75-300 for temporary use on 10D?

[MarkH]

OK I have recently bought a 10D + 50mm f1.8 + 28-135 IS + 2 x 512MB CF

My situation now is that I find myself wanting more zoom, I really want to get a 100-400L but that will take quite a few months to save for.

One idea I had was to buy a Canon 75-300 USM (not IS) because it costs very little and would give me some useful reach. Later I could sell it when I can afford a 100-400L.

So is this a good idea, how useable is a 300mm without IS? Will the pictures come out OK.

Obviously this is not a lens for low-light photography, unless used with a tripod.

I'm really just after a cheap option to give me a zoom with at least 300mm for a few months till I can afford the lens I really want.

[Longwatcher]

Not sure about that lens specifically,
but I do get some good pictures from my 75-300 IS with the IS turned off if on tripod at all ranges.
I suspect though that the pictures will not be as good based on the change of lens structure (fewer groups/elements) and the much lower price. However, I suspect for outdoors on a tripod you will get good enough pictures until you can afford the 100-400 IS.

Have fun

[SoCal69]

I also have a 70-300 lens non-IS lens (not Canon unfortunately). I use it with no problems at all. Low light conditions would obviously require a tripod, but I have used it a number of times with ambient outdoor lighting and gotten good results.

[UK_Terry]

Have a look here, all these were taken with the 10D & 75 - 300

http://robinsfc.topcities.com/RobinsFC_Photos/u14_Cup_Final/index.htm

and these were taken with a D30 & 100 - 400 L IS
(since sold to buy 10D)

http://robinsfc.topcities.com/RobinsFC_Photos/SrobVGcity/index.htm

i find the 75 - 300 very acceptable, obviously not as good as the 100 - 400L IS, but £1000 cheaper.