Canon EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III USM

[Penguin_101_1]

Anyone have this lens? Any pics? Comments? Thanks!

[Primevci]

um

goto
http://prime.photochaos.com

then go to the WIld life one and then that bird picture is taken with it... under sports taken with it it was hard it was very low light.. also im getting rid of mine...

[jonnyhorizon]

was the only one i could afford at the time
not a great lens
have taken lots of pics with it
get an L if you can afford it
i can not lug a big telephoto where i go(at my age) so i an looking seriously at the DO type lens
here are some taken with "your" lens...j
http://www.johncastor.com/canon%2Dforum/W1004-coyotepup.jpg
http://www.johncastor.com/canon%2Dforum/CRW_4826web1.jpg
http://www.johncastor.com/canon%2Dforum/W6809-bear1.jpg
http://www.johncastor.com/canon%2Dforum/W5667.jpg

[ron chappel]

Man this question comes up often.
I wish i could write web pages,i'd make a page dedicated to the cheap telezoom question!

I've just cut and pasted what i said in the last thread .......



The 75-300 models are the same optically but the IS model has the benifit of image stabilization.
They are (optically) good basic consumer grade lenses.You'll get some very good pics with them but they are not anywhere near the league of an L lens.
I presently have both of the 75-300 types.I tend to think that the IS feature may be a little overpriced for most people.Yes it is usefull but not as much as i thought it would be...
and it still has slow focus ***(all these models focus slow!)** and average optics.
Here are some pics from the 75-300
http://members.dodo.net.au/~l8r_ron/

The 80-200 (II version) is a great little lens! In sharpness,it's abit better than the 75-300 models and allmost the same as the 100-300.There are two example pics on the page linked above.A bargain if you don't need 300mm

I would highly recommend the canon 100-300/4.5-5.6!
It's a very good allround lens with good build and fast true USM focus.Not as sharp as an L zoom but not far off either.
Here is a comparison with a 75-300
http://members.dodo.net.au/~l8r_ron/index_2.html (also next page)

Unfortunately i don't have any general example pics from the 100-300

As an allternative to the canon 100-300 you might consider a sigma 70-300 Apo macro super II
It gets some good comments from owners and is better than the 75-300-
http://www.pbase.com/argylemonkey/lens_comp

I kinda second Canuck's experience with the non apo sigma.We prob both got dud lenses but mine was SO bad i'm just wary of ever recommending that model :mad: