Canon EF 100-300mm f/5.6L 1987 design
Dec 2, 2018 09:35:53 #
I happened to see an “upcoming topic” on this forum mentioning this lens. I was fascinated in that although old design (no IS, early autofocus servo, plastic body, 5.6 limit) it indeed has L glass. I found a near mint copy on eBay (from a high volume 100% rated seller), and bought it as I’d already busted the piggy bank in buying a new 24-105 f4L, but wanted the tele for occasional use. I’m quite happy with a few tests I’ve done hand held in bright light at 1/500 sec. I appreciate UHH for letting me know about this lens!
Dec 2, 2018 10:15:00 #
Rogers wrote:
I happened to see an “upcoming topic” on this foru... (show quote)
Excellent photo, very beautiful.
You did a great job with the excellent lens.
Dec 2, 2018 11:10:57 #
I've had that lens for many, many years. It may have been my first L series lens. I've recommend it several times to people who want a really good Canon 100-300 zoom for a very reasonable price. It may not be the fastest lens but with good light it performs quite well.
Dec 2, 2018 11:31:52 #
`
There's no "L-glass" difference on the
original 100-300/5.6.
Optically both versions were identical,
but the L-lens was better built. I use
the plain version. If it breaks down or
wears out, I'll toss it.
.
There's no "L-glass" difference on the
original 100-300/5.6.
Optically both versions were identical,
but the L-lens was better built. I use
the plain version. If it breaks down or
wears out, I'll toss it.
.
Dec 3, 2018 02:18:00 #
User ID wrote:
`
There's no "L-glass" difference on the
original 100-300/5.6.
Optically both versions were identical,
but the L-lens was better built. I use
the plain version. If it breaks down or
wears out, I'll toss it.
.
There's no "L-glass" difference on the
original 100-300/5.6.
Optically both versions were identical,
but the L-lens was better built. I use
the plain version. If it breaks down or
wears out, I'll toss it.
.
Sorry, but you are incorrect. The EF 100-300 f/5.6L contains a flourite and a UD element, the non-L version does not.
Dec 3, 2018 06:54:08 #
Dec 3, 2018 07:06:51 #
I forgot to mention, I paid about $200 for the lens. There were others maybe half that price, but various defects were described. This one would almost pass for new.
Dec 3, 2018 13:42:40 #
Rogers wrote:
I forgot to mention, I paid about $200 for the lens. There were others maybe half that price, but various defects were described. This one would almost pass for new.
I believe it. When I bought mine, many years ago, I believe I only paid $300 for it. I thought that was a good price for a lens that had cost around $825 new only a decade earlier.
Dec 3, 2018 15:44:27 #
Dec 3, 2018 17:00:53 #
zzzynick wrote:
It was my first L lenes. I loved it. The macro switch was cool.
Lenes?! That's a new one.
Dec 4, 2018 01:10:00 #
I have this lens, and I agree it is very good and sharp. Not easy to use. The manual focus ring may be the worst ever made on any lens. Ever. But at $200 or so for an L lens -- it is a great buy.
Dec 4, 2018 04:41:11 #
I’m experimenting with the autofocus on my 77D. Sometimes it seems right on with this lens, maybe half the time. I want to try all the available options. I know the lens has a primitive servo but it seems to me the camera does correctly display prior to the shot, the points that will be in focus.
Dec 4, 2018 05:26:27 #
Rogers wrote:
I’m experimenting with the autofocus on my 77D. Sometimes it seems right on with this lens, maybe half the time. I want to try all the available options. I know the lens has a primitive servo but it seems to me the camera does correctly display prior to the shot, the points that will be in focus.
It can be hit and miss with that lens. On cameras like the EOS 650 or EOS-1, that lens was more often than not spot on, crisp and sharp. It even does an excellent job on my 10D thru 40D but as Canon refined their AF system, these old EF work horses began to lose some edge. I had lent mine to a good friend for his T5i and he used it until he bought the new Tamron 18-400. He said that under less than bright light conditions, he had to tweak the focus fairly often.
It's not so much the result of the old focus motor as it is the more primative AF system from back in 1987, and remember, there were no high tech CMOS sensors back then for it to talk to and it has its problems talking with today's hardware.
Tweak it by hand and you may expect quite sharp photos.
Dec 4, 2018 05:33:03 #
Dec 4, 2018 05:56:53 #
zzzynick wrote:
rmorrison, I will try harder to be as perfect as you seem to be
I'm not sure what I did to warrant your wise ass remark but if I did something to offend you, it wasn't on purpose and I apologize for having offended you.
As for you accusing me of being so perfect, obviously not being sincere, you know the old saying, practice makes perfect, and I practice a whole lot. I will continue to do so until I can no longer do so or until I have achieved the level of perfection you accuse me of. By the way, I don't know how long you've been into photography or what level you have achieved but, the two things that I've consistently been involved with since I was 15 years old are photography and motorcycles. I also read a lot.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.