Is Canon 75-300mm a good choice?

[Joan Lovell]

I bought a 20D.
I bought the lens that came with the kit - EFS 18-55, which, upon some reading, sounds like NOT good choice.
I bought a Tamron 28-75 f 2.8.
AND I was thinking about buying either a Canon 75-300mm with image stabilization ($470) or the 75-300 without stabilization ($200).
NOW from what I'm reading perhaps neither of those is a good choice.
Any opinions?
I've already missed my photo-op of a very adorable porcupine feeding in my backyard last weekend!

[D Boone]

I have the 75-300 not image stabilized... Its blurry at 300mm. You will be disappointed if you want to print pics bigger than 8x10 or if you want to take a 100% crop out of it. From what I read, the IS version is better... But if I had it to do over again I would just have bought the 70-200 4L. 300mm is really too short for wildlife anyway, but its taken me a while to figure it out.

[condyk]

I agreewith D Boone ... I had a 400mm Sigma prime for a few years, back when I first tried to get into photography with an SLR, pre-digital, and it was just about useful with bigger game at any kind of reasonable distance. Bird shots ... just a few decent shot as usually too far away for even 400mm and the kind of detail I wanted. With an extender then it would work, but I had a full Sigma set up and never found an extender (I was living in Cape Town for a while back then and photo stuff harder to find!)

When I got into digital SLR's recently I researched all the cheaper zooms and decided on the Sigma 70-300 APO Super II, which has been a good teaching lens for me, but my needs for ultimate quality and low light performance means I have already upgraded! I was offered 70-200 F4 at a price that I just couldn't refuse and this lens (or Sigma 70-200 EX HSM F2.8) was always the cornerstone of my long term upgrade plan.

If normal light situations and good performance are what you want then the Sigma is, in my view, the best compromise around at the moment. If you want the sharpness that is sometimes seen in other people's shots then save up for something else ... but be prepared to pay out money!

[wiselion]

Joan:

I have one for sale that is only two months old. Read my ad.


Bought new March 1st for $485.00. I bought a 200mm L lense as well, and now thats all I carry around. This lense is like new. I've used it 3-4 times and it takes sharp pictures for a consumer lense. I need to pay off my (L) lense, so thats why I'm selling. Buyer pays shipping. $375.00.


I'll sell it to you for $350.00 + shipping if you want it. Go to marketplace and see my attached pic. I could email you more pic's if you are interested. It is not an (L) lense but for the money I think it takes super pictures.

Mike

Wiselion@nycap.rr.com

[Skip Souza]

Joan, I take it that $$$ is definetly a consideration which rules out L lenses. There are few lenses that match or surpass the L lenses. Happily your Tamron 28-75 is one of them.
My wife has the 28-75 and it is great. She also has the Canon 75-300 IS. I have used her on occasion and find the IS to be very helpful when the shutter speed must be slow. I think it does a decent job for the price.
Wiselion's lens for sale looks like it may be worthwhile until you can afford a 100-400 L (my next choice).
I know that my equipment is already better than I am and I don't have any L lenses yet.

[Skip Souza]

Wiselion..............I'll work on straight commission. ;-)

[nwoods]

I had the 75-300 IS until just recently when I sold the whole kit and kabodle to a buddy of mine.

It took really good pictures for the price, but there is a bit of a learning curve. Here are a few photos with it:
http://www.sloperacing.com/results/F3F2004/parker_12-11-04/

Cheers,

NW

[Skip Souza]

I had the 75-300 IS until just recently when I sold the whole kit and kabodle to a buddy of mine.

It took really good pictures for the price, but there is a bit of a learning curve. Here are a few photos with it:
http://www.sloperacing.com/results/F3F2004/parker_12-11-04/

Cheers,

NW
I agree that it is a decent value.
You must have had one hell of learning curve to capture them so well in flight. Nice stuff Nathan.

[wiselion]

Skip:

THANKS FOR THE PLUG. I DON'T THINK SHE IS INTERESTED THOUGH. I THINK, OR SHOULD I SAY I KNOW IT'S A STEAL FOR $350.00. I MEAN FOR THAT MONEY IT'S A HELL OF A DEAL. IF YOU WANT TO GET INTO AN L LENS THAT IS EQUIVALENT, YOU KNOW HOW EXPENSIVE THAT IS. BELIEVE ME I WOULD KEEP IT, BUT I HAVE TO PAY OFF ANOTHER LENS.

MIKE

[Joan Lovell]

Thanks one and all. Guess I'll get the 70-200 f4 L USM. Wow - the range of prices online and at the stores is bizarre. $570 from B+H was the best I could do. (Unless someone has one that belonged to their little old grandmother and was used twice for around $200???)
Thanks again.
Joan

[Joan Lovell]

Hmmm - I don't know how that sad "smiley" face arrived on my post -- certainly was not intended.
Tx again
Joan

[CRE@TE]

Sounds like a good choice. I wanted to buy one today. But, my $49 wouldn't cover the cost of the taxes alone. :( It was the best Canadian price I have seen yet. $829 :eek:

[Skip Souza]

Hi Joan. I think that smiley is generated when you type three question marks toghther ???
The 70-200 f/4 L sounds like a good choice. It is a fine lens, the best value in the L line. I had not considered it because it seemed like you wanted a lense with more reach and image stabilization.
We'll be looking for some posts with the lens.
Enjoy.