How do you rate the 75-300 IS ?

[quickben]

Following my question to CoolToolGuy, does anyone else have anything to say about the 75-300 mm 4.5-5.6 IS ?

Good or bad, i'd like to hear your opinions before I decide whether or not to buy one.

Thanks in advance :D

Gary.

[Jesper]

I don't have the 75-300 IS myself - I just bought the new 70-300 DO IS lens.

Here are some reviews by users: http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=18&sort=7&thecat=27 - the average rating there is 2.7 out of 5, so people there think it's not a super lens.

Here is another article: http://www.photo.net/canon/75-300IS/ and another one: http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/x-300.html

Looks like most people agree that the 75-300 lenses are average consumer-quality lenses - but it's hard to say if you are going to like it or not...

[Longwatcher]

I liked my 75-300 IS and still do as my travel lens, but I like my 70-200/2.8 IS better (except when I have held it for 2 hours straight 8)

Some of the sharpest pictures I have gotten were from my 75-300 IS when it was brand new. That said, once I got "L" fever I found a huge difference in over all quality in the picture, even if the 75-300 took technically sharper pictures.

Number one gripe is it won't take a canon extender.

I will sum it all up by saying, I would not sell my 75-300 IS as it is a fine lens for the price and I took many pictures with it until I could afford "L" glass. I keep it as a light travel lens and as a backup to my 70-200.
Just my opinion,

[pradeep1]

It's a decent consumer grade lens. I like it to a point. Make sure to use the hood when using it, since stray light kills the contrast. I dislike the creep on the zoom head when tilted down. :wink:

[Laziferous]

I would agree about "creep". If you're walking around with the camera on your neck, and this lens mounted, expect it to creep out a considerable amount within 15 minutes.

I'm undecided on sharpness... because I usually shoot with the aperture wide open, to maintain a relatively fast shutter speed, without having to push the ISO past 400. It's definitely not as sharp as I'd like it to be, but I have gotten decent shots from it. The best results have been when I had the camera in "One Shot" autofocus mode, or manual, rather than "AI Servo". The USM motor in this lens is VERY slow... too slow to be consistently accurate. A contributing factor to slow focusing may be the camera itself (10D), but I don't think to the degree that I'm seeing. The 75-300 is just SLOW. My 50mm f1.8, and 17-40 f4 are about three times faster with autofocus.

An issue I don't care for, is chromatic aberrations. It can be very bad in high contrast situations. Especially when sunlight is reflected on water. It can be horrible. The color and contrast seems to be a bit flat with this lens compared to my others as well.

For the price I've seen the lens, I guess it isn't bad. It's definitely good to have in cases when you would have otherwise missed the shot. For example, I came across a Barred Owl in the woods the other day, and was able to take a few mediocre shots of the encounter. If I didn't have the 75-300, I would have no shot at all. My only other lenses are the ones stated above.

As has probably been stated before... you get what you pay for :?

I'm not really into wildlife photography so much (though it can be rather fun sometimes), but if I ever start spending more time shooting wildlife, I'll just get the 100-400 f4L. Pricey... but in my opinion worth it. I don't shoot wildlife enough to justify that price right now though, don't know if I ever will. Maybe a used one.

Good luck in your decision making process.

[billhercus]

I was not too happy with this lens initially (the inevitable duck photos provided my main test pictures I hate to admit) and swapped it for the Sigma 100-300 f4 EX.

The difference at 100% crop was really substantial, backing up the excellent reviews this lens has had.

I have now added the 1.4TC and have a very powerful telephoto capability at comparatively modest cost.

Some of the Sigma EX lenses certainly compare very favourably with the L series at much less cost, a fact that is oft repeated in photographic forums around.

Not an easy walking around lens though, which may affect your choice.

Worth considering ....

[SDK^]

I had this lens for a while and found it to be too soft, I also tried the 100-300 lens with distance scale and the better USM but that was also soft. It's still a reasonably good lens - especially considering the price :)

[DAMphyne]

The 75-300IS lens has served me very well. It's light and does a reasonable job of getting the shot. It doesn't do a great job under low-light conditions, but with good light and considering the cost, I vote yes.
Some samples:

http://damphyne.com/albums/FlowersButterflies/IMG_0045_Bee_02.sized.jpg
http://damphyne.com/albums/FlowersButterflies/IMG_5062.sized.jpg
http://damphyne.com/albums/BaseBall/CBB_Youth_120.sized.jpg
http://damphyne.com/albums/BaseBall/BrCoachPitch_054.sized.jpg
To view some full size, unprocessed, images use this link.
http://damphyne.com/gallery/BaseBall
(click on sized image to view full-size)

[quickben]

Thank you for all your advice !

After considering all the options, I'm probably going to get the 100-400L.

Because of the price of this lens, however, I'm not getting a 24-70L and getting the Tamron 28-75mm XR Di instead. A very competent lens, I'm told.

I hope. Has anyone got it ?

Gary.

[msvadi]

I don't have it, but I tried the non-IS version. Photo.do rates the non-IS version higher than the one with IS. The lens good, in my opinion, in terms of sharpness around 135mm range. Purple fringing can be absolutely horrible.

An option to consider is 100-300mm f/5.6L. There is one nw on the ebay with $450 buy it now option. Clamed to be in mint condition and looks very good on the picture. I'm considering it myself, but I don't want to pay more than $350. I'd better get 70-200 f/4L than 100-300mm f/5.6L for that price. On the other hand, I don't really need the focal lengths of more than 200mm.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3820997118&sspagename= STRK%3AMEWA%3AIT&rd=1

[Lamplight]

I'm not really into wildlife photography so much (though it can be rather fun sometimes), but if I ever start spending more time shooting wildlife, I'll just get the 100-400 f4L. Pricey... but in my opinion worth it. I don't shoot wildlife enough to justify that price right now though, don't know if I ever will. Maybe a used one.

I have the non-IS version of this lens and I feel pretty much the same way. I often take pictures of wildlife, but for now I don't do it to get a great shot, I'm just doing it for fun. If I ever get to the point where I want high quality wildlife shots, I'll probably save for the 100-400L.

Here's an example of purple fringing from my non IS version (100% crop):

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

[IanBMW]

So far I am not totally impressed with the lense sorry to say. But it wasnt too expensive and it does seem to get the job done 95%of the time.

[cc10d]

quickben said: Thank you for all your advice !

After considering all the options, I'm probably going to get the 100-400L.

Because of the price of this lens, however, I'm not getting a 24-70L and getting the Tamron 28-75mm XR Di instead. A very competent lens, I'm told.

*
I know you will be happy with this choice. The 100 -400 L IS is a very handy and good performing lens. I enjoy mine very much.

I returned my 24-70 L within the week of buying it. The one I had was soft wide open, good stopped down to f8, but I paid for f2.8 and other one in the store was the same. I just use the 28-135 IS for this range not as fast but works at a lot lower cost.

I havn't used the Tamron.

Enjoy those pictures. Chuck

[droosan]

I know nothing about the 100-400L. It's out of my league. However I have both the 75-300 and the EF200/2.8L. They are similarly price and I use the 200 prime much much more than the 75-300 because it is much much more responsive, in especially in anything other than bright sunlight.

[Laziferous]

I had a chance to use the 75-300 IS over the weekend on a kayaking trip, and I have to say, that I was surprised, and impressed with the results this time. I'll have to agree with whoever said it is a "competent" lens. It doesn't seem to be 100% consistent with aberrations, or softness. I haven't figured out exactly why yet, but I'm going to start shooting with it more often, to see if I can pick up on what circumstances cause what effects. Of course, I always take shutter speed, aperture, lighting conditions, and scene contrast into account, but I want to see if I can pick up on some other factors I'm not considering, when comparing shots.


http://home.comcast.net/~pottajava/CRW_6397_std.jpg

[arogop]

In my opinion you need IS for anything over 200mm. The 75-300 was the only long lens with IS in my price range.

In the last 11 months I have taken about 4000 pictures with my 75-300 and have been moslty satisfied. It does have plenty of issues in low light, of course my 50 1.8 also has some of those issues.

The pictures I take with my 50 are almost always sharper, which you would expect.

I mainly now only use my 75-300 in bright light and for bird shots.

[sparty314]

Laziferous,

I, too, am an avid kayaker. However, I've always been afraid to take my good camera out on the water with me. So intead, I bought a Canon Shureshot A1 on ebay. The results are acceptable snapshots.

What kind of case/protection do you use for your gear? Has it ever been tested?

[Laziferous]

Sparty-
I'm going to have to admit, that I'm just plain careless in that regard. The only protection I have for the camera when on the water, is my bag, the Lowepro Mini-Trekker. On top of that, I'm only using a half-skirt on the kayak :oops: It was indeed tested last week.

I had just taken a shot of my friend exploring a little cove. I put the camera back in the bag, zipped it up, put it back between my legs, and began to paddle backward to get out from between the rocks I had "parked" between. I turned around to see a large branch hanging low about to take my head off. Out of instinct I dodged it, but it threw me off balance, and I tipped. Fortunately, the water right there was only a few feet deep, and I was able to jam my paddle on the bottom and right myself... just as my camera bag plopped into the water :shock: I scooped it out as I swung back up, and no water got inside at all. The padding got a little wet, but that's it.

That experience convinced me to invest in a dry bag. I just got a cheap multipurpose one temporarily, but I will definitely be getting this one before summer is over:
http://www.lowepro.com/pages/series/dryzone/dzone.htm

[Bosskwok]

I posted "Testing the Canon 75-300mm IS USM" here

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=35080