75-300 IS USM Lens

[JCalvert]

I need help deciding on this lens or something else. I have owned a 10D for exactly 3 days ( so far its really good!), my current and only lens is the 28-135 IS USM.

Are ther any good objective reviews of the 75-300 anywhere?

Comments please.

[fox1]

I have a non-IS 75-300mm and one must assume it
is the same glass as the IS version.

Here's a sample c/w the 10D

http://www1.airpics.com/showimg.php?imgid=46055

[DigitDan]

I started out with a 70-300 Sigma lens. I used it to take pictures at local high school football games. It is difficult at best to take action shots at night. I was having a real problem with camera shake even tho I used a monopod. I upgraded to the 75-300 IS Canon lens and absolutely love it!! I will post some of the football pictures I took at Friday's game in the next day or so. The image stablization was a tremendous help!

Dan in Phoenix

[Webster]

I use the 75-300 IS all the time. I love the small size and light weight, and would never consider replacing it with a heavier lens such as the 100-400 L IS as my go-anywhere tele (though if money was not an issue, I'd add that L glass to my bag in an instant). That said, it should be noted that the USM on that lens is Canon's first attempt at the technology. It's slow and you cannot manually focus when it's set to autofocus.

I discovered an advantage to the slow autofocus on the 75-300 awhile back when I was trying out the 100-400. When shooting birds in flight my hand is nowhere near steady enough to keep the bird on the focusing square. With the fast focusing 100-400 as soon as the bird left the square the focus was lost. With the 75-100 the slight delay in changing focus let me get the subject back under the square before the focus changed and so the birds were in focus a lot more often.

[Aylwin]

I bought my 75-300 IS 2 days ago. There's another thread on this lens if you look back a bit and that helped my decision.

The first picture I took was at the store to test the lens. At 300mm 1/90s f/5.6 iso400 handheld inside the store it was pretty good.

I'm in the process of putting some pictures on pBase so I'll be able to share my photos soon.

[Longwatcher]

jcalvert wrote:


Are ther any good objective reviews of the 75-300 anywhere?

Comments please.

Not that I would trust having seen my 75-300 IS in action versus the "L" glass results. "L" glass is better, but not significantly. I know of two, but I don't trust their comments versus the 75-300 IS, seems to be biased by other opinions and does not match my experience.

The 75-300 IS is an excellent lens for the price comparable to the 28-135 IS overall (sharper at the long end). The catch with the 75-300 (the only thing I agree with the comparisons about) is it is one of the slowest focusing lenses I have (actually it IS the slowest focusing lens I have), but quite acceptable in my opinion for most things.

A final note: from reading several opinions early on, the quality control on the 75-300 IS may be a problem as there appear to be some good lens and some not so good lenses. I got a good one apparently.

[Brian Mackey]

longwatcher wrote:
jcalvert wrote:


Are ther any good objective reviews of the 75-300 anywhere?

Comments please.

Not that I would trust having seen my 75-300 IS in action versus the "L" glass results. "L" glass is better, but not significantly. I know of two, but I don't trust their comments versus the 75-300 IS, seems to be biased by other opinions and does not match my experience.

The 75-300 IS is an excellent lens for the price comparable to the 28-135 IS overall (sharper at the long end). The catch with the 75-300 (the only thing I agree with the comparisons about) is it is one of the slowest focusing lenses I have (actually it IS the slowest focusing lens I have), but quite acceptable in my opinion for most things.

A final note: from reading several opinions early on, the quality control on the 75-300 IS may be a problem as there appear to be some good lens and some not so good lenses. I got a good one apparently.


I love the lens for the work I do...

[sjprg]

Here is a shot with the 75-300 non IS
http://www.pbase.com/image/20254348
Paul

[JCalvert]

Thanks for all the notes. I get one in a week so then work begins.

[danphoto1]

If you are staying with non L lens I have the IS 75-300 Canon lens and it works very well with the 10D. My only complaint is that it is a little slow in focusing. I am spoiled because I also have some L lenses that are quicker. the lens does take nice sharp photos no complaints.

[jjguest]

i wonder a long time what lens to buy with my d60
finally, i prefer sigma 70-300 apo macro instead canon 75-300
on the link above, you can see samples of action pics
http://www.pbase.com/jjguest/roland_garros_2003

[ilya]

i also like my 75-300is, for my needs its perfect and relatively low cost, and the IS is a tremendous help.

a little bit of an annoyance, does anyone else experience the zoom creep (held upside down, the lens extends)? or is it just my version, in which case I will take it back?

thanks
ilya

[danphoto1]

Yes Sgma is a great lens and but it's not image stabilized which is a plus. I used to own a 28-300. I never had a problem with it when used with my
D60 and used it more than any other lens that I owned at the time. When I bought a 1D and 10 D some shots were blown out for no apparent reason. I swiched to the Tamron 28-300 and the problem went away. Sigma makes a nice lens but they have to cut a cornner somewhere to keep the price down. I also used to own a 28-70 f2.8 It Broke after a couple of years of use. The plastic gears inside stripped. If you like it use it. I guess there must be a reason why professionals stick with Canon lenses

[fox1]

ilya wrote:
i also like my 75-300is, for my needs its perfect and relatively low cost, and the IS is a tremendous help.

a little bit of an annoyance, does anyone else experience the zoom creep (held upside down, the lens extends)? or is it just my version, in which case I will take it back?

thanks
ilya

[Hatem Eldoronki]

I really liked this lens, until I started shooting in low light. Also, when there is no sharp contrast in what I'm shooting, the pictures really come out bad, at the 300mm end..and when I say bad, I mean soft or misfocused.
On the other hand, shooting flowers or insects with thing (in good lighting) is a pleasure..Believe it or not, this is the lens I have on all the time. I just avoid uncertain conditions (for now).

[Belmondo]

http://www.bytephoto.com/photopost/data/500/353116_1625-1_copy-med.jpg

I realize this is not an award-winning photo, but it does show what the 75-300 is capable of. This was a handheld photo taken in hot, windy conditions while standing on a bridge that shook quite a bit from the traffic passing over it behind me.

I don't think I'd give up my IS for anything.

[DAMphyne]

This is one I shot with the 75-300 IS lens.
Maybe it's not a "Great" lens, but it does a super job for me.

http://www.photoblink.com/images/c18/im/pb82856.jpg
(second try)

http://www.photoblink.com/imageview.asp?imageid=82856
(third try)

[Brian Mackey]

fox1 wrote:
ilya wrote:
i also like my 75-300is, for my needs its perfect and relatively low cost, and the IS is a tremendous help.

a little bit of an annoyance, does anyone else experience the zoom creep (held upside down, the lens extends)? or is it just my version, in which case I will take it back?

thanks
ilya



My 28-135 creeps also and yes my 75-300 does too :)

[Aylwin]

I think my 75-300IS is really loose. When the lens hood is attached and I pick it up from the camera bag the lens fully extends. When I turn it upside down to put it back in the bag it extends. It's a new lens so I'm afraid it'll get even worse.

Is this normal? I'm probably going to have checked. I really don't feel confident with this one I have right now.