Got very old EF 75-300 USM, need something else??

[JusSmith]

Firstly, I apologise for yet another 'what lens should I buy' post!

I have an old EF 75-300 f/4.0-5.6 USM (Mk1) lens and it is pretty horrible at 300mm! I am quite prepared to purchase the 70-200 f/4.0L, but wanted to check whether there is something more convenient in between?

My ideal (living in a dreamworld) choice would be something that is portable (f/4.0L is ok, f/2.8L no way), short when not extended, good quality and 300mm! The DO IS is ruled out as it is just too expensive.

Am I going to notice much improvement with a 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM? Do Sigma do anything that would fit my criteria better? Or do I stick with the L lens and ask Father Christmas for the extender?

Thanks in advance...

[Ikinaa]

I've also the 75-300 USM (bought in '96, so I guess it must be about the same as yours).
at 300mm and f/5.6 it's really soft, but stopped down to f/11 it's not bad at all.
here (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=59512) and here (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=57060) are two of my examples

[cmM]

optically speaking, the USM version will not get you any better results. If you're on a budget, you might wanna considder maybe primes (200 f/2.8L), or maybe a 70-200 f/4 and a 1.4 TC

[JusSmith]

guess I'll go for the L + extender.

Thanks for your time

[ron chappel]

Sigma ,tokina and (i think) tamron all make VERY good 100-300 f4 zooms.
The sigma version is just slightly dearer than the 70-200/4L and allmost as sharp (i.e waaaaaaaaaay better than the 75-300)
The others i've heard little about other than they are very good

[Redbird_xo]

I have an old EF 75-300 f/4.0-5.6 USM (Mk1) lens and it is pretty horrible at 300mm!

Am I going to notice much improvement with a 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM?

As far as I know, the Mark III version and IS version are similar optically (IS version has additional parts/lens for the IS mechanism). Attached pic was taken with the Mark III version at 300mm with PS levels and USM adjustments done. Hope it will give you some ideas on the quality of the 75-300 Mark III (and for what it is worth, the IS version's quality).

[Citizensmith]

You would only notice an improvement with the IS version if you normally handhold. It is a pretty good lens if you accept its limitations though, and better in low light than the 70-200 f/4 because of the IS. Unfortunately thats the only time its better than the 70-200 f/4.

For around $200 to $250 used you can pick up a 70-210 f/3.5-4.5. Its a decent lens, offering FTM, ring-USM, etc, is fairly small and is optically much better than the 75-300s. Not an L but if you want a portable lens its a good choice. There is a 70-210 f/4 out there but it sucks.

[JusSmith]

Redbird_xo: That looks alot better than my Mk I, even assuming you're shooting on a tripod and somewhere around f/11.

Citizensmith: Thanks, I think I'm heading towards the 70-200 f/4 L + 1.4x extender, I'll just hope for sunny days!

[ron chappel]

All the 75-300 versions are the same optically except for the first non usm model (which is an even worse design)

While the IS version has different elements in one group it gives pretty much identical image quality.

[Redbird_xo]

assuming you're shooting on a tripod and somewhere around f/11.

It was handheld at 1/800 sec and f11. The EXIF data didn't stay after using PS's save for web function.

[cactusclay]

Good choice.

[JusSmith]

...but now I'm looking at the f2.8 (non IS), but cannot decide whether the weight & price disadvantage is worth it! Help, what should I do?Maybe I'll look at my 75-300 shots and see from the pics I normally take whether f2.8 is necessary

[Olli]

I have an old EF 75-300 f/4.0-5.6 USM (Mk1) lens and it is pretty horrible at 300mm!
Got interested in this old thread, as I have also about 10 y old 75-300. These two pics of White Wagtail was taken last May with 300 mm//1/500s/f8 (first) and 1/1000s/f11 (second). Quite a heavy PS tweaking needed, but I'm pleased with the result :D.

- olli

http://www.laasanen.net/POTN/IMG_2019_white_wagtail_cn.jpg

http://www.laasanen.net/POTN/IMG_2019_white_wagtail_cnhttp://www.laasanen.net/POTN/IMG_1972cn.jpg

http://www.laasanen.net/POTN/IMG_1972cn

[DigiDi]

I updated mine also this summer to the IS and I am very, very pleased with it. Here is a photo I took very quickly. My father in law dropped me off so I could take a picture of the Arch. I jumped out of the car and ran across the curb and to the sidewalk, pointed upwards and snapped the photo and dashed back to the car as traffic was passing by. The other is taken down by the river front.

[bauerman]

Those are really nice Diane - thanks for taking the time to post them......

[malcolmp]

I also found the 2.8 too heavy as a walkaround. I really like the size and weight of the f4. For low light I have a 2 pronged approach:
1. Up the ISO and use noise ninja
2. Put on the 85mm f/1.8 and run forwards and backwards to zoom.

Works quite well actually.
Malcolm