70-200/4L and 300/4 IS. I have to crank the ISO very high when using 70-200 and if I don't I sometimes get blurry pics. I always have sharp pix with 300/4L IS >>> Although IS doesn't work for sport photography, it is a very nice >>> feature to have for such a long zoom lens for many daily casual uses. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > using 70-200 and if I don't I sometimes get blurry pics. I always have > sharp pix with 300/4L IS Your reply contradicts the statement I questioned. SignatureJohn McWilliams >>>> Although IS doesn't work for sport photography, it is a very nice >>>> feature to have for such a long zoom lens for many daily casual uses. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Your reply contradicts the statement I questioned. How does it contradict your statement? I am telling you that I get a lot more sharp pix using a lens with IS and it's even a 300mm. The 70-200/4 is nice too but it's hard to use in the long end. >>>>> Although IS doesn't work for sport photography, it is a very nice >>>>> feature to have for such a long zoom lens for many daily casual uses. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > more sharp pix using a lens with IS and it's even a 300mm. The 70-200/4 > is nice too but it's hard to use in the long end. *Your* statements are contradictory. You said: "Although IS doesn't work for sport photography..." SignatureJohn McWilliams >>>>>> Although IS doesn't work for sport photography, it is a very nice >>>>>> feature to have for such a long zoom lens for many daily casual uses. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > *Your* statements are contradictory. > You said: "Although IS doesn't work for sport photography..." No, I said it works well for casual photography without the need of carrying tripod all the time. It's still worth the extra cost... >> *Your* statements are contradictory. >> You said: "Although IS doesn't work for sport photography..." > > No, I said it works well for casual photography without the need of > carrying tripod all the time. It's still worth the extra cost... Look back in the thread if you don't believe my quote. Someone posting under your name and ISP said exactly what you deny. -- John McWilliams > Although IS doesn't work for sport photography, it is a very nice feature > to have for such a long zoom lens for many daily casual uses. Unless you > know you have a special photography mission that day, it'd be rare to > carry a tripod or even a monopod out and about. Actually, I carry a monopod in the car, all the time. Tripods go back in the house, it stays with me. But the combo of IS and a monopod is unbeatable... (I own the 28-135 IS and 100-400 L IS) SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >>Although IS doesn't work for sport photography, it is a very nice feature >>to have for such a long zoom lens for many daily casual uses. Unless you [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > But the combo of IS and a monopod is unbeatable... (I own the 28-135 IS and > 100-400 L IS) The 70~300 lens in discussion has IS version 1, Skip. Can't be used on a tripod! >>>Although IS doesn't work for sport photography, it is a very nice feature >>>to have for such a long zoom lens for many daily casual uses. Unless you [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > The 70~300 lens in discussion has IS version 1, Skip. Can't be used on a > tripod! Said monopod, not tripod, which it can be used on. My 28-135 and 100-400 work just fine on a monopod, there's enough movement to keep the IS gremlins happy. And if you turn the IS off, you certainly can use a tripod! SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > > "David Geesaman" <dgeesamannospam@yahoo.com> writes > >> Or a monopod, which is $400 less than IS... [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > only compensates for camera movement by acclerometers, rather than > stabilizing the subject in the image. That is correct. This comes in handy shooting junior handheld in a dimly lit gym out at 200mm and beyond. Won't stop action blur, but will compensate for it being handheld. > If so, than in sports photography your shutter speed will be rather > high and the utility of IS would be almost zero. I wish I could > speak from experience though - please inform. If you're thinking of outdoor sports where shutterspeeds in excess of 1/focal length are common, that'd be true. Yet you still find sports photographers with monopods--which aim to minimize the very same camera movement that IS aims to nullify. And sports photographers, therefore also find use for IS. Especially in indoor sports. And in those in between shutter speeds where you'd like a sharp/steady background and blurred action helps the shot, IS helps achieve that too. Best Regards, -- Todd H. http://www.toddh.net/ "David Geesaman" <dgeesamannospam@yahoo.com> wrote in message > I stand corrected - I should have checked the price list. IS usually > adds a few hundred to the price tag. That lens really is a great value. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > your shutter speed will be rather high and the utility of IS would be > almost zero. I wish I could speak from experience though - please inform. Also, the 28-135 IS is about $400 at reputable dealers. This is probably a $200 increase over what the lens would cost without IS. No, IS will NOT slow your subject at all. And you are correct that in sports photography, at focal lengths of 200mm and less, IS is of limited use. However, lets look at a 300mm lens. At 300mm (on a 1.6 crop camera) you probably should be using a shutter speed of about 1/500 or faster. But often ligthing does not allow this if it is not bright daylight. On overcast days shutters of 1/350 and such are fairly common. 1/350 and 1/250 can often yield good results in sports, although naturally it is better to use faster shutters when possible. IS can really help at those shutters. If you are shooting slower paced sports, or lulls in the action, IS can help you down to 1/125 or slower on a 300mm lens. I have found IS helpfull at all focal lengths. And, you don't have to use it, but having it gives you the option. I view IS as a built-in monopod that you can not see. C! >>"David Geesaman" <dgeesamannospam@yahoo.com> writes >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Dave Canon in their quest for world dominance with optically average and mechanically questionable lenses have introduced several "IS" version in different lenses and neglected to mention that the "IS" in the cheap and slow 75~300 4.0~5.6 is version ONE of the once thought to be, breakthrough technology and it must be switched off when used on a tripod. How bloody convenient! I hear you say. I once bought one of these very same lenses on the day I bought my 10D and discovered to my horror that in the time it took to focus from infinity to the cat (http://www.ryadia.com/pets.htm) I was about to shoot, the cat got up and left the room! Lucky I has a 70~200 f2.8 handy. The now obsolete 100~300 at least has a relatively fast focus motor and seeing as you didn't have to disable the IS you never had, worked the same on a tripod as it did in your hand. Face it... If you want to shoot sport, your priority is the highest possible shutter speed at the lowest ISO possible. Somehow I don't think you'll get 1/800th at anything under ISO 1600 with a f5.6 lens which needs f8 for reasonable shots. Douglas > Face it... If you want to shoot sport, your priority is the highest > possible shutter speed at the lowest ISO possible. No argument there. But you've left out an important factor from the orignal poster: His budget With IS being a small cost adder on 300mm class f/5.6 zooms lenses, the question isn't "why IS"...it's "why not?" -- Todd H. http://www.toddh.net/ >>>"David Geesaman" <dgeesamannospam@yahoo.com> writes >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> I stand corrected - I should have checked the price list. IS usually >> adds a few hundred to the price tag. That lens really is a great value. > Canon in their quest for world dominance with optically average and > mechanically questionable lenses have introduced several "IS" version in > different lenses and neglected to mention that the "IS" in the cheap and > slow 75~300 4.0~5.6 is version ONE of the once thought to be, breakthrough > technology and it must be switched off when used on a tripod. That explains why my impression of pricing was off - I had been shopping (not buying though :o( ) for IS vs. non-IS in the L series lenses, which I assume are generally the latest/greatest IS implementation. > Face it... If you want to shoot sport, your priority is the highest > possible shutter speed at the lowest ISO possible. Somehow I don't think > you'll get 1/800th at anything under ISO 1600 with a f5.6 lens which needs > f8 for reasonable shots. There is no doubt about that. I'm basically a beginner, but my preferred subject (horses and equine activities) involve big-moving horses that don't stand still. So light collection, shutter priority, and light collection are my priorities. I have a (gasp!) Tamron 75-300 f/4.0-5.6 on my 300D and I'm wary to recommend that kind of aperture limitation to anyone doing sports photography. With my very beginner budget, I simply have the 70-200 f/2.8L IS on my wish list, far away from today. So I empathize with the OP if they simply can't go for the 'right' lens. Dave > Does anyone have any thoughts on the Canon 100-300 4.5-5.6 usm lens. I'm an > amature at best and use my 20D for family sports photos. I know "L" lenses > are great but not in my price range. Thanks........ I've had one for several years now, and never regretted the purchase. It's light enough to walk around with and, by my standards, takes pretty good pictures. I often put a 36mm extension tube on it and then use it as a macro lens. Both the length and the focus rings are used to focus in this mode. It can take some really nice closeups when you put a tube on it. SignatureJim Nagy Elm Electronics > Does anyone have any thoughts on the Canon 100-300 4.5-5.6 usm lens. I'm > an > amature at best and use my 20D for family sports photos. I know "L" lenses > are great but not in my price range. Thanks........ I have the IS version and it's a great lens for the money. I also have the highly touted 100-400 L lens and have compared the two with test shots at 300 mm and was surprised to learn that the L lens is indeed sharper but not as much as many seem to think. My test shots were of real scenes, not test targets. Here is a picture shot with the 100-300 IS, hand-held, at full-zoom: http://home.comcast.net/~charlesschuler/wsb/media/291308/site1056.jpg Forget about monopods and tripods for shots like this. This was taken from a moving tram in the Florida Everglades. There is no substitute for IS in some circumstances. > Does anyone have any thoughts on the Canon 100-300 4.5-5.6 usm lens. I'm > an > amature at best and use my 20D for family sports photos. I know "L" lenses > are great but not in my price range. Thanks........ My wife has the 100-300, and, while it hasn't gotten much use on her 20D, she still likes it. The lens was marginally sharper than the 75-300, IS or no, but the big reason she wanted it over the 75-300 was it is a true ring USM lens as opposed to the micromotor USM in the 75-300. Ring USM gives you full time manual focusing and a non rotating front element, the latter critical with graduated filters and polarizing filters. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > Does anyone have any thoughts on the Canon 100-300 4.5-5.6 usm lens. I'm > an > amature at best and use my 20D for family sports photos. I know "L" lenses > are great but not in my price range. Thanks........ You might look into the discontinued 100-300 f5.6 L. It is optically top notch and I have seen them sell in very good condition for under $350 USD. I got mine for under $300 in like new condition a couple of years ago. It competes with, and sometimes exceeds, the optical quality of my 100-400 L IS. True, it does have other issues, but most of them are shared by the current 100-300 f4.5-5.6 USM. The old style AF motor is a little noisy and slow, but not all that much slower than the 100-300 USM. The L is a push-pull type, while the USM is a twist, but I happen to like push-pull zooms. C! >> Does anyone have any thoughts on the Canon 100-300 4.5-5.6 usm lens. I'm >> an [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >It is optically top notch and I have seen them sell in very >good condition for under $350 USD. I've got one of these too, & it's a lovely lens optically. The big drawback is the push-pull zoom & the slow AF motor. SignatureW . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^--------------------------------------------------------------- It's a very nice lens for the money. I've had one since they were a new design in the early 1990's. I now have several L lenses and sure the're better, but I still use the 100-300mm when I don't want to carry a 3+ lb lens. They are light, fast focusing, and a good lens for the price. > Does anyone have any thoughts on the Canon 100-300 4.5-5.6 usm lens. I'm an > amature at best and use my 20D for family sports photos. I know "L" lenses > are great but not in my price range. Thanks........ > It's a very nice lens for the money. I've had one since they were a new > design in the early 1990's. I now have several L lenses and sure the're [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Thanks for all the feedback....... Look at the new 70-300 IS. See http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=294 The only drawback is the front of the lens turns as it focuses making it difficult to use a circular polarizer. The image stilization is great. I have used the previous 70-300 IS and liked it. This one has better IS and is half the price. B&H has it on sale for $569 plus a $15 rebate. I'll be getting one myself. SignatureTerry Remove the rodent from my email address to reply directly. > Does anyone have any thoughts on the Canon 100-300 4.5-5.6 usm lens. I'm > an > amature at best and use my 20D for family sports photos. I know "L" lenses > are great but not in my price range. Thanks........ |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.