Is the good old EF 100-300mm f4.5/5.6 still up to the mark?

[NE clicks clicks]

At this age when digital photography rules, do you think that the good old EF 100-300 f4.5/5.6 lens still make the cut? How do you think it will perform when coupled with a digital SLR (Not the 1 series).
By the way, anybody knows when it was first launch ?
Anybody still owns and are using it? Mind telling how you rate it? How you find it performs against the cheapo EF 75-300 USM III?
Hope to hear from anyone who has used it? Thanks in advance.

[sazhar]

upz..........

[grantyale]

I had one. Ring USM is a lot faster than those 75-300s, but still slower than, say, 70-200/4L. Image quality is okay up to 200mm but gets worse beyond that point.

[benny]

I had the 75-300 mm and dumped that for the 100-300 mm. Never regreted it.

Cheers,

[Snoweagle]

I used to have this lens, gd lens and sharp too! Ring USM is extremely silent and fast. Think this lens is launched in the early 90s.

[EiRiK]

i have 1 and used to own the 75-300. the 100-300 is better in the USM.
but image quality wise, both about the same, very soft.
the 100-300 was first introduced in the mid80s i think
the USM is ring type so its silent and fast, the front element does not rotate when focusing but it extends when zooming.
i seldom shoot long so its good enuff for me, although i can only use it outdoors due to its focal length and small max aperture.

[Snoweagle]

The zooming is also quite loose so it extends out when pointed downwards.

[NE clicks clicks]

Thanks for the pointers guys.
Have wanted to get one initially to as a light telezoom when doing casual shoot, but now that knowing that the image quality it produces is not much of a improvment from the EF 75-300mm USM, I am having 2nd thought.
Definitely not prepared to part with a few hundred dollars just for a slightly faster focusing speed. In that case, I will save the $ for the EF 70 - 200 f/4 L instead.
Thanks again guys.
But still like to hear from anyone with a different opinion on it, good or bad.

[Snoweagle]

Originally Posted by NE clicks clicks Thanks for the pointers guys. Have wanted to get one initially to as a light telezoom when doing casual shoot, but now that knowing that the image quality it produces is not much of a improvment from the EF 75-300mm USM, I am having 2nd thought. Definitely not prepared to part with a few hundred dollars just for a slightly faster focusing speed. In that case, I will save the $ for the EF 70 - 200 f/4 L instead. Thanks again guys. But still like to hear from anyone with a different opinion on it, good or bad.

Good choice on the 70-200mm f/4L!

[EiRiK]

Originally Posted by NE clicks clicks Thanks for the pointers guys. Have wanted to get one initially to as a light telezoom when doing casual shoot, but now that knowing that the image quality it produces is not much of a improvment from the EF 75-300mm USM, I am having 2nd thought. Definitely not prepared to part with a few hundred dollars just for a slightly faster focusing speed. In that case, I will save the $ for the EF 70 - 200 f/4 L instead. Thanks again guys. But still like to hear from anyone with a different opinion on it, good or bad.

only if u shoot in this range alot.
the reason y i only have a cheap telezoom is becoz i only need this range for maybe 5% of all that i shoot.
i've seen many ppl sell their 70-200 coz its always in the dry cabinet.
u have to weigh the price diff of the 70-200 and the 75-300/100-300 against the frequency of usage.
dont get me wrong, the 70-200 is a great piece of glass, but how often do u find yourself in a situation where u wished u had a long zoom? if the answer is "once in a while" like me, then a cheap zoom will do.
dont buy a long zoom just to "complete the arsenal".
i have no regrets buy the 100-300 instead of the 70-200, coz my long zoom is always in my dry cabinet. not becoz its really so lousy but simply coz i dont shoot in this range often enuff. makes more sense for me to have $250 sitting in the dry cabinet rather than $1300.