75-300 poor image quality at long focal lengths

I'm using my Canon EF 75-300 f4-5.6 IS lens with a 450D body. I'm getting acceptable images at focal lengths from around 200 and under, but at focal lengths from 250 and up the image is intolerable. (I know, I know, the real solution is a nice new 70-200 f2.8, but that's not in the budget right now). Is it possible to send my lens in for adjustment, or am I dreaming?

The 75-300 lens IS bad. You can't do anything about that, Canon can't do that eather. It is a fact the IQ is very poor when you use it on a focallength of 200 and more. You can look for a 70-200LF4 if you want a cheap telezoom.

Even the non-L 70-300 is better than the 75-300.

Have had the 75-300, 70-200 f4 IS, and 70-300 f4-5.6 IS.
The 70-300 f4-5.6 non L IS is a step up over the 75-300 f4-5.6 non L IS to be sure.
Still, the 70-300 f4-5.6 non L IS IQ falls off above 250 or thereabouts.
If you can afford it, the 70-200 f4 non IS is a step up with a 1.4x II or better.
The 70-200 f4 IS is even better and works great with a 1.4x II or better.
The entire series of 75-300's ( I think there were 4 or 5) was pretty bad.

I had the 75-300 for about 6 months and was also disappointed with the IQ, even if I was shooting on a tripod. It was my first telephoto lens, so I didn't know what to expect - but after upgrading to the 70-300, I can say that you should definitely upgrade. You can find some for around $300, but as some folks have already mentioned, any of the 70-200's will be your best bet.

Hope an upgrade is in your near future! Trust me, I've been in your shoes before with the frustration

The Canon 75-300mm (of any of the several vintage design generations) it nothing to brag about...

https://photography-on-the.net …hp?p=10268156&p​ostcount=9

In spite of the fact that the 75-300 was (in 2010) in about its third redesign, it remains the universally poor lens of the Canon line.

The 55-250 is a much better lens and only $150 used. Any 70-300 or 70-200 will be an improvement, too.

There's a 6-year long thread on the "nifty-250" <here>. I got mine at a sale - new for $150.... watch for the sales, different stores still have them from time to time.

saintz wrote in post #14914905
The 55-250 is a much better lens and only $150 used. Any 70-300 or 70-200 will be an improvement, too.

Thanks. That's in my budget for now, and sounds like it will probably keep me happy 'till I can afford more.

saintz wrote in post #14914905
The 55-250 is a much better lens and only $150 used. Any 70-300 or 70-200 will be an improvement, too.

i couldn't believe it took someone that long to mention this lens, it is a great buy for the money!

There are also ef 70-210 f4 and 70-210 f3.5-4.5 USM both are quite old but still superior to any of the 75-300s

I had the 75-300 MkIII for about 2 months before I realised something was drastically wrong with it. It's the only lens I've owned that I have no keepers from, although I do have a couple of shots backed up somewhere to remind me how bad it was and show prospective buyers how bad it is. I got mine for christmas 2010 with my first dslr (T2i) and it was the first thing I sold on ebay to do with photography, although I did make about a £35 profit on it so it wasn't all bad.

One lens may be useful.

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

^^^^ nice colors
Lens ?

moltengold wrote in post #14917839
^^^^ nice colors
Lens ?

All three images were generated eleven years ago. The camera body was a Canon D30, the company's original three-megapixel digital SLR.

The lens was a Canon 75-300mm. EXIF shows that focal lengths for the images were 230mm, 155mm and 190 mm.

Not only did the images come from a lens that has been widely criticized on this forum, but they also came from an early-generation camera that has been considered obsolete for more than a decade, and, on top of that, the originals were made in the JPEG format. Despite these supposed drawbacks, there were no complaints about the images, and no one even noted their source, although the information is still embedded in the images' EXIF, which can be read by a browser equipped with the correct plug-in. The only concession to recent image processing was to use Lightroom's Auto levels processing, and even that wasn't the latest version of Lightroom.

Now, even several hours after the images had been posted on this forum, there had been no complaints about their appearance or source, although the images were generated under conditions where the OP claimed "the pictures were intolerable."

There is a chance that these pictures demonstrate the Canon 75-300mm doesn't have all of the claimed deficiencies. Or, perhaps now that the images' source has been revealed, a flurry of flaws will be belatedly discovered.