OPINIONS PLEASE [on a lens purchase]

[cgratti]

How good is this lens?

Canon Zoom Telephoto EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 EF IS Image Stabilizer USM Autofocus Lens, saw it at B&H for $414.00.

Worth it or not? Im in the market for a Tele...

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/images/largeimages/102854.jpg

[robertwgross]

You'll get better advice about a lens if you can describe your intended subjects. For example, if you say that you shoot from a tripod at small birds overhead, then that means something. If you say that you shoot handheld at race cars, then that means something else.

---Bob Gross---

[CoolToolGuy]

I have it, and my initial outing with it left me underwhelmed. The circumstances were not the best for a 75-300, but the shots seemed a little soft. Of course, I might have been expecting something closer to 'L' quality. I probably won't get to use it much for another month or so.
How soon are you looking to buy something?

Have Fun
Rick 8)

[Scottes]

Bob is definitely correct. More info helps.

But I almost got that lens and decided that I needed faster AF and longer reach. It is *reported* to have good, but not great optics. AF is supposed to be a bit slow, but not extremely slow.

But IS and 300mm for $400 - I've always thought it to be a very good deal. The next step in this range would be closer to almost 3 times the price.

[G3]

For the money it's hard to beat. Of course, if you want "L" quality, buy "L". Stay in the middle of the aperture range and the images are acceptably sharp.

[PacAce]

How good is this lens?

Canon Zoom Telephoto EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 EF IS Image Stabilizer USM Autofocus Lens, saw it at B&H for $414.00.

Worth it or not? Im in the market for a Tele...

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/images/largeimages/102854.jpg

For a hundred $$$ or so more I would go with the 70-200/4 L. Yes, it doesn't have the IS but it'll give you a heck of a lot sharper and better pictures! Just my 2 cents.

[diyjoe]

I used to have the non-IS version of that lense, and it was pretty good for the money (less than $300 if I remember correctly). Got stolen though, and I used the insurance money to buy the 100-400L IS :)

[Mills]

I had one and it was just fine. Until I switched to L glass. Basically, Canon products are great. Until you experience different quality levels of any product, more than likely you will not know what you are missing. Be careful what you allow yourself to experience because it may lighten your wallet!

[cgratti]

I have it, and my initial outing with it left me underwhelmed. The circumstances were not the best for a 75-300, but the shots seemed a little soft. Of course, I might have been expecting something closer to 'L' quality. I probably won't get to use it much for another month or so.
How soon are you looking to buy something?

Have Fun
Rick 8)

In a month or so, when the weather here actually breaks and spring has sprung...

[cgratti]

You'll get better advice about a lens if you can describe your intended subjects. For example, if you say that you shoot from a tripod at small birds overhead, then that means something. If you say that you shoot handheld at race cars, then that means something else.

---Bob Gross---

I am just trying to start a collection, nothing specific in mind. I will want to shoot some wildlife with it i'm sure, but I want to try and cover a range of lenses so no matter what I may want to photograph I have a decent lens for it. Next up after this I will be in the market for a wide angle lens... But to start, I figured I would get more use out of the tele until the wallet permits me to add another lens.

[Tom W]

If this lens is going to cover a range that you'll use, then it is a decent purchase. I've seen respectable pictures on this site from that lens. Its not a dog (somebody will kindly point out that it isn't "L" glass either).

However, if you're going to shoot frequently at full aperture or you expect to be using the lens in less-than-ideal lighting conditions, consider saving up a bit and going for a faster lens.

[RichardtheSane]

If this lens is going to cover a range that you'll use, then it is a decent purchase. I've seen respectable pictures on this site from that lens. Its not a dog (somebody will kindly point out that it isn't "L" glass either).


But it just isn't L glass...... ;) :D :mrgreen:

[chris.bailey]

I have one and to be honest it is the one Canon Lens I have bought that I am disappointed with. Its saving grace is it is quite portable but the shots at 300 are quite flat and lacking definition. I personally would avoid it almost whatever your intended subject.

[sp00g3]

I have one and to be honest it is the one Canon Lens I have bought that I am disappointed with. Its saving grace is it is quite portable but the shots at 300 are quite flat and lacking definition. I personally would avoid it almost whatever your intended subject.

I'm looking too for a new lens to cover my telephoto.. I have the 55-200.. but I'm somewhat dissapointed with it.. It is a great price.. but thats about it.

I'm looking at the following

EF 70-200mm f/4L USM
EOS EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS Image Stabilization USM
EOS EF 28-135mm F3.5-5.6 IS Image Stabilization USM
EOS EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM Zoom Lens

Now.. There is a big Range in price here for one of the lenses.. Is it worth the extra 2 stops for the 2.8L for $800 - 1000? If not.. would it be better to have IS over the F4L? I would like to see at 200mm the difference in picture between the IS and the L Lens if anyone has it

[Whaler]

For an extra $150 you can pick up a 70 - 200 f/4 "L". That was my choice and the lens never ceases to amaze me. . . . . . . . . and NOOOOO "whalerphotographic does not have one for sale. :lol:

[OviV]

I have actually been researching this lens since I own the Non-IS version and was wondering whether it would be worth upgrading. Most folks that I have talked to here and elsewhere seem to agree that I am better off saving my money and getting something like the 100-400 L when I can afford it since I will not have a very noticeable improvement.

Ovi

[Nascar Nut]

I had asked about this lens a few weeks back. Was wondering how it compared to the EF 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM Autofocus Lens. All of the replies I got said the EF 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM Autofocus Lens took better pictures. No is though. I have bought the EF 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM Autofocus Lens and have it but still know drebel. Supose to be here tomorrow. So I can not tell you personally on the quality of pics. Just thought I would give you another option. Also the lens is about a $100 cheaper.

[Canuck]

I have one and to be honest it is the one Canon Lens I have bought that I am disappointed with. Its saving grace is it is quite portable but the shots at 300 are quite flat and lacking definition. I personally would avoid it almost whatever your intended subject.

I'm looking too for a new lens to cover my telephoto.. I have the 55-200.. but I'm somewhat dissapointed with it.. It is a great price.. but thats about it.

I'm looking at the following

EF 70-200mm f/4L USM
EOS EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS Image Stabilization USM
EOS EF 28-135mm F3.5-5.6 IS Image Stabilization USM
EOS EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM Zoom Lens

Now.. There is a big Range in price here for one of the lenses.. Is it worth the extra 2 stops for the 2.8L for $800 - 1000? If not.. would it be better to have IS over the F4L? I would like to see at 200mm the difference in picture between the IS and the L Lens if anyone has it

First, F2.8 to F4 is one fstop and to F5.6 makes 2 fstops. I have another option, Sigma makes a really good 70-200 in F2.8 and F4 flavours. The only real issue is if you don't need AF. Me, I am not bothered about AF so that is a non-issue. Is it worth it, only you can tell. I like the F2.8 option as it allows me to get pics otherwise untouchable. It also makes for a really bright lens (lots of light). To me a lens starting at F5.6 seems slow but I have 3 lenses that are F2.8 ranging from 16mm to 70mm and 120-300mm. Of them, 2 are L lenses and one is Sigma EX. I have nothing bad to say about the lenses aformentioned, but one has yet to be used for the first time. I have found the F2.8 really handy when shooting portraits. Just my opinion fwiw...

[benyl]

I looked at that lens. I decided to save for the 70-200 2.8 IS. I know it is 3 to 4 times the price, but I am so happy with it.

[sp00g3]

I looked at that lens. I decided to save for the 70-200 2.8 IS. I know it is 3 to 4 times the price, but I am so happy with it.

Anybody have any experiance with the

Sigma Zoom Telephoto 70-200mm f/2.8 EX APO IF HSM
on a drebel? @ 730 @ BH.. seems like a good deal.. does anyone have a side by side of that to the F4L Canon Lens?

[kahfluie]

Anybody have any experiance with the

Sigma Zoom Telephoto 70-200mm f/2.8 EX APO IF HSM
on a drebel? @ 730 @ BH.. seems like a good deal.. does anyone have a side by side of that to the F4L Canon Lens?

I have it and use it on my 10D... love it. For the money it is VERY worth it. The F4 is probably a better lens, however if you need the extra stop... this is a lens to have. That extra stop does make a difference.

By the way, you can get it at Delta International (http://www.deltainternational.com) for about $620. I've purchased a couple of lenses from them and have had no trouble whatsoever.

The lens also gets a 4.5 rating out of 5 at http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=102&sort=7&thecat=29

Here are a couple of examples:

http://debbielou.com/photography/concerts/4him_021304/crw_0940-4him-021304_std.jpg
http://debbielou.com/photography/landscape-nature/022804/img_1208bw_std.jpg

[sp00g3]

Is that Concert picture without a flash?

If so, I think I know which lens I will get. I'm just having a tough time justifying the money for the Canon 70-200 f2.8L

[kahfluie]

Yes, that is without flash. I never use flash at concerts - well at least I try not to. :D

[sp00g3]

Yes, that is without flash. I never use flash at concerts - well at least I try not to. :D

Thas a pretty sweet photo. Thank you soo much for your help