Why such bad reviews for 75-300mm IS?

[ExPOSED]

I was contemplating purchasing the 75-300mm IS, and as I did my research here and a few other forums, it appears that they only rate this lens as an average lens. But when I went to pbase to view some photos that were taken with this lens, they all seemed like great photos. The photos were taken with a range of dSLR's like the 300D, 10D, and 20D. Any views on this? also does this lens have internal focusing? Thanks all for the help. I'm just curious since Im looking for a zoom with at least the 300mm range and an L is out of my budget.

[Jon]

It's not internal focussing. But it's still in my bag, even though I have the 100-400 L because sometimes that's just too big to haul around. Use it right and it'll be acceptable; certainly better than trying to use a too-short lens and blowing it up too much.

[Jetmech1]

I like the lens, the only fault I find with it is, it searchs for focus sometimes especially in low light. I have taken some good shots of aircraft taking off and landing with it. Some decent moon shots also. I would like a better lens, but don't want to spend the money to get one.

[Redbird_xo]

It's actually quite a handy lens (weight wise) to lug around for snap shots of kids since with its reach you don't need to get too close to them to disturb their playing. The contrast of the lens is a little low but it can be somewhat compensated by shooting during the early morning or late afternoon hours. Hope this helps.

[sjprg]

Not a bad lens at all. Look around this gallery, there are several 75-300 NON IS images.
The camel is handheld, the duck was done with a tripod.

http://www.pbase.com/sjprg/image/22587237

[Digital Prophet]

Aw man. I was just about to order one of these. Are they not effective in the IS department or what? I haven't even seen a bad review. Maybe someone can point me to one so that I can see what the dealy-o is.

- Digital Prophet -

[BoySpot]

I read a review in a UK magazine recently that covered both of the 75-300mm lenses and the 100-300mm lens from Canon. It gave the best rating to the 100-300mm which it also ranked above third party lenses. I recall it said that it was sharper at the longer focal lengths than the other two. If I could remember which magazine it was, I would tell you but maybe someone who is still living in the UK will be able to help out. Maybe, if you are not bothered about the lost 25mm, this could work for you?

[Tom W]

I read a review in a UK magazine recently that covered both of the 75-300mm lenses and the 100-300mm lens from Canon. It gave the best rating to the 100-300mm which it also ranked above third party lenses. I recall it said that it was sharper at the longer focal lengths than the other two. If I could remember which magazine it was, I would tell you but maybe someone who is still living in the UK will be able to help out. Maybe, if you are not bothered about the lost 25mm, this could work for you?

I would certainly give the 100-300 a big plus in the design category, given the internal focus and more solid build. It shares Canon's mid-priced qualities with the 28-135, the old 70-210 f/3.5-4.5, the 24-85, and others. The only weakness - no IS is available.

[Jon]

Aw man. I was just about to order one of these. Are they not effective in the IS department or what? I haven't even seen a bad review. Maybe someone can point me to one so that I can see what the dealy-o is.

- Digital Prophet -

I don't think anyone here's said that the 75-300's IS isn't effective. I certainly haven't found it to be bad.

[Longwatcher]

I think most of your reviewers are comparing the 75-300 IS to a 70-200/2.8L IS, in which case of course the 75-300IS is only an average lens.

Here are the bad points. Bokeh is not quite as good as the 70-200 (although not bad, just not as good), it sometimes doesn't want to focus in low light, and it has a habit of zooming by itself when you point it down. Oh and you can't use a Canon extender with it.

Middle points: There were some good copies and some not so good copies apparently, but fewer reports of bad copies this past year.

Now for the good points. Darn sharp lens, light weight (especially compared to 70-200/2.8 IS) and good value for what you get. If you can't afford L then the 75-300 is an excellent lens for your money. I have kept mine even though I have the 70-200/2.8L IS and 100-400L IS.

As to IS, it works pretty good, but of course not as good as the 70-200's.

[Mike Panic]

ive seen lots of barrel distored photos come from that lens at anything over 200mm... and anything from 75-135ish tends to be a little soft

its also entirely too slow for my tastes

ive found that the people who tend to buy these types of lenses are new to photography and just want something to cover a large distance cheaply... they later find out that this lens is more restricting then they thought it would be due to the lack of sharpness, slow focus and lack of brightness