Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 08 Feb 2013 (Friday) 08:58
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Canon ef 75-300 f/4-5.6 III how bad is it? Really

 
bent ­ toe
Goldmember
Avatar
1,951 posts
Gallery: 106 photos
Best ofs: 5
Likes: 33
Joined Jul 2012
     
Feb 08, 2013 08:58 |  #1

A shop here in town is selling it for under $100 brand new.

Worth it?
I shoot tele maybe 1% of the time... maybe. So put alot of cash on an expensive one is not an option. Just nice to have for those rare occasions.

No? Yes?


"High life on low budget"
bent photos (external link)Portfoliobox (external link)
X-Pro1 XF 35 f/1.4

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
scoobyracing03
Junior Member
22 posts
Joined Nov 2012
Location: Louisville KY
     
Feb 08, 2013 09:05 |  #2
bannedPermanent ban
SPAM PUT AWAY
This post is marked as spam.
bent ­ toe
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
1,951 posts
Gallery: 106 photos
Best ofs: 5
Likes: 33
Joined Jul 2012
     
Feb 08, 2013 09:09 |  #3

scoobyracing03 wrote in post #15586684 (external link)
I got the same Lens for the same price you mentioned. I've been happy with it. Outside with good light it's a good lens for the price to me. I usually use it for taking pictures of the kids football games.

Any photos you want to share? Preferably 250-300mm


"High life on low budget"
bent photos (external link)Portfoliobox (external link)
X-Pro1 XF 35 f/1.4

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Amamba
Goldmember
Avatar
3,679 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 50
Joined Nov 2007
Location: SE MI
     
Feb 08, 2013 09:27 |  #4

Given that an excellent 55-250IS can often be found used for around $150, I wouldn't spend any money on this one.


Ex-Canon shooter. Now Sony Nex.
Life Lessons: KISS. RTFM. Don't sweat the small stuff.
My Gear List (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DC ­ Fan
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,881 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 50
Joined Oct 2005
     
Feb 08, 2013 13:47 as a reply to  @ Amamba's post |  #5

Judging from these actual images from a Canon 75-300mm lens, the unit gives decent results.

IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE


IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE


IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE


Considering that there have been complaints about the presumably superior Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 IS Mark II on this forum, complaints may not be the best way to judge equipment. Regardless of the equipment or its price, someone will always be unhappy with that equipment, and that someone will rush to this forum to make sure that everyone knows.



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
marcosv
Senior Member
775 posts
Joined Oct 2009
Location: San Jose, CA
     
Feb 08, 2013 14:40 |  #6

The questions are how prepared you are to work within the lens' limitations and is there a limit to the maximum image size you are willing to accept?

Are you ready to stop down as needed, which means looking for more available light, higher ISO, and possibly more post-processing of RAW shots?

I liked my old 75-300 III until I bought a 70-200/4L --- night and day. But, I'm glad I used the 75-300 for as long as I did to verify to myself that I liked this hobby enough to be willing to sink in the big bucks for incremental improvements.


EOS-M | 40D | 5DII | 5DIII | EF-M 22 | EF-M 18-55 | 10-22 | 17-55 | 17-40L | 24-70L mk II | 24-105L | 70-200/2.8L IS mk II| 35L | 85L II |35/2 | 40/2.8 pancake | 50/1.8 | 50/1.4 | 100/2 | Rokinon 14/2.8 | 90 EX | 270 EX II | 580 EXII | 600 EX-RT

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
4100xpb
Member
66 posts
Joined Jan 2013
Location: Vancouver
     
Feb 08, 2013 16:53 |  #7

The lens is perfectly capable of producing decent pictures. The challenge with this lens for someone serious about photography is you will likely start running into the limitations of the lens quite quickly. Those limitations have been discussed often elsewhere, but some of the ones I struggle with are

It's slow, particularly at the long end: Basically you need lots of light to use this lens. The attached picture was taken at 300mm on a moderately overcast day. With a shutter speed of 1/800 and wide open aperture of 5.6, I needed ISO 320 for the shot. A f/4 lens would have been able to make it at ISO 160, and so on for faster lenses.

Spherochromatism: This is particularly bad wide open at the long. Major green/purple fringing on out of focus high contrast areas.


The good:

The lens does have some good qualities to it, besides being cheap. It has a ring USM, so manual focus is easy and instant and autofocus is reasonably quick. It's very light, making it nice for those times you are looking to reduce weight.

Here's the deal. For $100 you get to practice with what is regarded as one of the worst lenses in the lineup. That will force you to improve technique to manage it. You'll run hard into the limitations of the lens and see the results in your pictures. That will help you understand why you want a better lens and direct your choice. You no longer say "I need a 70-200 L because it's the best, so nyah." You say "All my shots with high contrast objects in out of focus areas have massive fringing, and it ruins the photo. I need a lens that better controls that effect wide open." Or "the kinds of photos I'm really suffer from the distortion at 300mm, I need a lens that doesn't do that."

This will make you think about what lens you really need, and not just buying a 70-200 L because they're awesome and everyone says to get one. So you get to practice and improve while you're saving up for your next lens, and when you're ready to get it you can sell the 75-300 for the same price you bought it. There's really no losing by picking it up.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
greenjeans
Goldmember
Avatar
2,087 posts
Gallery: 265 photos
Likes: 4318
Joined Aug 2010
Location: Greenville, SC
     
Feb 08, 2013 18:22 |  #8

The 75-300 III doesn't have USM focus or IS. My daughter gets really good shots with hers using it handheld. I need a tripod unless it is super light outside. I got some really decent shots with mine. You just have to understand the limitations.


Gripped 6D, gripped 6D2, gripped 70D, 80D, 24-105 F4L, 50mm 1.8 STM, 55-250mm, 18-135mm, 60mm EF-S macro, 70-200 F4L IS, 400mm F5.6L, 18-55mm IS STM, Canon 85mm 1.8, Sigma 150-600mm C., Sigma 100-400mm C, Samyang 8mm 3.5 fisheye, Sunpak DF3600U Flash (2)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bent ­ toe
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
1,951 posts
Gallery: 106 photos
Best ofs: 5
Likes: 33
Joined Jul 2012
     
Feb 09, 2013 06:55 |  #9

This version isent the USM version.
Thanks all who pitched in.. and yes, i've shot quite a few photos with a 70-200L, also with the 17-40L and i got some pretty good lenses inlcuding the 85mm and the 50mm in my bag, a fast lense with good sharpness is always needed if you ask me. It doesent hurt to have it either f/4 constant or at 2.8 and below..

I saw it in the store and they previously had it for $175 so i thought i should ask here.. i'm more of a prime guy, but a macro and a telezoom should always be in a photographers bag.


"High life on low budget"
bent photos (external link)Portfoliobox (external link)
X-Pro1 XF 35 f/1.4

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Amamba
Goldmember
Avatar
3,679 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 50
Joined Nov 2007
Location: SE MI
     
Feb 09, 2013 08:34 |  #10

As I said, why not 55-250 ? Same price range, much better lens.


Ex-Canon shooter. Now Sony Nex.
Life Lessons: KISS. RTFM. Don't sweat the small stuff.
My Gear List (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bent ­ toe
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
1,951 posts
Gallery: 106 photos
Best ofs: 5
Likes: 33
Joined Jul 2012
     
Feb 09, 2013 10:49 |  #11

Amamba wrote in post #15590419 (external link)
As I said, why not 55-250 ? Same price range, much better lens.

Already had it.. dident like it.


"High life on low budget"
bent photos (external link)Portfoliobox (external link)
X-Pro1 XF 35 f/1.4

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Michigan ­ Mike
Junior Member
Avatar
24 posts
Joined Jan 2013
Location: USA
     
Feb 15, 2013 11:11 |  #12

bent toe wrote in post #15590810 (external link)
Already had it.. dident like it.

I would like to hear more about this as I may try one instead of spending $900 on a 70-200 f4 IS L.
I thought the 55-250 IS was a lot better than the 75-300 III ?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cor726
Member
49 posts
Joined Jul 2010
     
Feb 15, 2013 12:38 as a reply to  @ Michigan Mike's post |  #13

I would have been happier with mine if I only paid $100. I use telephoto range enough to justify the 70-200 f4 which is amazing - We had a 55-250 IS for a little while as well and it was decent.

It is possible to take decent shots with the 75-300 in ideal conditions.


Canon 7D, 50D, 40D, 20D and T3, Σ EX 10-20 f/4-5.6, 17-40 F/4L, Σ EX 18-50 f/2.8, 18-55 IS, 70-200 F/4L, Σ EX 30 f/1.4, 40 f/2.8 STM, 60 2.8 Macro, 85 f/1.8, 1.4x II, 430EXII
And a Canon Rebel S II & 35-80 f/4-5.6 USM

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
outmywindow
Senior Member
Avatar
670 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Jan 2013
     
Feb 15, 2013 12:47 |  #14

I have this lens also which I pretty much acquired for free (given as a present), and as long as you are aware of the limitations of the lens its perfectly acceptable as a long telephoto zoom. Shots with older bodies like the XS that I own are just 'alright', nothing to write home about even in the best of circumstances. With the 60D body, you definitely get better aesthetic results from this lens with the 18 MP vs the 10MP I have on the XS. Mainly I say aesthetic because a lens which is not really tack sharp to begin with won't get any sharper throwing more megapixels, obviously, but its just something I noticed looking at shots taken with the 60D vs the XS. I've shot mainly birds and animals with this lens and I find that although its not tack sharp like an L lens would be, it gets the job done. You might get a lot of people trying to tellyou that you shouldn't buy the lens altogether, that its a newbie mistake, or that the 55-200 EF-S is better, or blah blah blah. I've used 300mm FL more times than I can count for those occasional animal shots when I've actually used this lens. I don't have my photos on me at the moment, but I can try to post some when I get home later. To all those other people, if you can afford L glass telephoto lenses and you're just starting out in this hobby, then more power to you.

But anways, if you're like me who mainly likes to shoot from UWA to about 50-85mm most of the time, which looking at your sig seems to be a reasonable assumption :-), I would say its worth it for those occasional shots. If you can get it for dirt cheap, I say its worth it to just have at your disposal, and the worst case scenario is that you use it in some hostile place where it gets damaged/broken/stolen you won't be eating your heart out.

Personally, I'm still saving some money for that 70-200 f/4L though :-)


Just a soul with a camera

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
plumgoo
Senior Member
434 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jun 2008
Location: Vienna, Austria
     
Feb 15, 2013 13:47 |  #15

bent toe wrote in post #15586697 (external link)
Any photos you want to share? Preferably 250-300mm

200mm

IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO


250mm

IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

60D | Canon 70-200L 4.0 | Canon 17-40L 4.0 | Canon 60 2.8 | Canon 85 1.8 | Sigma 30 1.4| Tokina Fisheye 10-17 3.5-4.5 | Walimax Pro 500 | Tamron 1.4x | Various other bits |
My Smugmug (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

4,830 views & 0 likes for this thread
Canon ef 75-300 f/4-5.6 III how bad is it? Really
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is mogeqq
934 guests, 316 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.