Canon 100-300mm

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"M Port" <cosmo5@1st.net> writes:

> 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/

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Todd H." <t@toddh.net> wrote in message news:84fyv2k2la.fsf@ripco.com...
> "M Port" <cosmo5@1st.net> writes:
>
>> 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....
>

Or a monopod, which is $400 less than IS...

Dave

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"David Geesaman" <dgeesamannospam@yahoo.com> writes:
> "Todd H." <t@toddh.net> wrote in message news:84fyv2k2la.fsf@ripco.com...
> > "M Port" <cosmo5@1st.net> writes:
> >
> >> 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....
> >
>
> 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/

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <11c2mig6taq2c8c@corp.supernews.com>, M Port
<cosmo5@1st.net> wrote:

> 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.

--
Jim Nagy
Elm Electronics

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Todd H." <t@toddh.net> wrote in message news:84ekamh7bk.fsf@ripco.com...
> "David Geesaman" <dgeesamannospam@yahoo.com> writes
>> 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.

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

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"David Geesaman" <dgeesamannospam@yahoo.com> writes:

> "Todd H." <t@toddh.net> wrote in message news:84ekamh7bk.fsf@ripco.com...
> > "David Geesaman" <dgeesamannospam@yahoo.com> writes
> >> 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.
>
> 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.

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/

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"M Port" <cosmo5@1st.net> wrote in message
news:11c2mig6taq2c8c@corp.supernews.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........

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/29130...

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.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"M Port" <cosmo5@1st.net> wrote in message
news:11c2mig6taq2c8c@corp.supernews.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........
>
>
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.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

David Geesaman wrote:
> "Todd H." <t@toddh.net> wrote in message news:84ekamh7bk.fsf@ripco.com...
>
>>"David Geesaman" <dgeesamannospam@yahoo.com> writes
>>
>>> 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.
>
>
> 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


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.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

l e o wrote:

>
> 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.

--
john mcwilliams

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"l e o" <someone@somewhere.net> wrote in message
news:k0iwe.14387$eM6.8749@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...

>
> 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)

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

John McWilliams wrote:
> l e o wrote:
>
>>
>> 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

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

l e o wrote:
> John McWilliams wrote:
>
>> l e o wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> 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

Your reply contradicts the statement I questioned.

--
John McWilliams

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

John McWilliams wrote:
> l e o wrote:
>
>> John McWilliams wrote:
>>
>>> l e o wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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
>
>
> 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.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"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.
>
> 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.

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!

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"M Port" <cosmo5@1st.net> wrote in message
news:11c2mig6taq2c8c@corp.supernews.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!

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

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.

"M Port" <cosmo5@1st.net> wrote in message
news:11c2mig6taq2c8c@corp.supernews.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........
>
>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"SamS" <sams@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:GIrwe.1046735$w62.557831@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> 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.
>
> "M Port" <cosmo5@1st.net> wrote in message
> news:11c2mig6taq2c8c@corp.supernews.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........
> >
> >
>
> Thanks for all the feedback.......

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

l e o wrote:
> John McWilliams wrote:
>
>> l e o wrote:
>>
>>> John McWilliams wrote:
>>>
>>>> l e o wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> 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.

*Your* statements are contradictory.
You said: "Although IS doesn't work for sport photography..."

--
John McWilliams

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

David Geesaman wrote:
> "Todd H." <t@toddh.net> wrote in message news:84ekamh7bk.fsf@ripco.com...
>
>>"David Geesaman" <dgeesamannospam@yahoo.com> writes
>>
>>> 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.
>
>
> 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
>
>
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

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

doug <nospam@this.com> writes:

> 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/

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"doug" <nospam@this.com> wrote in message
news:42c21d1e$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> David Geesaman wrote:
>> "Todd H." <t@toddh.net> wrote in message news:84ekamh7bk.fsf@ripco.com...
>>
>>>"David Geesaman" <dgeesamannospam@yahoo.com> writes
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>>
>> 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  ( ) 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

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Skip M wrote:
> "l e o" <someone@somewhere.net> wrote in message
> news:k0iwe.14387$eM6.8749@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
>
>>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)
>
The 70~300 lens in discussion has IS version 1, Skip. Can't be used on a
tripod!

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"doug" <nospam@this.com> wrote in message
news:42c21d97$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> Skip M wrote:
>> "l e o" <someone@somewhere.net> wrote in message
>> news:k0iwe.14387$eM6.8749@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>
>>
>>>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)
>>
> 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!

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

John McWilliams wrote:
> l e o wrote:
>
>> John McWilliams wrote:
>>
>>> l e o wrote:
>>>
>>>> John McWilliams wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> l e o wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>
>
> *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...

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

l e o wrote:
>> *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

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 01:43:18 GMT, in <W0nwe.113141$xm3.80426@attbi_s21>,
"Colic" <no_spam@no.spam.com> said:

>
>"M Port" <cosmo5@1st.net> wrote in message
>news:11c2mig6taq2c8c@corp.supernews.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've got one of these too, & it's a lovely lens optically. The big
drawback is the push-pull zoom & the slow AF motor.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------