RF 75-300 Lens - Mk2 or Mk3

[hhyndman]

Hi there
Just got an EOS 300D, and looking for some lenses. Could anyone tell me if there is much difference between the Mk2 and Mk3 versions of the 75-300 USM lens ?

Thanks
Hugh.

[Nolz]

wouldnt know the finer differences but just wanted to suggest contemplating the IS version...i recently aquired the 75-300mm III and only wished that i had got the IS version.....even on a tripod i still wish i had known a little more at bout lenses at the time.....

[sjprg]

A lot of people knock the 75-300, but they shouldn't.
Here are a few handheld Non IS.

http://www.pbase.com/image/20254348
http://www.pbase.com/image/20333482
http://www.pbase.com/image/21594328
http://www.pbase.com/image/22587237

[ron chappel]

Sorry to pick on the previous poster but those pics prove how soft the 75-300 is!
Yes the duck and the camel pics work very well.The camel one only because razorsharpness is just not needed for hair.

I have owned several 75-300's and now have one that is WAY above average so i'm reasonably content...but it's still not even close to a 70-200/4 L for example.

The main differences between the II and III versions MAY be focus speed.It's a big maybe - i did once hear someone say that their 75-300III could focus as fast as their 50/1.8.(but i wonder if they had an early version 50/1.8? which were quite slow)

In any case i can tell you for sure that the II version (and earlier ones) are REALLY slow to focus compared to allmost any other lens.So if focus speed is important then definitely avoid everything but the III version-and even then find out for sure that it is reasonable before buying

A 50/1.8 II takes about 1/3 of a second to move from 1m focus distance to infinity (or back)
A 75-300II takes about 1.5 secs+ to go from 3m (so same magnification as 50/1.8 was tested at) to infinity or back again
Its a little faster at the short end...

[T_O_M]

I Have a 75-300mm Mk II and I have had it for nearly 6 years (used it with a EOS 500n). It's not the sharpest or fastest lens but I get reasonable pictures from it. Here are a couple examples taken with my 10D.

http://www.bytephoto.com/photopost/data/500/928102_0213.jpg?2492

http://www.bytephoto.com/photopost/data/500/928102_0242.jpg?2423

[Nolz]

i managed to take a couple of fair shots at 300mm with my 300D today of some parrots in afternoon light...i can email them to you if you are interested shots were taken on a tripod. send me a pm with your email addy if so ;)

[sjprg]

Ron: If you want to see BAD. look at the 70-200 f/2.8 images posted in the same pbase. This lens has been to Canon twice. First time it came back with the set screw in the ojective lens overtightened which cracked it.
At which point Canon charged me over $400.00 to repair. Still arguing with them over that.

The image of San Francisco was taken from over 5 miles away. Not bad for a $170.00 lens I would say. This one has been printed at 24 X 30 and framed for my office wall. Came out great.

[ron chappel]

Wow paul,sounds like you had some bad luck with the 'good' lens! :(
I'm curious now-i'll have a look at the pbase pics.
I'm seriously going to try out the 100-300 model.They are supposed to be better optically so it would be good to find out so i can honestly recommend it(if it is indeed better) to those looking for something a little better than the 75-300

[ron chappel]

WHOA...
Sory but my focus measurement tests aren't quite right-the 75-300 is not that slow on my 300D.Maybe it was just the other cameras i tested it on were both slow

[hhyndman]

Thanks everybody,
Very helpfull.
Hugh.