why is the 75-300 a bad lens ?

i have the canon 75-300mm f3.5-5.6 III non usm lens
other than focusing really slowly what is wrong with it ?
i know it is a slow (f5.6) lens but my copy seems to be fairly sharp
why do people on here keep saying its a bad lens ?

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

Ignorance is bliss.
Most people that complain about a lense, do so because they have some experience with other, sharper ones.
I used to be happy with my ES28-135 until I got the 10-22. Now the 28-135 barely touches my camera even though is by far more versatile .

The main problem with 75-300mm is that there are better lenses to compare it with

Well to me its good, It was my first lens back when I had my D30 I have never owned a better lens so I cant say anything. I only got it because it is a super telephoto and thats what I wanted it for, for shooting planes. When I get my 70-200 F4 L It will probably go on ebay.

Well, you've got a shot of a duck's head there, and that's what you call sharp. If you only print at 8x10, the 75-300 will do you just fine. I had a Sigma 70-300APO which was a great lens for me when I didn't have the budget for anything better. That said, once you get a better telephoto, you'll understand why people are unimpressed with the 75-300.

Here are two shots taken with my 80-200 f/2.8L, a 100% crop of a swan's head. Below the crops is the full image (reduced for web) of the second crop. Tell me if you think they're better:

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

I have the 28-135 and used it for over a year because it was the best lens I could afford. I thought it was wonderful. I got the old 80-200 because it was inexpensive, but it was so slow and not very sharp. After getting better lenses, I gave the 28-135 to my son to use. I started loving the primes I purchased and then the 24-70. For the most part, you get what you pay for. Supply and demand is true for Canon lenses.

If you are enjoying the 75-300, that's what's most important. Getting the best of a lens is what photography is all about. But if you could find someone with a 70-200 f4, try that sometime.

Slowly you will grow over it as you start seeing sharper images from others, like the one posted by Jman13. Most of the L glasses, and especially the primes can produce images way sharper than a 75-300. And since you seem to be shooting birds, it will actually matter to you sooner or later that it focuses very slow and does not let in much light.

Here is the review on what I consider a very reliable site:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …-III-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

I think a lot of it is our own inabilities to take our time learning, as well as the fact that it is easier to pass blame unto the lens. That coupled with the fact that yes there are sharper and faster lenses to compare to. However not everyone is in a position to spend thousands of dollars on them so in my eyes, in the long run it is better to try to learn with what we have rather than get frustrated and blame the lens. Just my two cents.

Echo63,
I know I had the non USM version when I shot film with a Canon Elan IIe. I still use my newer 75-300 f/4-5.6 and find its great for its price, weight and small size.

Here I have a 75-300 and at 300mm, f/8 it is very close to my 100-400L at 300mm, f/8 Click to see photos and 100% crops of both.

Here is a shot taken with a 75-300 f/4-5.6 @ 300mm f/5.6

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

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

sorry for not posting a larger crop earlier

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

gerolamo wrote in post #2060852
Ignorance is bliss.
Most people that complain about a lense, do so because they have some experience with other, sharper ones.
I used to be happy with my ES28-135 until I got the 10-22. Now the 28-135 barely touches my camera even though is by far more versatile .

The main problem with 75-300mm is that there are better lenses to compare it with

they're all good until you know better .

ed rader

This is one of those moments when the truly wise burn their credit cards.

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #2062678
This is one of those moments when the truly wise burn their credit cards.

Or sell the children?

KonTiki wrote in post #2061112
I think a lot of it is our own inabilities to take our time learning, as well as the fact that it is easier to pass blame unto the lens. That coupled with the fact that yes there are sharper and faster lenses to compare to. However not everyone is in a position to spend thousands of dollars on them so in my eyes, in the long run it is better to try to learn with what we have rather than get frustrated and blame the lens. Just my two cents.

i actually agree with you. more often than not it is the shortcoming of the photographer and not the lens that is at fault.

but in this case i think it's the lens .

ed rader

If you are happy with the lens, then that is what really matters. If you find the lens limiting, then upgrade at that point. Compared to a comparable lens like the Sigma 70-300, the Canon has softer optics at 300mm, more CA, and less contrast. Even more so compared to professional grade lens like the 70-200 L lenses.

But again, lenses are somewhat subjective. People like and dislike lenses for various personal reasons. I say just go out and enjoy it.