From: ka1gt@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (robert.m.atkins)
Subject: Re: EF 75-300 (was Re: Elan Telephoto Zoom Lenses)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 18:29:47 GMT

In article <TJWU.93Jan22023050@alfredo.mit.edu>, tjwu@athena.mit.edu (Thomas J Wu) writes:
> In article <1993Jan21.180920.29010@cbnewsm.cb.att.com> ka1gt@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (robert.m.atkins) writes:
> 
> >  Let me add some numbers. Comparing here the Canon EF75-300, The Sigma 75-300,
> >  the Sigma 75-300 APO and the Tamron 90-300 (all from Pop Photog tests).
> 
> [lots of data deleted]
> 
> >  I could go on, but I think the point should have been made by now. The next
> >  time someone dismisses the Canon EF75-300 zoom as a poor performer ask them
> >  what the basis is for their comments. In many ways it outperforms the
> >  Sigma 75-300 (which is regarded as an OK lens), the Sigma 75-300 APO (which
> >  is regarded as a good lens) and the Tamron 90-300 (which I have heard no
> >  critical comments about). I did not include the Minolta 100-300(i?) zoom
> >  which was tested in the same Pop Photog issue as the Canon lens because
>    it did so poorly, especially at 300mm.
> 
> Do you have numbers for the EF 100-300 USM and the EF 70-210 USM to
> compare with the numbers you have?  I believe the basis for "knocking"
> the EF 75-300 was its performance relative to these alternatives.
> I don't think anyone seriously considered the Sigma or Tamron lenses
> as viable alternatives.
> 
> --
> Thomas Wu                                                  "Raise shields."
> Internet:  tjwu@athena.mit.edu                             "What shields?"

I don't have direct comparable test data on the 100-300USM or the 70-210.
I do have Lepp's data on the Sigma 75-300APO (also tested in Pop Photog)
and the 100-300USM and 70-210, but it is in a very different format and
thus difficult to compare. However, the SIgma 75-300APO was rated very
highly by Lepp. It was almost on a par with the EF100-300L and Nikon
75-300 at shorter (<200mm) focal lengths, but fell a little behind at 300mm.
Note also though that it performed as well as the 100-300USM at 300mm, if
not better. So, if the EF75-300 is close to the Sigma 75-300APO (and
better wide open at 300mm!) and the SIgma 75-300 APO is equal to or better
than the 100-300USM at 300mm, then it follows that the EF75-300 is close
to or better than the 100-300USM......

However, please note that these tests are done on ONE lens, by different
techniques, at different times under diffrent conditions. Every test is
suject to some uncertainty, and there will be lens to lens variations.
What it does show is that the EF75-300 is NOT a junk lens, and it might
be optically similar to the 100-300USM. Personally I would buy the
100-300USM just because of its USM internal focusing which is fast
and quiet, but if I needed to save a few bucks and wanted the 4:1
zoom range, I'd take the 75-300.. (Canon should pay me for this
defense of their lens.....)

===============================================================
Bob Atkins  AT&T Bell Labs  email (direct)  att!clockwise!rma
===============================================================
Newsgroups: rec.photo