Canon 75mm - 300mm IS lens

[billfranklin]

Anyone care to cmment on the Canon 75mm - 300mm IS lens. Is it sharp, etc.

Thanks,

Bill F.

[RonWischer]

I have one and I like it.
I think it's a good value for the money.
As for sharpness, it works well with my D-60 but of course a touch of post process sharpening really helps.
I actually find myself using it more than my 70-200L(non IS) lens. I really like the image stabilization and it seems to focus fast enough for me.
Ron.......

[kd6lor]

For the money it is hard to beat. Many will compare this lens unfavorably to much more expensive lenses, but in it's price range to have IS, it is a very decent lens.

Here is a link to a picture taken with it.

http://www.melor.com/gallery/photo.php?photo=557&exhibition=8

[henkbos]

Have the lens for quite some time and like it. Nice and compact.

Some shots:
http://www.henkbos.com/web_pics/egret.jpg

http://www.henkbos.com/web_pics/pelican.jpg

Nice framing KD, care to share?

[dbarthel]

Low contrast and soft at 300. Prone to flare. First lens I got rid of (non IS version) after I got my D60. The 100-400 IS is an infinately better choice for the D60, unless you stick to brightly frontlit subjects. The head shot on the last post illustrates my point. There is a lot more stuff in the real bird.

Sorry to be so negative, but you have a great camera that deserves great optics.

BTW the fix length telephoto people tell me that the 100-400 sucks compared to the 300,400, etc fixed length lenses, so the beat goes on.

Dan

[Roger_Cavanagh]

I had this lens when I bought my D30. I really didn't like the softness at 300 that the D30 chip really showed up. I used it in part-exchange for the 100-400 IS. But you are, of course, talking 2-3 times difference in price.

So I guess it depends how rich and how fussy you are. :)

Regards,

[50/1.4]

Lots of differing opinions on this lens, I think it is superb between 75-135mm and no more soft than most other lenses @ 300mm except for the expensive 2.8's. Pop Photo actually cited it has having high contrast. If you feel Pop Photo's SQF ratings have any comparative value, the 75-300 IS gives the 85/1.8 USM and several 200/2.8's a run for the money if you remember that you can shoot @ f5.6 in as dim a light as a conventional 2.8 lens.

[Longwatcher]

I still use this lens because of the IS. If you can not afford "L" glass it is a great lens. Highly recommend.

Some of my best pictures have been taken with the 75-300 IS.

The only negatives are slow auto focus and I would prefer better aperture, both of which should be found in "L" class lenses.

Note: if I had not bought the 16-35L, I would still think it was the best lens ever made for the price, mainly because I did not realize how slow the auto focus was until I got the 16-35L.

Just my experience.

[lziering]

It is not a bad lens but it is not a great lens. If you need the image stabilization feature and can't afford an "L" lens, than it is a good buy. If you don't need the IS feature you should avoid this lens. It is not all that sharp, it is slow to focus, and it is heavy. Most tests show the Canon 100-300 to be a sharper lens that focuses faster and weighs less. Like all things in life it is a trade off.

As far as the images posted above, I'm always reluctant to judge anything I see on my monitor. Screen resolution is 72dpi so a disposable camera image will look sharp as long as it is a contrasty subject.

[mikeg]

That's one of the very fisrt lens I bought for my D30 1.5 years ago.
And as Iziering said: It is not a bad lens but it is not a great lens.

But I finally sold it and went for a sigma 70-200. A little bit more expensive but when I looked at the pics it made I would never use the 75-300 IS anymore. OK 200 mm isn't 300 mmm but it almost suited my needs.(I also got a x1.4 converter for free with it) OK sigma isn't stabilized, but 200mm@f/2.8 is better IMHO than 300mm@f5.6 stabilized.

So I think that everything is a question of money. If you can afford a f/2.8 lens like sigma, just go for it.

For the moment I use my lovely 70-200 IS :-)
but it is far more expensive than Sigma...


Hope this helps...


MikeG

[Abercrombie]

I couldn't decide between the Tamron 70-300 or The Canon 75-300 since they were both around the same price... So I bought both.
I eventually sold my Tamron (on this forum) but spotted one going for a steal on eBay so I got another.
It's difficult to say which one has the edge, but if I had to get rid of one, I'd probably keep the Canon.

It's a nice enough telephoto for the price.

[rhys]

I have the 70-300 IS.

The IS can be a bit strange. I powered up and looked through the viewfinder to see the image jumping about. I powered down and up again and it was all OK. I've never had a repeat of that.

I find it's a good lens up to a point. I think the 70-200 f4L without the IS is a better bargain at the same price.

I find image quality to be on a par with the 70-300 Tamron that I sold. The bonus is that unlike the Tamron I don't get err99s when I put it on my XT.

[Jethro790]

Wow! 4 year post revival!

It's hard to justify this lens when the 70-200 f4L is out there at about the same price. I'll use a tripod thank you.