EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6

[c0ntr0lz]

Canon Zoom Telephoto EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III Autofocus Lens
and there is this one
Canon Zoom Telephoto EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III USM Autofocus Lens

what's the difference?

i found this info on ef lens site

EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III
The optical system, construction, and exterior are the same as the EF 75-300 mm f/4-5.6 III USM’s. The difference is that it uses a DC motor instead of a USM to drive the AF.

EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM
Compact and lightweight 4x telephoto zoom lens ideal for shooting sports, portraits, and wildlife. The newly developed Micro USM makes autofocusing quicker and quieter. The improved zoom mechanism also makes zooming smoother. The front part of the zoom ring now sports a silver ring for a luxury touch.


so the USM is just a bit quitter and smoother?
so i should buy it right? :D

[Tom W]

Optically, they are the same. But the USM should be quicker, quieter, and more accurate in focusing. Keep in mind that the micro-USM used on this lens is not the same as the Ring-type USM used on some Canon lenses.

[c0ntr0lz]

ok kool
that's what i was guessing

good lens or no?

[Tom W]

Not sure how good it is - I've seen some good shots with it though.

Check photozone.de, photodo.com, and fredmiranda.com for some lens tests.

[ron chappel]

They both focus quite slowish so go for the USM for evey bit of speed you can get.
Optically it's a very average lens ,but because it gets most things reasonably right you can at least get occasional lovely pics with them.
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=368574 note that this II version is the same optically as the III
That has been my experience-lots of duds and occasional good ones.
I would put it in the 'just good enough' category.

Models such as the canon 90-300
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=393245
or sigma 100-300DL
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=386640
i don't think are quite good enough

And models such as canon 100-300 or sigma 70-300 APO macro super II are definitely quite good

(i've used all of these except the last sigma mentioned-it has a good rep tho)

[Lamplight]

I own the USM version and it's not bad for the money. Yes, it does focus pretty slowly, and it doesn't seem to be very sharp at anything over 200mm, but I still enjoy using it. :)

I shot this one at 300mm, and I think it looks pretty soft:

http://img70.photobucket.com/albums/v214/lamplightsg/Bird21.jpg

And this one was at 75mm. Seems to be fairly sharp, except for the building in the foreground which I wasn't focusing on anyway :):

http://img70.photobucket.com/albums/v214/lamplightsg/Buildings46.jpg

Of course I realize those are two entirely different subjects, but that's what I have. :) I've noticed that sometimes this lens also has some fairly severe cases of purple fringing. Example, 100% crop:

http://img70.photobucket.com/albums/v214/lamplightsg/Buildings48crop.jpg

Regardless, I still like the lens reasonably well and have not yet regretted buying it. :)

[c0ntr0lz]

exellent guys
i thank yall for all the info
and the pix of proof

[robertwgross]

My 75-300mm lens is version II.

When my first Canon film camera was new, I took that lens to East Africa for the wildlife, and it worked fine. However, my standards were low then.

It's OK for the low cost.

---Bob Gross---

[c0ntr0lz]

ok
thanks

i'm begining to think i may just go and spend it on something like the:

Canon Zoom Telephoto EF 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM Autofocus Lens
or
Sigma Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 Macro Autofocus Lens for Canon EOS
or
Canon Zoom Telephoto EF 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM Autofocus Lens

[ron chappel]

The 28-300 is handy but will have lower image quality than the 75-300 for sure N
(no i havn't used one-just seen pics...)
The tamron 28-300 xr is better but still not great-it too is no better than the 75-300(maybe abit worse- i tested one but the results were not definite)
Not trying to talk you out of certain models though!
I don't know if i'd ever deliberately choose a do-all lens when two lenses give better all round images (and more choices) but they are tempting..

[c0ntr0lz]

nah you're talking me out of them
i'm trying to find a nice telephoto lens

i have the 18-55mm so i'm needing something above that and trying to find something that's not an L lens

if i get the 100-300 i can fill that gap later but for now i need wome range

[msvadi]

75-300 is actually rated higher than 100-300 by photodo.com

[ron chappel]

75-300 is actually rated higher than 100-300 by photodo.com
That will be a mistake for sure
they must have a bad example of the 100-300,a brilliant 75-300 or both!
Sure,some on the net say that the 100-300 is not ALOT better but i'd have to dissagree.I used three 75-300's and they were all worse than the 100-300 -particularly at the long end im happy to say :D :D
Bob atkins over at p.net has used several of each and says the 100-300 is only slightly better.....go figure

In any case,the 100-300 i found was REALLY easy to get good pics with,while the the 75-300 only occasionally got good ones

[arumdevil]

c0ntr0lz, I have had my 300D (rebel) for about a month now. I got it with the kit lens and a couple of weeks ago i got the Canon 75-300 f/4.0-5.6 III (non USM).

Now I'm sure it's no L !, but I can't afford that Class yet! so for me it is an excellent addition to the kit lens. It is a bit on the slow and noisy side when focusing, but I focus manually most of the time anyway - the USM version may be a bit better in this respect. overall I am very pleased with it.

[Tom W]

75-300 is actually rated higher than 100-300 by photodo.com

I use photodo for evidence, but you need to be certain that you remember one thing - they generally only test one sample of a lens so whether it happens to be exceptionally bad or good, that is the data they will post (or did post - they haven't done anything in a couple of years).

So yes, its good to look there, but use that evidence in combination with other imput.

[Tom W]

BTW, Canon's 100-300 does have a true ring-type USM so it should be a very fast focusing lens.

[msvadi]

Good point. But, from my limited experience, there raings coincide with what I see in practice. I trust them so far ;)

75-300 is actually rated higher than 100-300 by photodo.com

I use photodo for evidence, but you need to be certain that you remember one thing - they generally only test one sample of a lens so whether it happens to be exceptionally bad or good, that is the data they will post (or did post - they haven't done anything in a couple of years).

So yes, its good to look there, but use that evidence in combination with other imput.

[Tom W]

Good point. But, from my limited experience, there raings coincide with what I see in practice. I trust them so far ;)

75-300 is actually rated higher than 100-300 by photodo.com

I use photodo for evidence, but you need to be certain that you remember one thing - they generally only test one sample of a lens so whether it happens to be exceptionally bad or good, that is the data they will post (or did post - they haven't done anything in a couple of years).

So yes, its good to look there, but use that evidence in combination with other imput.

I trust that they've gotten the results that they have, and I don't think that they're going to present false information. However, I had a pretty lousy 70-210 f/3.5-4.5 that defied its 3.1 rating on Photodo, by showing a nasty softness and some serious CA. On the other hand, the 3.3-rated 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 has been quite good.

I just think its a good idea to gather all the information that you can before making a purchase.

[c0ntr0lz]

i'm not too worried about it's speed and noise just want a nice clear pic at the end of it

i thank everyone for their info

[cmM]

75-300
75-300 USM
75-300 IS USM

The difference in optics betweem the first 2 (they're the same) and the IS version is very small. The non IS version gives higher image resolution, but it's not noticeable on a DSLR (at all).

As far as focus goes, the difference between the first and second is very small, but the USM is quieter (from what I heard). The price difference is small, so go for the USM one. But don't expect to handhold at slow shutter speeds.

I got a USM (non IS) 75-300, and I'm okay with it....until I have enough money for the L
http://www.cmuntean.net/images/orange.html
all of these were taken with this lens, most of them at 300mm

[cecilc]

I've got that lens and I have to say that I do like it ....

I posted some shots on the following thread about a month ago. There are 4 shots there (women's college lacrosse), and all were taken with my 10D with the 75-300 III non-IS version.

http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=29595

Personally, I don't have any complaints about the lens.

[c0ntr0lz]

great shots guys
the lens looks nice altho i'm not looking at orginal images. it's hard to say but that's a pretty sharp lens and yall are pushing them all the way out and taking them at high ISOs to get the pix and they are still clear.

thanks guys

[yb98]

Controlz,
we got our DRebel almost at the same time. After a few days, I got the 50mm 1.8, which I found great. Like you, now I'm looking for a telezoom. After a long thinking, I arrived to the conclusion that it's better to go directly to an L lens. Because even if you buy a non L lens now, you will certainly buy an L lens later. So go directly and buy an L lens now. That's why I think my next lens will be the 70-200 f4 L. This lens seems very sharp from what I have read and is well rated at photodo.

For a longer zoom (300mm) it seems that an IS is necessary. I don't know if a 300mm withtout IS is really useful...
So for me the choice would be between a 300mm+IS and a 200mm+L
I think I prefer a 200mm+L. I can still buy a 1,4x extender after (which leads me to 280mm).

But what I don't know : is the 70-200 4L + 1,4 extender still better than the 75-300 ? If yes, then I think it's better to buy the 70-200 4L.

Yacine.

[c0ntr0lz]

choices choices
thanks for helping me debate this from the same standing

[aam1234]

choices choices

How about more choices! I'm debating the 100-400 L or the Bigma. Can't make up my mind, though i'm leaning more in Bigma's direction...30% less $$.

[c0ntr0lz]

yeah i know
i can afford some of the L glass but man are they up there

[aam1234]

I know what you mean (sigh)

[DAMphyne]

I use the 75-300 IS for sports, it's not a "Great" lens, but I do get some good pics with it. Here are some samples, to get the full size, click on the image after the thumbnail. These are 'jpeg medium' with no post processing.
http://damphyne.com/gallery/BaseBall

I think the IS helps, especially at full zoom.
Good luck finding what you need, hope this adds to your decision problem.
:D

[wwp]

i think it will depend on how you use the lens. check out two galleries at www.pbase.com/wwp for examples: "chico:graduation" and "chico: pioneer day parade" it depends on how much post-processing you enjoy doing. in the graduation i used a nik filter and layers (i think with no sharpening) and in the parade some lightening, layers, and some selective sharpening. by contrasting levels of sharpness i think the lens comes off quite well (and i shot at 300 a lot). (and it's fun to use) also, it's much lighter (and plastic) than the L lenses i've read about.
wayne
ps. i have the usm version II. i really like the quietness of usm and it will be a consideration in any lens i buy from here on out.

[c0ntr0lz]

i'm not sure what yall are looking at but those are some really nice pix
i'm not sure why ppl are saying the lens can't produce good images
those are some great pix guys