Cannon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III?

How are they as lesnes? I'm looking for something That i can use other then the kit lense..My brother can get me the lense for about $190ish..some people said its crap? Idk i was playing around with it, and i got somewhat the hang of it..now idk if it was the lense or the camrea (display) but when i would take a pic and move it slightly i can see more blur..but at times there wasnt..

idk, whats your guy's say on Cannon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III?

I have the 75-300 II, and I don't think it's crap. It is certainly no L lens, but you can do a lot of stuff with it, and then when you can save up for the L, you can probably sell it for 75% of what you paid for it. I'm sure lots will disagree with me here, but I've been happy with it, although I did just finally save up enough for the 70-200 f4 is L.

Bill5818 wrote in post #3556207
I have the 75-300 II, and I don't think it's crap. It is certainly no L lens, but you can do a lot of stuff with it, and then when you can save up for the L, you can probably sell it for 75% of what you paid for it. I'm sure lots will disagree with me here, but I've been happy with it, although I did just finally save up enough for the 70-200 f4 is L.

wait..what dose the "L" mean? cause idk, if thre is 2 of those..It might have been an L..idk i looked at it quickly.

Skyline4life,
The EF 75-300 III f/4-5.6 is not an L lens (the L lenses are Canon's top of the line lenses and cost much much more then $190). The 75-300 III is a good lens for its cost, it can be gotten brand new at B&H for $189 <-- click to see.

Here on this page I show how well this lens can be with photos and 100% crops <-- click to see

Here on this page I show a comparison with the 75-300 lens and the 100-400L lens <--click to see

Here on this page at POTN there are many opinions of the 75-300 lens <-- click to see

For its cost it really is a good light weight lens

John_B wrote in post #3556422
Skyline4life,
The EF 75-300 III f/4-5.6 is not an L lens (the L lenses are Canon's top of the line lenses and cost much much more then $190). The 75-300 III is a good lens for its cost, it can be gotten brand new at B&H for $189 <-- click to see.

Here on this page I show how well this lens can be with photos and 100% crops <-- click to see

Here on this page I show a comparison with the 75-300 lens and the 100-400L lens <--click to see

Here on this page at POTN there are many opinions of the 75-300 lens <-- click to see

For its cost it really is a good light weight lens

Sold. haha, I just googled what the L means, and really..I don't need a $11billion lense..I'm new to SLR's so it would be a good lense to learn on, and then when the time comes, i'll sell it and upgrade to a better one.

The only reason, i can get it for 190 is my brother works at target..and it would be for my B-day gift so i don't think my parents would mind ~10 more dollors.

Skyline4life,
Good have fun with it
Try to keep your hand held shots with shutter speeds of 1/500th or faster. Else use a tripod, a good rule of thumb is to use a shutter speed equal to the focal length of your lens (on 1.6 DSLR's like XT, XTi, 20D, 30D etc... its best to take focal length x 1.6 ex 300mm would be 480 thus 1/500 is the good hand held shutter speed).

It's optics are not as good as similar lenses from third party makers. Consider the Sigma 70-300mm APO DG Macro instead.

I've got the canon 75-300mm (mark I) and its fine for what I need to do. However I wouldn't expect to get national geographic type shots of nature, with no IS its a nightmare without a tripod at full zoom too, and pictures general end up soft rather than sharp. However like you I didn't want to spend a fortune on something, just wanted something with some focal length to play around with and it does the job!

Regards,

James