Canon EF 75-300mm f4.0-5.6 IS USM

[Zeke]

I'm thinking of purchasing a Canon EF 75-300mm f4.0-5.6 IS USM to compliment my kit, which is in it's very early stage. I don't have the money to spend on L glass at this stage as photography is basically just a hobby for the moment.

Just wondering if anyone here had any experience with this lens and could provide some honest and objective feedback.

I'm thinking with the EF-S 17-85 f4-5.6 IS USM, EF 75-300mm f4.0-5.6 IS USM and perhaps an EF 50mm f1.4 USM I would have good coverage for a basic kit.

Thoughts?

[Jon]

It's not a bad lens, although it's a 10-year old design and Canon's made one or two minor advances in the intervening time. I have it, and use it when I don't want to haul around the 100-400 L. You might consider getting the 50 f/1.8 instead of the 1.4 (2/3 stop slower isn't that much) and putting the extra dollars into getting the 70-200 f/4 L. Maybe even the 70-200 and the Canon or Sigma 1.4x TC. Not as long, but faster at 200, and the TC will get you almost out to 300.

[Esquire]

Zeke - I own the 75-300. It is a great, versatile lens. I use it for lots of different situations (wildlife, candid street photos) and I think it would be a good compliment to the other lenses you have and are thinking about getting. I carry the EF 75-300mm f/4-5/6 IS USM, an EF-S 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 USM and an EF 85mm f/1.8 USM in my bag and feel pretty good about my coverage.

[Outdoor23]

Its a good telephoto lens for its money. becomes soft at the long end. The IS is an old version, but hey..its better than not have any

[yenoram]

I had this lens before replacing it with a used 70-200 2.8L. Obviously, the 75-300 isn't in the same league but it's certainly a capable piece of glass.

I liked:
1. IS
2. range
3. weight when compared to the 70-200

I didn't like:
1. rotating front element - major pain when using a polarizer
2. zoom creep - drove me nuts that the lens would fully extend whenever it was pointed down (e.g., whenever I was walking around)
3. slow focusing - IS helps to shoot at slow shutter speeds but it doesn't help with focusing speed which I found very slow on this lens particularly in low light.
4. softness particularly at the long end.

[Zeke]

Thanks guys, appreciate your feedback.

[FlyingPete]

I had this lens before replacing it with a used 70-200 2.8L. Obviously, the 75-300 isn't in the same league but it's certainly a capable piece of glass.

I liked:
1. IS
2. range
3. weight when compared to the 70-200

I didn't like:
1. rotating front element - major pain when using a polarizer
2. zoom creep - drove me nuts that the lens would fully extend whenever it was pointed down (e.g., whenever I was walking around)
3. slow focusing - IS helps to shoot at slow shutter speeds but it doesn't help with focusing speed which I found very slow on this lens particularly in low light.
4. softness particularly at the long end.

Also as a 75-300IS owner I second these comments, mine is now almost 10 years old though, so it is a real workhorse!

[MrChad]

Frankly I find the arguments that the 300mm end is soft, as bunk, and a reason to sell this lens....

Unless you sell the 75-300 IS USM for say the 70-300 DO or the 100-400L, both are more then double the price you will be hard pressed to find a Canon 300mm that is better. The 100-300mm may do it, but not with IS.

And you could put a 1.4x on the 70-200mm f4L but you would still be a tad short for 300mm. I'd rather have a soft 300mm and a noisy ISO1600 then nothing at all when needed.

I keep this lens for the IS, I'd rather have a soft 300mm then a blury 300mm. IS for a $400 lens, I think mine was even less with a rebate...a bargain in my book.

I'd rather have years of photos with this lens then years waiting to save up for a 100-400L. This lens sells on ebay for used almost what you can get the lens for new in NYC, it's as good an investment as any other good canon zoom. Buy it, use it, sell it, upgrade like we do with any lens.

[bikerider]

I'm thinking of purchasing a Canon EF 75-300mm f4.0-5.6 IS USM to compliment my kit, which is in it's very early stage. I don't have the money to spend on L glass at this stage as photography is basically just a hobby for the moment.

Just wondering if anyone here had any experience with this lens and could provide some honest and objective feedback.

I'm thinking with the EF-S 17-85 f4-5.6 IS USM, EF 75-300mm f4.0-5.6 IS USM and perhaps an EF 50mm f1.4 USM I would have good coverage for a basic kit.

Thoughts?

G'day Zeke,
I've had the 75-300 for a couple of years now and find it a good lens overall, yes it is a compromise from an L series, but it's still a good lens. I've just purchased a 70-200 F4L and am debating whether to keep the 75-300 or not. Here is a sample from it.
Roger.

[c3p1]

Nice picture...
by the way is the soft focus something that can be 'sharpened' in Photoshop with unsharp mask?
was the above image touched up in photoshop or straight out of the camera?

I am planning to buy the digital rebel XT and Canon EF 75-300 IS lens, which puts me slightly over budget. But like the idea of IS that Sigma or Tamron does not have; as a lot what I will shoot will be indoor school events or my kids sports (both indoor and outdoor) and thus want the reach and extra 2 stops. And most will be 4x6 prints with occansional 5x7. Is this logic correct?

[bikerider]

Nice picture...
by the way is the soft focus something that can be 'sharpened' in Photoshop with unsharp mask?
was the above image touched up in photoshop or straight out of the camera?

I am planning to buy the digital rebel XT and Canon EF 75-300 IS lens, which puts me slightly over budget. But like the idea of IS that Sigma or Tamron does not have; as a lot what I will shoot will be indoor school events or my kids sports (both indoor and outdoor) and thus want the reach and extra 2 stops. And most will be 4x6 prints with occansional 5x7. Is this logic correct?

Yep' slight sharpening in PS as I always shoot in RAW then process. The work you're going to do, if there's lots of it, then I think you would be better to try to extend your budget to the 70-200L2.8.
Roger.

[xuxu1]

If you need the reach and the IS, then go for it. If not, consider buying the 70-200L f4.0 that could still be in an acceptable price range for you.

I had the 75-300IS and was quite happy with it.

It´s a bit soft, but maybe you can PS a little.

ED

[RikWriter]

Frankly, I'd spend the little bit of extra money (not really that much) and get the 70-200 f4L. You can get the f4 for around $500 and it's worth every penny.

[xuxu1]

Frankly, I'd spend the little bit of extra money (not really that much) and get the 70-200 f4L. You can get the f4 for around $500 and it's worth every penny.
...besides he could add a "poor man´s IS" a monopod to his purchase which would´nt cost to much either. :lol:

ED