Much-maligned 75-300

Thanks guys for all your comments

Collin85 wrote in post #2624075
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.

The original print I posted had some USM on it - the 100% was a direct lift from it and had no further work.

Now for the other thing. I'm thinking of swapping this lens for the new (ish) 70-300 IS which, by all accounts, is a much better lens. Has anyone any experience with this lens - or thoughts on it? Thanks.

Roy Mathers wrote in post #2624434
Now for the other thing. I'm thinking of swapping this lens for the new (ish) 70-300 IS which, by all accounts, is a much better lens. Has anyone any experience with this lens - or thoughts on it? Thanks.

The 70-300 IS is generally well regarded. The argument is usually this lens vs. the 70-200 f/4L (due to the similar price). Performance of the 70-300 is very decent throughout it's zoom range AND it has IS. Interestingly, Photozone actually describes this lens as a 'hidden L'. It is also lighter than the 70-200, which may or may not be a factor to a purchase decision. Cons including the lens being slower towards the telephoto end (f/4-5.6) and the poor construction.

John_B wrote in post #2609212
Roy Mathers,
Photos when resized usually need to be sharpened with software. I have been very happy with its low cost, light weight and good sharp quality of my 75-300. I once did a side by side comparison at 300mm f/8 to my 100-400L at 300mm f/8 with 100% crops (click to see)and they were very close! Now when I figured in the price difference between the two the 75-300 really was good

John, were you using a tripod for these comparison shots?

I love the range of my 75-300mm III, but since I don't have a steady hand I always get bad shots from it. They look great small, but when I zoom into them at 100% they degrade majorly. I've had many rejected by the stock companies that I thought looked great... until I viewed them at 100%. I bought a monopod to help with this, but I haven't had a chance to use it with that lens yet. I hope to do so soon so I can compare. I can't always break out the tripod, but I'm hoping the monopod will help.

picturecrazy wrote in post #2619648
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...

Well, for the record, I did own this lens once and it was a poor performer for me. An 'ok' lens will only produce 'ok' images, and for many people that's acceptable. Perhaps you are fortunate in that your copy is one of the rare ones that come off the line as a decent lens.

Tony-S wrote in post #2625160
Well, for the record, I did own this lens once and it was a poor performer for me. An 'ok' lens will only produce 'ok' images, and for many people that's acceptable. Perhaps you are fortunate in that your copy is one of the rare ones that come off the line as a decent lens.

I'm sure there ARE bad copies out there. I've even had horrid L lenses. But there are like hundreds of people that bash lenses who have never even used it! My comment wasn't pointed directly to you people who have used it and didn't like it.

I was much happier with the images from my 75-300 than the 24-70L, which I got rid of for that reason.

picturecrazy wrote in post #2625591
I was much happier with the images from my 75-300 than the 24-70L, which I got rid of for that reason.

Really? That's something.

This is the first thread that I have read about positives about 75-300 in a long while. Seems like nobody could get along with this lens (aka POS). Regardless, I still went for it and find it to be a bargain the price also.

Here's one that I took at 300mm f5.6, cropped down to 70%. Converted with DPP RAW with Landscape mode.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

picturecrazy wrote in post #2625591
I'm sure there ARE bad copies out there. I've even had horrid L lenses. But there are like hundreds of people that bash lenses who have never even used it! My comment wasn't pointed directly to you people who have used it and didn't like it.

I was much happier with the images from my 75-300 than the 24-70L, which I got rid of for that reason.

Then you must have had a very bad copy of the 24-70L. I have the 28-70L (predecessor of the 24-70) and had the 75-300. There's no comparison between this consumer quality lens and the L.

Here's a shot and 100% crop at 1/800, f/5.6 at 260mm. I could never get anything better than snapshot quality of my 75-300, even when I shot a couple of stops down. Soft and fringing.

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

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