canon ef 75-300mm IS, any good?

[Michaelmjc]

I'm thinking about gwtting a new lens soon, is that lens any good?

Im down to the 70-200 f/4 L or that one. I know the L is gonna be better, but I already have a 200mm. Although I could get a TC, hmm...

Any thoughts?

[Longwatcher]

The 70-200/4 is a better lens then the 75-300 IS, but if you get a good copy of the 75-300 IS it is an good lens. the odds of getting a good copy appear to be 50/50.
Under the right conditions it is a sharper lens then my 70-200/2.8L IS, but I like the look from 70-200 better and you can't always get the right conditions.

It is good value for money, but 70-200 and a TC would be better in the long run.

Just my opinion

[yenoram]

I had this lens several years ago but I replaced it with a 70-200 2.8L (non)IS) and I haven't looked back since. It was a good, light-weight carry around lens but I grew to dislike:

1. The rotating front element made it difficult to use a polarizer.
2. Slow focusing particularly in low light - seemed to hunt forever when light was low
3. The loose zoom resulting in the lens fully extending every time it pointed down which was every time I carried it around - this drove me crazy.

If cost is an issue, you may want to look at a 70-200 f4 and then add a 1.4X converter to get you close to 300.

[ayotnoms]

Go with the "L" lens.
You won't be sorry.

[cmosdos]

I have the 75-300 IS USM. I like it overall, but I do find that I wish I had the L. At f8-f11 it tends to be pretty sharp. I've not been able to get anything amazing out of it under that though. Here's a couple pictures I've taken with it:

http://www.erkanandamanda.com/gallery/picKLE-cache/Favorites%20And%20Keepers/Animals/IMG_0678_600.jpg

http://www.erkanandamanda.com/gallery/picKLE-cache/Favorites%20And%20Keepers/Animals/IMG_0685_600.jpg

[Michaelmjc]

Does the f/4 have IS with it? I find that at 200mm it gets very shaky, especially with a 2x TC on.

[schmoelzel]

Does the f/4 have IS with it? I find that at 200mm it gets very shaky, especially with a 2x TC on.

That would be many peoples 'dream' zoom; the Canon 70-200F4 IS..........presently it does not have IS.

[Barb42]

I sold the 75-300 IS. I used it for a number of years and it produced poorly more often than good. I would go for 70-200 and add the TC. Remember that the shots you miss or come out a bit soft will never come your way again.

[Skip Souza]

Hi Mike.
I know that you are talking about spending your own money, not Bill Gates's. I would go with the 70-200 F/4 L. In decent light you can keep the shutter speed at 1/200 or faster to overcome camera shake. Just open up the aperture and/or raise the ISO. This lens is faster, focuses faster and sharper at larger apertures than the 75-300 IS. It is a better much lens all around and a better investment.
Then I would sell the 55-200 and get the TC for the longer reach.
OR
Sell the 55-200 and the kit lens and get the Canon EF-S 17-85 IS. This would give you a two lens kit out to 200mm that is much superior to what you have now. Add a TC and you will be even farther out there and still less than the cost of a 70-200 f/2.8 L IS

[Michaelmjc]

I think I'm gonna go with the 70-200 L, I have heard a lot of good things about it. I only was thinking about the 75-300 because it had IS, which is something I think would be very handy.

Thanks.
Mike

[MrChad]

I like my 75-300 IS USM, it's a great little lens.
The 70-200mm F4L is a great lens too, but I need the extra zoom more often then not on the 200-300mm side and I also need the IS to hand hold the shot with a lens that long.

I've shot the lens back to back with the 70-200 f4L and I'm still of the school that technique counts for more then gear. If I have to shoot wide open on the 200mmL at f4 I really want IS on my side for the shot.

That being said If I did go L it would need to be one of the f2.8 models to increase the shutter if I can't afford IS. Plus I'd need or want the 1.4x to get the reach.

For me IS is definately worth the money spent.

[ron chappel]

One thing that may help- With digital you can take multiple shots then delete all but the sharpest.
It's certainly not image stabilization but it sure is better than single shots! I use this technique allmost constantly.

I did have the 75-300 IS for awhile but decided i would rather put the money into good optics instead of IS. The optics on the 75-300 really are just average.You'll certainly get good shots at shorter focal lengths but as it gets close to 300mm it all becomes extremely difficult.
I've got allmost no shots near the 300mm end that i'm really happy with.

Of course the 70-200/4L is no cure all ,being only 200mm.It does work very well with the canon 1.4 extender though if you need a longer zoom length
http://www.pbase.com/token/image/24343763

[xuxu1]

I had the 75-300IS some time ago.. and yes it is a nice lens for the money. After approx. 1 year i decided to sell it and bought a new EF100-400L IS USM (also because of the reach). Since then i never look back.

If you can afford it, "L" is the way to go. Don´t invest in cheap glass. Better to save up longer and then buy a good "L" lens. Does´nt have to be a brand new one. There are lot´s of used ones on the internet.

ED

[Jon Foster]

As everyone else already posted, the 75-300 IS is a great lens for the price. I'd love to have L glass but can't swing it right now... Having said that, here's a few shots with my 75-300 IS...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v601/jfoster48386/Canon%20300D/Animals/Eagle2.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v601/jfoster48386/Canon%20300D/Animals/Owl.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v601/jfoster48386/Canon%20300D/Planes%20Trains%20and%20Automobiles/Bell407.jpg

I have lots more in my Photobucket account (linked below).

Jon.

[xuxu1]

As everyone else already posted, the 75-300 IS is a great lens for the price. I'd love to have L glass but can't swing it right now... Having said that, here's a few shots with my 75-300 IS...

Jon.
Nice pics! You forgot to mention the post processing. ;-)

But never the less... as we know.... it is a very nice lens for the price. :)

ED

[MrChad]

I guess I don't concider the 75-300 IS USM to be a cheap lens.

Sorry for the small res of this pic.
http://memimage.cardomain.net/member_images/12/web/276000-276999/276824_106_full.jpg

A 70-200 f4L and a 1.4xL is a lot more money then a 75-300 IS USM. And you still won't have gained much in the way of f-stop speed.

For $400 the 75-300 IS is a heck of a deal. I still think if you need a lens that reaches to 300mm and I do many-many times I can't get that reach for anywhere near this in L prices.

My other choice would be a 100-300mm USM, if you don't need IS but want the 300mm reach that's the zoom to own IMO simply for the ring type USM speed. This is just an option, a buddy of mine has this lens..it's guite nice for the money too.

I've done some comparison shots below 200mm with the 75-300mm IS and the 70-200mm f4L and I'm just not blown away to want to sell the IS lens and give up that extra reach and the IS. I've got some framed 11x14" prints I've shot with my 75-300mm IS USM, it's a darn fine optic. If I had to upgrade it would be the 70-300 IS DO, I don't have any complaints optically with the 75-300mm lens, I liked it on film and I love it on digital.

I just don't see how a soft shot at 300mm on the IS USM could have ever been improved with the 70-200mm f4L alone? If that's the case shoot the 75-300mm at 200mm and your shots will be sharper too, add IS and it may be even better in some cases.

The wonders of IS, if I could get the shot with f4 on the L, I could get just as sharp a pic stopped down a bit with IS on the 75-300mm and I get to lug around a much smaller lens, nice for travel. I wouldn't say either lens is great for low light sports but I've done some work arounds with the IS USM.

Again just to stress I'm not down playing the 70-200 f4L, I'm just trying to stick up for the IS USM which I think is an optic that folks bash. The lens IS USM runs ~$400, what a bargain (still alot of cash for me.) Again just playing devil's advocate here.

{I'm not sure L glass would make me like the Helicopter shot above anymore that's a great pic to me}

I shot some race car pics at Mid-Ohio sports car course using both the 75-300 IS USM and a buddies 70-200 f4L, both turned out awesome pics. But I was shooting in a hazy day both lenses at f7.1 or more with 1/250 shutter. Another buddy of mine has the 70-200 f2.8L now that's fun, but I sure as heck don't want to always lug that lens around, even if I owned it I'd likely still drag my IS USM out from time to time. But this is for my type of uses for this lens yours may be different. If you only own an 18-55mm ef-s, any Canon tele zoom is going to help your bag and deliver great results.