Much-maligned 75-300

I like the picture. I think the lens is a great buy for the money. As said above, you have to play to the positives. Helped me decide which lens would replace it. Also have some great pics with it!!

I've read many times on this forum that the Sigma 70-300 APO DG is a much better lens for the same price. I had the 75-300 until it was recently stolen, and I don't miss it at all.

John_B wrote in post #2609307
Roy Mathers,
Well there are other things different between the 2 lenses,
ex.1 build quality (my 100-400L is a tank compared to the 75-300)
ex.2 IS (having IS on my 100-400L makes many more hand held shots available)
ex.3 Focus (my 100-400L has a much faster and complete manual control, the 75-300 has to be switched to MF or you strip the gears).
So there is more behind the price difference, but the 75-300 can give excellent results

What about wide open performance?

bufferbure1,
Wide open performance with the EF 75-300 is good even on a FF camera. No I haven't done a wide open side by side comparison of both lenses. But maybe in the future Here on my lens page I have a photo taken at 300mm wide open f/5.6 with a 100% crop

I generally tend to sharpness issues with 100% crops. Downsizing often solves but the worst of IQ issues. I would be interested in seeing an 100% crop of that picture.

optically mediocre, not even close to the same league as your 10-22 or 24-105. images from it look OK if stopped down and not printed large, or if downsized & posted on web, but if you want to crop and print at 8x10, you'll be frustrated. By those standards, the kit lens is good, too. It's in that league (though built better).

I also stumbled on the tamron 70-300 which costs 1/3 as much and I think is sharper, and the sigma 70-300 (APO version) seems to test out better also.

I LOVE my 75-300. I use it wide open all the time and get fantastic shots from it. Best $100 I've spent. I don't know why people bash this lens so much... I am guessing most of these people haven't owned and used one, like most internet lens critics...

I have a 70-200 F/2.8L and still keep the 75-300 around. The 70-200 is fantastic, but for 21 times the price (Cnd $) I would have been disappointed if I had replaced the 75-300 rather than kept both. It's not 21 times better imo.

I'd keep it, personally...

I had the lens once, used it as my travel lens, I sold and and in retrospect, I wish I had kept it. Walking around as a tourist with a big white lens is just silly, less alone packing one. I am heading to Cambodia, Thailand and China later this year, and will likely replace it for the trip. I have other lenses that can do the job, but for traveling, a 24-70 and a 75-300 seem to make up the right travel kit. I will not be taking any L's with me. If I can't afford to loose it, I will not take it.

Collin85

Here's the 100% crop you wanted to see - opinion?

oops, the attachment didn't go!

Collin85

Here's the 100% crop you wanted to see - opinion?

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

And some 300mm crops from 75-300: F8 and f11 does look reasonable.
http://flickr.com/phot​os/mlmho4

The shot is reasonably sharp.

I had the 75-300 IS and in my opinion it was an okay lens. It was capable of sharp images when stopped down and with the proper technique. The problem was, for me, that it was that it required stopping down and real attention to technique. After I bought my 70-200 f2.8L, I pretty much stopped using it except when I needed more reach. When I bought my 100-400 L IS, the 75-300 got sold.

Mark

Well just goes to show you that sharpness is in the eye of the beholder because I thought the first one looked fine and the resharpened one looks over sharpened.

Roy Mathers wrote in post #2621359
Collin85

Here's the 100% crop you wanted to see - opinion?

If there is no post-processing done on that picture, then I would say it's decently sharp, especially for this lens. Shows that when stopped down, this lens is certainly very capable - and can offer great value for the price.