Thinking About A EF 75-300 IS USM

[Outdoor23]

I've just recently purchased a Rebel Xt and now I'm thinking about buying myself some lenses. I'm going to do a lot of wildlife photography so zooming is very important to me. I have looked over all types of Canon lenses, though I think the "L" lenses are great, I don't really want to carry a heavy lens or even use a tripod plus I only have a budget of ~$500. I guess IS is pretty important in my case, that's why I'm leaning towards the EF 75-300 IS USM. I have also looked at Sigma and Taruma lens, but just not sure if they would have the same IS feature and better quality and focusing speed. Please give me some feedback if the 75-300 would be a wise investment for me, or should I wait a little bit longer and hoping Canon would come out with a lens right for me.

[steibeldj]

I have the 75-300 IS and I am pretty happy with the results for all around picture taking. Where I had issues were when I was shooting sports, even outdoors, the AF is a bit slow and the IS does not handle panning and takes a second or to to react. I wouldn't do birds in flight with it, although I am sure some have. New generation IS is much better, but for $400, with the IS, I can't complain.

[tim]

Outdoor23, you didn't need to start 2 threads on the same subject. A mod may merge them. Here's my post that I was going to do on the other thread.

Could you take a monopod? That and the 70-200L F4 might be ok.

In this specific situation perhaps the 75-300 IS is worth considering. It's optical quality isn't meant to be so hot, but with IS it might be a worthwhile tradeoff. Hopefully someone who's used both will say something.

[MrChad]

You know I'm fine w/ the optical quality on my 75-300 IS, plus the lens is much smaller then the comparable L glass of the same length. For me this is a plus, for as often as I use the telezoom I think this one is a real winner. I think I purchased mine for around ~$400 something (plus I got a Canon rebate at the time.) I really enjoy mine and for the money I don't think there are too many choices better on the market.

I love the build of the 70-200L's but again they are big lenses, maybe too big on an XT?
With an aperture of F4 I'd much rather have the IS, but I'll part with the IS for the speed of the f2.8 glass.

[tim]

Read this review (http://www.slo-foto.net/reviews-56-page1.html).

[Croasdail]

I have this lens and it is a good general purpose lense. Generally I shut IS off for sports - doesn't help. When I forget to, the lens sometimes seems to get lost. I have had it lock up my 10d once... had to remove battery get camera back working. But with that said, the color reproduction is very good. In general it I have found sharpness and color reproduction to be better then then 3rd party lenses I have.

[steibeldj]

Read this review (http://www.slo-foto.net/reviews-56-page1.html).

I also own the 70-300 DO IS and I still am not selling my 75-300 IS just yet. I've got a good copy and get sharp pictures at 300mm when the rest of my settings and technique are up to par. I don't do much tripod work however and maybe some find the other lenses better on a tripod. Too much bulk for me.

[m3elmo]

I have the sigma 70-300 APO Super II (has a red ring on it) lens which i'm happy with. It's about 200 or under and has no IS. For sports and shooting animals, i don't think the IS helps me. Good clarity on this lens etc. I'm saving the money for a 28-135 IS lens for myself though. I say go to a store and check out if the IS is needed for your application. Good luck!

[Az2Africa]

I just got my 70-200L 2.8 IS and an selling a mint 75-300 IS, PM me if interested.Moderators let me know if it's not cool to post this here.
Terry

[ron chappel]

If you really want IS then the 75-300 IS lens is your only real option.
If you can cope without IS however there are two lenses that are a little sharper and cheaper-they are the Canon 100-300 usm and sigma 70-300 Apo macro super II
Here are some example comparisons against the 75-300 (note they are non IS version 75-300's but optically the same)
http://www.pbase.com/argylemonkey/lens_comp (sigma comparison)

http://members.dodo.net.au/~l8r_ron/pages/test%202a%20%20%20100mm%20full%20frame%20example.h tml (100-300 comparison starts this page)

[tim]

I found that sigma lens good and sharp, but too slow for what I wanted, especially since I had a 300D and high ISO performance was poor. With the 20D it might be ok, though my personal preference is to always buy lenses F2.8 or faster, unless I have a good reason not too.