Is my lens bad?

I have a 15 year old, but only moderately used, Canon 75-300 IS USM (NOT "L" series) lens. I recently did a comparison of images from this lens relative to others in my bag and was unhappy with the result.

The image taken from a 100 mm fixed lens vs. the 75-300 lens at the same focal length were surprisingly different. Everything else was the same; camera, subject, time of day, f stop, etc. A very solid tripod was used.

The first of the two images was taken with the fixed 100mm lens, the second was taken with the 75-300 mm lens. The image from the zoom lens is fuzzier and not as sharp. This becomes more noticeable with increased zoom. Is this inherent in the lens or is my lens defective? I can't afford an L series lens, but is there another telephoto zoom I might consider?

Thanks.

your lens is bad inasmuch as any variant of the canon 75-300 is a straight up bow bow (dog). i'd say your results are probably typical. I hope you also realize the the canon 100m macro is one of canon's sharpest lenses and it's stopped down whereas the 75-300 appears to be wide open.

that zoom never had a chance and you gave it even less of one

Yeah the 75-300s thrown into Rebel kits for practically-free as a "value-add" are terrible. The most recent was released in 1999, and from a quick bit of research it's roughly the same optical formula from the 1991 launch, which means it was meant for relatively low-resolution film, not high-density digital crop sensors.

I have no idea if you're interested in improving on it, but the current 70-300 is at the Canon refurb store for $390 which, per the examples at TDP, should beat the pants off the 75-300. It won't do anything like the 100 macro though! Not even with the macro wide open. I'd still jump on it in an instant if I wanted a decent telephoto.

LonelyBoy wrote in post #18845313
Yeah the 75-300s thrown into Rebel kits for practically-free as a "value-add" are terrible. The most recent was released in 1999, and from a quick bit of research it's roughly the same optical formula from the 1991 launch, which means it was meant for relatively low-resolution film, not high-density digital crop sensors.

I have no idea if you're interested in improving on it, but the current 70-300 is at the Canon refurb store for $390 which, per the examples at TDP, should beat the pants off the 75-300. It won't do anything like the 100 macro though! Not even with the macro wide open. I'd still jump on it in an instant if I wanted a decent telephoto.

yeah even a 55-250 would be a huge improvement and you can get them dirt cheap.

I have the 70-300 2 IS USM and it's really good.

Prime lenses (fixed focal length) are nearly always sharper than any zoom lens so this sort of comparison is tricky. Your 75-300 IS is a middling quality lens, not as bad as the non IS variants, but it still falls short of L series zooms, and there are degrees of sharpness within the various L lenses. You probably need to decide what is most important to you. Prime lenses offer sharpness at a budget price, zoom lenses can get close but at a significant cost, but are often more usable in the real world. So decode how sharp is sharp enough.

just grab the 55-250STM if you are on a budget

At the posted resolution I really had to look at the pictures to see the differences between the two.

I have the 75-300 and while it is not a good lens it is good enough for you to find which photographic direction you find interesting. mine has taken pictures I am still pleased with and gets used even today. That being said you don't realize how bad the lens is until you use the 70-300 L.

Has anyone else noticed that in the posted picture the lens is identified as the 75-300 F4-5.6 L
Keep it! It is probably the only 'L' 75-300 in existence.

Rod

anytime you compare the 75-300 to anything else, it will never be as good as whatever else you are comparing it to

DreDaze wrote in post #18845676
just grab the 55-250STM if you are on a budget

I agree with that, the STM version of this lens is extremely good and low priced.