Lens Info

[whiteford]

Hi, I am looking to upgrade to a new lens. I am looking at the EF 75_300 F/4_5.6 IS USM by Canon. I picked this lens because it has IS, as I seldem use a tripod. Is there anyone on this forum that is using this lens and can give me pros and cons and advice. I will be putting it on my D 300.

Thanks, Dave.:)

[jimlp]

Hi, I am looking to upgrade to a new lens. I am looking at the EF 75_300 F/4_5.6 IS USM by Canon. I picked this lens because it has IS, as I seldem use a tripod. Is there anyone on this forum that is using this lens and can give me pros and cons and advice. I will be putting it on my D 300.

Thanks, Dave.:)

If you need that kind of reach and do not use a tripod then IS is a must, you didn't say what your budget was but anything else with IS in that focal length is expensive. The lens you have chosen is not the best performer but it will get you shots that you would otherwise miss with other lenses, which is the whole point of photography in the first place. I would say if you do not do to many big enlargements you will be happy with the quality of 4X6 and 5X7's you will get from this lens, it may be your only choice in the focal length if you are limited by your budget. Good Luck.

[ron chappel]

Basically that model lens is a cheap optical design with expensive image stabilization added.
The IS feature does help overall image quality which makes it slightly better than the non IS version in certain situations.It does this in two ways-
simply by stabilizing (good in low light or at the long end of the zoom) and by allowing higher aperture numbers for increased sharpness (very important on that lens-it's rather soft at 300mm!)

Overall i'd say these benifits are not worth the huge price increase over the basic model.
There are cheaper lenses around that are naturally sharper at the tele end -the Canon 100-300usm and Sigma 70-300 apo macro super II
Here are some comparisons of those lenses with a normal 75-300

http://members.dodo.net.au/~l8r_ron/pages/test%202a%20%20%20100mm%20full%20frame%20example.h tml (first page of several pics)

http://www.pbase.com/argylemonkey/lens_comp


As for the general benifit of image stabilization-It's not the cure all magic thing i'd been hoping for.I used to use the "shoot heaps and discard all but the sharpest" technique before i had an IS lens.Except for shots you've GOT to get first time ,the cheapo technique works pretty well.
I think i'll sell my 75-300 IS soon and either get one of the ones i mentioned earlier,or go for the fantastic 70-200/4L

[whiteford]

Thanks for the replies and information, very helpfull. I think the 70-200/4L is the way to go.

Dave

[timmyquest]

If you need that kind of reach and do not use a tripod then IS is a must

Mind telling me the logic behind this????

[robertwgross]

Mind telling me the logic behind this?

Assume that I.S. allows you to shoot, with the same results, two stops slower in shutter speed, as compared to the same lens with I.S. turned off.

With I.S. turned off, at 300mm, with no tripod, you would expect to have to shoot at 1/300th second to get a good result. Faster, if you consider the 1.6 factor.

With I.S. turned on, at 300mm, with no tripod, you would expect to be able to shoot at two stops slower, which is about 1/75th second and get a good result. Faster, if you consider the 1.6 factor.

That lens is not especially fast, aperture-wise. As a result of that, you tend to have to fool around with slower shutter speeds to get a good exposure solution.

I.S. just allows you to get there easier.

Personally, I find it easier to use a tripod or monopod or a beanbag. To each, his own.

---Bob Gross---

[timmyquest]

I just rarely find that 1/300 is not a shutter speed that i can obtain.

I know the physics behind his claim i supose, i'm just not sure i agree with them.

The other day i was outside at ISO 200 and if i owned anything but a first generation 1D i would have had to stop my 70-200 down as i was getting shutter speeds at or higher then 1/8000.

I know there are times when you may come across a nice photograph at dusk when 1/125 is the fastest shutter speed you can get...but thats when you simply bump up the ISO and hold your camera extra careful.

i'm not bashing IS, i'm just not sure that it is needed...you think there was never a 300mm lens being hand holded before IS came out?

[robertwgross]

I.S. is not a perfect solution to every telephoto lens problem. It is just one more tool to have in your bag of tricks, and if it becomes useful, then that's fine.

---Bob Gross---

[CyberDyneSystems]

IS helps,. it is definitely not a must. As Bob says,. it's a tool.

My favorite lens is a 500mm and it has no IS...

//broken record dept. skip # 21...
"if you are ready to spend the $$ on the IS version of the 75-300mm,. then can you swing an extra Hundred $$ for the 70-200mm f/4L?? In the end you will be much more satisfied "

[Belmondo]

My favorite lens is a 500mm and it has no IS...

(Mine does. hehe)

[CyberDyneSystems]

Show off! :lol:

[snibbetsj]

(Mine does. hehe)


Lucky dog :D :D :D

BTW it's my 200th post :p

[timmyquest]

I.S. is not a perfect solution to every telephoto lens problem. It is just one more tool to have in your bag of tricks, and if it becomes useful, then that's fine.

---Bob Gross---


I guess thats the short version of what i was trying to say :lol:

[jimlp]

Mind telling me the logic behind this????

I guess I should clarify my answer. I based my answer on my experiences/shooting style and at f5.6 on the long end I feel that you can really get limited to what you can accomplish unless you have great shooting conditions. From my own experiences I found I cannot handhold a 300mm FOV at 1/300th and get an acceptable number of keepers, 1/500th makes things a lot better. I shoot people (portfoilios, engagements, portraits.....) and I do not want to go up on the "film" speed any more than necessary, I rarely go above the 400 speed setting on my 20D. I had the 70-200 f4L and found it somewhat limiting because I was always shooting wide open and even then not getting the shutter speeds I needed, I switched to the 70-200 f2.8 IS and now I am not really limited to when/where I can shoot. When I answered the question above I related it to my situation more than I probably should have. I