Canon Lens help

[mdaddyrabbit]

Canon Zoom Telephoto EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 EF IS Image Stabilizer USM Autofocus Lens

Can some one point me the direction of a rating that may have been done on this lens or give me any advice with this lens. I know there are more expensive lenses but this is my budget right now and it has to be better for what I want to do compared to the 18-55mm kit lens. Thanks folks!

[tim]

The best review sites I know of are:

http://www.photographyreview.com/Lenses/PSC_3787crx.aspx
http://www.fredmiranda.com

The lens is a consumer grade zoom, it's reputation isn't great, but it's not bad either. You could take a look at this review (http://www.slo-foto.net/reviews-56-page1.html) too.

[gmaize]

I've had the non-IS lens since 1999 and I've done rather well with it. It still in my bag everywhere I go. Not top-notch, but have had remarkable comments on my travel photos through the years. In just the last 6 months I've gone to the 20D from the Elan II and the lens does great work on both. The EF could do nothing but improve it. Give it a shot, you've got little to lose.

--gmaize

[mdr]

Unless you really want/need the IS, you'd better save yourself some money and go for the 100-300mm USM lens, which is optically better, focusses much, much faster, is sturdier built and handles better.

I have owned both and have used both on my EOS 3 and 20D. I have always regretted selling my 100-300mm to get the 75-300mm IS. My main gripoes with the 75-300mm IS are: autofocus is unbelievably slow, the lens hunts an awful lot on the 20D and image sharpness in the 200-300mm range is dreadful.

My 75-300mm IS is going on eBay this weekend, as I'm now the happy owner of a 70-200mm f4 L lens (and 1.4x TC), see my other post: http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=71569.

I actually paid the same for this L lens second hand as I did for the 75-300mm IS second hand last year!

[gmaize]

Unless you really want/need the IS, you'd better save yourself some money and go for the 100-300mm USM lens, which is optically better, focusses much, much faster, is sturdier built and handles better.

I have owned both and have used both on my EOS 3 and 20D. I have always regretted selling my 100-300mm to get the 75-300mm IS. My main gripoes with the 75-300mm IS are: autofocus is unbelievably slow, the lens hunts an awful lot on the 20D and image sharpness in the 200-300mm range is dreadful.

My 75-300mm IS is going on eBay this weekend, as I'm now the happy owner of a 70-200mm f4 L lens (and 1.4x TC), see my other post: http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=71569.

I actually paid the same for this L lens second hand as I did for the 75-300mm IS second hand last year!
mdr,

Interesting perspective about the IS version of this lens. I learned something today. I would have bet that an IS version would always be better than the non-IS. You story disproves that assumption for sure. I won't take it for granted anymore. Thanks for sharing your experiences and viewpoint.

--gmaize

[Medic1]

Canon Zoom Telephoto EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 EF IS Image Stabilizer USM Autofocus Lens

Can some one point me the direction of a rating that may have been done on this lens or give me any advice with this lens. I know there are more expensive lenses but this is my budget right now and it has to be better for what I want to do compared to the 18-55mm kit lens. Thanks folks!


As Time said......FM reviews (Fred Miranda) is a good review site....its usually the first one I go to when I am looking at a new lens. There are quite a few out there. If you do a search in this forum you will find a ton of posts on where to go look.

Good Luck