Canon 75-300 IS ??

[sallybelgium]

Hi,

I have a Canon 300D (digital Rebel) and bought the lens kits 18-55mm and 55-200mm with it.
I am very happy with them, but when taking photo's in nature, I would like to have some more range....
Now I'm planning to buy the 75-300mm IS
(the 100-400 IS lens is far above my budget)....

Is this a good decision, or is this a bit stupid to do?

[Longwatcher]

If you can not afford the 70-200 or 100-400 lenses, then the 75-300 IS is an excellent purchase from my experience. I have it and still keep it around for travel (as it is much lighter). Of note; Although my lens was excellent and very sharp, there have been some reports of some not so good 75-300 IS out there, although fewer lately (maybe they fixed the quality control) So if it does not appear to be sharp at f8 check into getting it fixed.

Some of my best pictures were taken with the 75-300 IS, before I upgraded. I upgraded to the 70-200/2.8L IS for the aperture, but also find the bokeh (blurry parts) to be look better overall with the L lens. However, I still consider the 75-300 IS to be a good bargain for the price.

Main issues are it is a bit slow to auto-focus (or so it seems now, it seemed pretty fast before I got L glass) and it tends to extend when pointed down, whether you want it to or not (this is my only true annoyance). The other issue which is that it feels fragile is probably because I have a lot of "L" lenses, however, I abused it a lot in the year and half before I got my 70-200 and did not need to send it in, so it is not as fragile as it feels.

Just my opinion and experience,

[Jon]

I've also liked the results I've gotten with my 75-300 IS, when I was within reasonable operating parameters (1/75 sec and above handheld at 300). It's a much better fit for a full or small gadget bag than the 100-400 L, so it sometimes goes along when the bigger lens doesn't.

[mr.photoguy]

Isn't the 70 -200 f4 like 200 bucks more than the 75-300..

I think it's worth saving for. I wouldn't touch the 75-300.

you can get a 1.4x extender also.
I use a 1.4x extender and if there is enough light. I won't loose a stop.

[tim]

The IS is probably what makes that lens worth buying, to me. Otherwise the 100-300 has a better reputation, and then of course the 70-200. It'd be nice to have a 70-300 that was a reasonable price - the DO IS is a bit over $1K!

[mr.photoguy]

and the DO get's a terrible rating on the fredmiranda.com review board.

75-300 usm
Sample images
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon/ef_75300_4iiiu
Review
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=16&sort=7&thecat=27

70-200 f4
sample images
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon/ef_70200_4u
Review
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=14&sort=7&thecat=27

70 - 300 DO
Sample photos
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon/ef_70-300_45-56_do_is_usm

review
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=218&sort=7&thecat=27


there is a start for your review.
You can go through all of that and download sample photo's and figure out what you like best and then make your move.

Good luck and keep on researching. If I can help .. let me know. I have an F4. so if you need a sample Raw image .. just say the word.. lol...

later.

[FlyWoody3]

SallyBelgium,

I started with the 75 - 300 IS USM (not DO) lens and was very happy with the quality of the pictures for outdoor sporting events. For the money this lens is a great value. After saving for awhile, I bought the 100 - 400 IS L.

Don (FlyWoody3)

[Mister Magoo]

SallyBelgium,

I started with the 75 - 300 IS USM (not DO) lens and was very happy with the quality of the pictures for outdoor sporting events. For the money this lens is a great value. After saving for awhile, I bought the 100 - 400 IS L.


This is exactly my plan. I have ordered the 75-300 IS together with a 28-135 IS (not arrived yet..... :confused: ) and plan to replace the 75-300 with the 100-400 L IS when either a) my lottery numbers come up, b) my children are supporting themselves, c) I can get away with it, without my wife finding out.

c) is looking favourite.....

Cheers
Simon

[digitalfailure]

I bought the 75-300 IS the week after I bought the 300d, it's always been fine for me.

I notice some softness at 200mm or above, but that could be put down to subject matter as much as the lens.
Think i was wide open getting panned shots of touring cars when I spotted the softness.

[Canon 20D Virginian]

I just bought a brand new 70-200mm f/4L off of eBay for $481. The 75-300 IS can go for $450 and up.

[charlesu]

I have a 75-300 IS if someone is interested. I'll make someone a good deal!

[Vega$50]

It is grate and light zoom. Sharp. I don’t believe you can get any sing batter for the money. I certainly recommended.
Igor http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=14&sort=7&thecat=27

Well, I MUST get it now!

[mr.photoguy]

I am searching for a comparison post between the 70-200 f4L, the 75 - 300 and I think it was the sigma 28-300 ..

I have been searching for the last two hours. I know the post is here, and I will find it either before I leave work or when I get home..
You have to read this comparison before you purchase any lens..



here is another comparison that I found..
70-200 f4L v.s. the 70-200 f2.8L
http://forum.hardware.fr/hardwarefr/Photonumerique/sujet-1015-1.htm
you may need a translater..http://babelfish.altavista.com

[D Boone]

Well, I have one, and while I am new to digital slrs, I have enjoyed it... I took some awesome long range shots with it. A little bit fuzzy but the light was bad.

[sjprg]

I purchased the 75-300 NON IS with my 10D when the 10D first came out. I am very happy with it, although it really is not long enough for birds, and barely enough for large animals (deer, etc.). After going through all the processes of which lens to upgrade to, considering cost/performance I settled on the Sigma 50-500. For approx $800.00 this lens has now allmost allways on my 20D as my walk around lens. Heavy?? YES. Verseital? Very !!!

http://www.pbase.com/sjprg/snowbirds

http://www.pbase.com/sjprg/ed_levine_park

[Jetmech1]

I have had the 75-300 IS on my DRebel for a couple of weeks. It seems to be a very nice lens. Mine has performed great. The IS works good.

[mdr]

Last year, I sold my 100-300mm USM and bought a 75-300mm IS. When the 75-300mm arrived, I was shocked by the dreadfully slow autofocus with my EOS3. I popped it on my wife's EOS30, and the same. The 100-300mm USM and my 28-135mm IS both focussed significantly faster, so I returned the lens, only to find out that there was nothing wrong with it.

If it wasn't for the IS which I use practically all the time, I would have gone back to the 100-300mm. I have no concrete proof, but my impression is that the images from the 100-300mm are sharper as well.

I've now got a 20D and have started to move to L lenses. My considerations for a telephoto lens are the 200mm f2.8L and 300mm f4L, particularly as these allow the use of the 1.4x and 2x extenders.

Price and weight are key factors.

[gail]

I have a 75-300 IS if someone is interested. I'll make someone a good deal!
Hi Charles, I tried to PM you but didn't go through for some reason.
What would be your asking price for the lens?

[leonid]

I used 75-300 IS USM for more than 2 years.

1. It is reasonably sharp, especially with f8.0
2. IS really works and lets you take pictures at 1/75-1/90 at 300mm
3. AF is not very predicable. One time it focuses fast. Other time it slowly goes through the whole focusing range and at the end does not achieve focus at all. You have to half-press the shutter button again and repeat. This could be annoying sometimes.
4. I found it delivering less contrast compare to my friend's 75-200 f4.

Overall delivers me what I want: reasonably priced light weighted lens, which could be used in various lighting conditions without a tripod.