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

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?

scoobyracing03 wrote in post #15586684
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

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

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

Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Already had it.. dident like it.

bent toe wrote in post #15590810
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 ?

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.

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

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

200mm

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO