New canon lens, 80-200 or 75-300 ??

[arumdevil]

I have had my 300D for about two weeks now with the kit lens (18-55mm) but I now want to get a longer lens.

I am now trying to decide between two canon models:

75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 MK3 at €235

or

EF 80-200mm f/4.5-5.6 MK 2 at €178



as far as I can see the reasons to get the 80-200 would be that it costs less (I need to get more CF memory, card reader tridpod etc too) and it weighs less.

but the 75-300 has longer focal length which would be nice.

can anyone advise me which would be the better descision? and if I end up going for the 75-300 is it worth the extra for the USM version?

thanks very much

:)

[Lamplight]

I have the 75-300mm and if you plan to get it I would recommend buying the IS model as it can be pretty difficult to hold steady at full zoom. I even have trouble when using a tripod! It also seems like it's not terribly sharp, but then again it's fairly cheap so I don't expect it to be incredible. I suppose it's still a decent lens considering the low price, which is why I bought it (there's no way I could afford even the cheapest L lenses!)

[arumdevil]

yeah, I took my camera to a shop today and tried it out. It was hard to hold steady at full zoom but I was pleased with the quality of the shots (not that they were ideal shots to tell from).

How much more is the IS model? they didn't have it in stock.

In any case you seem to have bought the lens for the same reasons I am considering it: It's cheap and seems good valuebut I know it's no L! (not that I have ever looked through L glass ;) ).

the compact size of the 80-200 is tempting, but I think I'd prefer to have the extra range.

So it looks like I'll be getting the 75-300 tomorrow (or ordering the IS or USM if the price is right) unless anyone has any other reason why I should get the 80-200 instead....

thanks lamplight

[Lamplight]

After you buy this lens, it appears that we will have the exact same setup. :D Here's a picture I took with the lens:

http://community.webshots.com/photo/131272961/137125178CrwoMi

[arumdevil]

wow, nice pic! i'm looking forward to being able to get some decent moon shots too (or at least much more decent than you can get with the 18-55;) )

I had a look at the IS version and it is over twice the cost of the standard or USM versions! unfortunately I can't stretch that far :(

do you have the USM version or the standard? is it worth getting the USM? are there other benefits besides quieter focusing?

I'm itching to get this lens and they have the standard in stock but I will have to order in the USM version - I just don't know if I can sit tight that long ;)

[ron chappel]

First of all you have made the right choices for a good value telezoom!
I have used most consumer telezooms including some non canon ones and these two are the two i would consider as the best two bargains.
The 80-200II is the unknown gem of the kit zoom line! Very sharp,VERY contrasty(maybe too much at times),tiny,light and very fast focusing!
Don't bother at all with the USM version as the std one is superfast.

The 75-300 is the lowest i'd go in an x-300 zoom.Sigma make a cheaper one and maybe the canon 90-300 is cheaper too?(if available where you are) but the 75-300 gets some very nice looking pics where those others aren't good enough in my opinion!.Sharpness and contrast are less than the 80-200 but acceptable most of the time .Focus is definitely slow but still acceptable.The thing is that the usm version focus is not much better........
I honestly don't know which version to recommend-usm or non usm

Here's a folder of pics from the 75-300 (it's the II model but they are all the same optically,including the image satbilizer model)
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=368574

Sorry i don't have any examples from the 80-200II
all the best with it!

[msvadi]

Visit http://www.photodo.com/prod/lens/canon.shtml
You'll find that 75-300 non-IS is rated higher than 80-200 and 75-300 IS.

The non-USM version is only marginally cheaper than the one with the USM. I think that it does make sense to get the USM.

My friend has 75-300 III USM. I borrowed it for a couple of day to play with it. I think it gives a fair performance for the money, probably, much better than any other consumer zoom lens of the same focal length range. Sharpness and contrast are good if you stop the lens down ( f/8 ) and don't zoom-in too much (I checked it only at 135mm). I don't know if the USM will give you faster focusing. Probably not. III USM did not focus any faster than my non-USM 135 f/2.8. Still, the USM is nice and worth spending extra $20-$30. Purple fringing can be really bad. The build quality is not good either.

My main problem with the 75-300 is that it's not fast enough. The 135mm 2.8 prime gives me almost 2 extra stops comparing to 75-300 at 135mm. For me it's very important even if at that focal length 75-300 gets quite close to 135mm 2.8 in terms of sharpness.

[arumdevil]

Yeah, I was originally looking at a TAMRON 70-300 F/4-5.6 and then a Sigma 70-300mm F4/5.6DL, but both of those where based only on the jessops website.

I went out today and tried a few including a tamron 28-200 but that was to expenisve. The others I tried where all Canons and the 75-300 and 80-200 where the two that matched my budget. The 90-300 you mention is more at Jessops in the UK but here in Ibiza it may be different, but they may not have it as the range here is not so good.

I've pretty much decided on the 75-300 but still undecided as to get the USM or not. I will try them both out a bit more thoroughly before I buy though.

thanks for your input

[msvadi]

get the USM ;)

[arumdevil]

i don't mean this to sound rude, but WHY?

I'm new to all this so I'm still not entirely clear what ALL the advantages are. please explain :)

[ron chappel]

With the better canon USM designs you can overide the focus at anytime without turning the focus switch off.Also the good designs are genuinely fast and quiet while the consumer zooms with usm are none of these.

Some consumer zoom's usm are very fast and quiet but it depends on the model you get! I've seen non usm's outperform usm's in both speed and silence! (comparable models)

Anyway-the 75-300 has the cheap usm motor design with none of the good features.On that model it DOES speed up and quiet down the focus abit from the non usm model but not alot....
There is no huge benifit unless you are doing stuff that really needs fast focus----but then i'd say forget any of the 75-300 models anyway and get something genuinely good like the canon 100-300 :)

[arumdevil]

thanks chap,

i think I'll just go for the normal version in that case, and put the pennies I save into CF cards and tripods!

thanks again :)

[msvadi]

oh yeah, tripods ;)
don't buy a cheap one, you'll hate it eventually. A tripod is too important to save on it ;) Here in the US good tripods are around $200 ;)

[arumdevil]

oh yeah, tripods ;)
don't buy a cheap one, you'll hate it eventually. A tripod is too important to save on it ;) Here in the US good tripods are around $200 ;)

Ahhh! well I'll have to get a cheap one for now :(

i'll get a good one later. I'm all for quality kit and I cringe at the thought of having to settle for "low quality" stuff, but I just can't afford the good stuff at the moment, and this is just a hobby, and I have a nother hobby that's equally as expensive (Digital music recording/production) so funds are short.

[ron chappel]

is a very simple way of choosing a cheap tripod....
Just go in the store and twist each one by hand-there is an amazing amount of difference between some of them! :shock:

Be sure each one is fully splayed in it's strongest position of course

[Lamplight]

I bought a very cheap tripod about a year ago ($25), and I have found that it is not up to task with my DRebel, so I am currently saving for a good one. :) However, it is much better than nothing, so if you're like me and on a very tight budget, you may want to go ahead and get a very cheap one now and then save for a good one down the road. Once you get the good one you can use the cheap tripod for mounting your second 550EX flash that you also "need". :D However, if you think you can sqeeze out $150-$200 for a tripod now, I am sure it would be well worth it. Unfortunately I cannot, so my plastic piece of crap will have to do for now. :lol:

[arumdevil]

I just got a crappy plastic one! actually it doesn't seem too bad to me, it's the Hama gamma 72. it is a bit bulky though, I might take it back and see if there's a slightly smaller one.

At the other shop where I got the lens the guy told me the gamma one was crap and that it is always breaking. He showed me a "much better one" lol, it didn't look good to me!

Oh yeah, I got the 75-300mm bye the way! I hope I made the right choice. I haven't looked at the pics yet.......

right I'm off to look at the first round of pics from my new lens! :)

[jalafer]

I bought today the 15 May edition of "Le chasseur d'images" and they tested the Sigma 75-300 in real use with the 300D. Surprisingly the results are very good, it has 4 stars, much better then the Canon's consumer lenses.
Only in 300mm and full open is not very sharp, the rest is really good.
This magazine has a new testing system created by DXO OPtics, so you can really trust on these results.
By the way, the results with similar lenses in the Nxxxx.D70 are worst than in the Canons, the sensor of the N. seems to be not that good.

[arumdevil]

Thanks Jalafer, but I already got the canon one. I am quite pleased with it but there isn't much wildlife (well, not that right kind for this lens anyway ;) ) in ibiza so I haven't used it much yet.

I have noticed it's a lot sharper than the kit 18-55 lens, which I am now struggling to find adequate for close-ups.

So now I want a macro lens :twisted: it'll have to wait.

thanks for all your help guys

[ron chappel]

jalafer can you tell us the exact model sigma?
The 100-300DL is the cheap one
The 70-300DL macro the middle one
the 70-300APO macro super II is ther best one

[EdViesturs]

Are there considerable differences between the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 II USM and the 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III USM ?

The MKII is available locally here in Vancouver for $80 more than the newer MKIII. I'm just curious to see which would be the better option.

[ron chappel]

I've heard time and again that all 75-300 models (except the very first one) have the same optical formula,so should have near identical performance

I have heard the III version may be abit faster in focusing but have yet to confirm it

[EdViesturs]

I've heard time and again that all 75-300 models (except the very first one) have the same optical formula,so should have near identical performance

I have heard the III version may be abit faster in focusing but have yet to confirm it

Then its interesting that the MKIII is cheaper.

[jalafer]

The zoom tested by "le chasseur .." is the Sigma 70-300 f/3,5-5,6 Apo-Macro. The results are even better than the new Canon 70-300 DO !!

Also they tested 2 Canmon zooms with the 1D MKII, the 24-70 and the 7'-200/2,8. Of course both have given 4 stars.

[ron chappel]

Yes,i'm not sure why the II version should be more sought after.Maybe people think it is more rugged because it looks abit bigger??
Not sure.I had one,even pulled it apart to fix something and can assure you the build quality ain't nothing to be thrilled about :?

[ron chappel]

Visit http://www.photodo.com/prod/lens/canon.shtml
You'll find that 75-300 non-IS is rated higher than 80-200 and 75-300 IS.


I think they must have had a dud 80-200?My experience with it,Other experienced photographers comments and canon's own MTF charts all point to the 80-200 being better than the 75-300

It does have some minor faults (odd colour ballance?)but it is an amazing litle lens for the money.I hope to get another some day to do proper tests as i sold the last one just before i got the 300D

*also i totally forgot the purple fringing of the 75-300-it's rarely objectionable but it sure is there :shock: