Blurry Images with 75-300mm Lens

I'm a complete newbie when it comes to photography, so excuse me if this is a stupid question or been asked a million times before.

I just bought a 2nd hand EOS350D last week, which came with the following zoom lenses:

Canon Zoom Lens IS EF 75-300mm
Tamron AF28-300mm UltraZoom

This weekend I took lots and lots of photos, all using the 75-300mm Canon lens. When I got home, I found that almost all of them were slightly out of focus (some more than others, but I put that down to user error). Even the best ones seemed a bit blurry.

Given I'm a complete newbie, it's entirely possible that it's just my lack of skill that is causing the blur, so what I did next was take a couple of test pics to compare the Canon and Tamron lenses. I found that the Tamron didn't suffer the same problem. Would this be because the Tamron is easier to focus for a beginner like me? Or could there be a problem with the Canon lens?

EDIT: I just saw a similar thread which mentioned the focus test. I will try that first and post results.

I havent got much time, but could it be that you were using too slow a shutter speed for the lense and light?
300mm with a 1.6x crop camera is going to need I would say a 400th -500th sec and a 400iso and a steady hand.(Depends on the available light). It might be slight movement/shake during the taking of the pictures.
Hope you get it sorted.

I agree with Ben that its most likely camera shake of some sort. Most of the "focus tests" ar geared for lenses that focus sharp, just not at the right spot (front or back focusing). If you post some images with the EXIF included we could probably point you in a better direction on how to improve.

Edit: If there are images in your original post, forgive me for asking for more. I am at work and sometimes I can not see posted images.

welcome! 75-300 is a great lens, practice more and experiment on shutter speed, aperture, iso, wb. then you'll discover your taste. try higher aperture to maintain sharpness, depending on the availability of light adjust ISO. for still subjects best use a tripod it will help stabilyze camera.

The 75-300 is an AWESOME lens for it's price point. Many people expect too much from this $100 lens and use it beyond it's capabilites, then they complain that it's a piece of crap, when really, it's the operator that sucks. (i.e. people who expect L quality from $100 LOL)

I get many, many shots I love out of this lens.

Here are some rules of thumb to getting the most out of this lens.

1. You need to shoot at a high shutter speed. Camera shake is a big concern at 200-300mm. I like to use 1/500 as a MINIMUM. Yeah, some people will tell you that you can handhold with slow shutters zoomed out to 300mm with proper grip, bracing, and breathing techniques. But in reality, you can't set up properly like that for every shot. Camera shake is the BIGGEST REASON why people get blurry images from this lens.

2. Close down that aperture. I like to shoot around F/9-f/11 typically. Sometimes close down to F/16 even. When zoomed to 300mm, your depth of field can be very very shallow. This coupled with the very slow focus motor in this lens can lead to out of focus subjects easily, especially if moving. So closing down that aperture is more forgiving to the user, especially someone rather new to photography.

3. In order to use high shutters and small apertures, you need to bump up that ISO. In bright sunlight, I'm usually shooting at ISO400. If cloudy, ISO800 or even 1600.

Also, realize that this is primarily an outdoor lens. You CAN do indoor shooting with it but it'll likely require lots of flash.

If you've never ventured out of Auto mode, try going to Tv mode, and set it to 1/500 or higher, and set your ISO as so: ISO400 on sunny days, ISO800 in the shade or cloudy days.

C’mon guys, let’s be realistic - awesome lens it is not!
In every possible meaning of that word, 75-300 is a cheap lens, capable of capturing some not so bad shots once in a while.

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

I don’t own it, but I had a chance to shoot with it: personally, I think that it is garbage.

Hermeto wrote in post #4431915
C’mon guys, let’s be realistic - awesome lens it is not!

I AM being realistic.
I state clearly that if used within it's limitations, it produces great images. But it's scope *is* rather limited. That and internet reviews mean nothing, it's all about getting out and shooting, and using your gear to it's potential. I have 75-300 images that I would have no problems enlarging to 24x36.

There is nothing wrong with the 75-300. I stand by my statement that it IS awesome when used correctly.
And I DO own it, and pack it instead of the 70-200L on many occasions.

picturecrazy wrote in post #4432051
I AM being realistic.
I state clearly that if used within it's limitations, it produces great images. But it's scope *is* rather limited. That and internet reviews mean nothing, it's all about getting out and shooting, and using your gear to it's potential. I have 75-300 images that I would have no problems enlarging to 24x36.

There is nothing wrong with the 75-300. I stand by my statement that it IS awesome when used correctly.
And I DO own it, and pack it instead of the 70-200L on many occasions.

So, what would be the correct use of this lens?
According to your own post, it is 1/500 minimum, f/9 - f/11, ISO 400 in bright sunlight..

Well, guess what: You’ll hardly ever have enough light for these settings!

What are you going to do with 1001 other situations, when lighting does not satisfy conditions for the ‘correct’ use of that lens?
I know what I’d do: I’d replace it with some other lens that is less awesome and more usable - with less demanding conditions to produce at least a decent shot..

To the OP: Get rid of 75-300 and start saving for 70-200 f/4.
Difference will be like night and day.

The lens he's talking about is the 75-300 IS, which was replaced by the 70-300 IS. It's derived from the 75-300 still in production and, like that, has a reputation for being soft. I have one, and properly used it can produce decent results. It just isn't either long or fast enough for me, so the 100-400 and 70-200 2.8 IS get all the action.

The images may be OOF, or they may just be soft. It's also possible, depending on the history of this particular lens, that IS is broken or that it's in need of adjustment. Let's see a couple of sample shots, with EXIF, and including 100% crops of problem areas.

Hermeto wrote in post #4432208
To the OP: Get rid of 75-300 and start saving for 70-200 f/4.
Difference will be like night and day.

that's a typical POTN gear forum response... i.e. just go buy an L

He wasn't asking about how crappy his lens was and what L he should replace it with. He wanted help determining the cause of the blur on his images.

I agree with Jon, it would help much if we had some sample images with EXIF.

picturecrazy wrote in post #4432244
that's a typical POTN gear forum response... i.e. just go buy an L

Indeed, sometimes I feel like this is a forum for people with unlimited budget .

picturecrazy wrote in post #4432244
that's a typical POTN gear forum response... i.e. just go buy an L

He wasn't asking about how crappy his lens was and what L he should replace it with. He wanted help determining the cause of the blur on his images.

I agree with Jon, it would help much if we had some sample images with EXIF.

Whether it is typical for POTN or not, I don’t know, but I was only reacting to the word AWESOME.
English is not my first language, but in my dictionary, word Awesome seems to be defined differently than in yours.

75-300, IS or non-IS, is mediocre lens at the best, it is far cry from awesome.

http://www.fredmiranda​.com …oduct=16&sort=7​&thecat=27

HyperYagami wrote in post #4432257
Indeed, sometimes I feel like this is a forum for people with unlimited budget .

I am going through the original post again and I cannot find one single word that refers to budget.

Hermeto wrote in post #4432301
I am going through the original post again and I cannot find one single word that refers to budget.

nor refers to L lens.

HyperYagami wrote in post #4432433
nor refers to L lens.

…which I never mentioned in any of my posts.

I mentioned 70-200 f/4 only for the comparison of quality, but I never suggested buying it.
OP didn’t ask for the advice for replacing the existing lenses, and purchasing advice was not given.