new to me lens

<p>was at a camera sale and walked away with a new to me lens for my f4s - it's the 75-300 f4.5 af lens -- it's heavy, has the tripod bracket, and is really clean -- i decided this would replace my junker 75-240 af-d lens (I know lousy lens) - i gave the 75-240 to my 15 yr old neice who is starting to explore film photography ---</p>

<p>what are your thoughts on the 75-300 af lens? have taken a few bird pics on fuji sensia over the past two mornings --- it's a heavy beast when it's on the f4s, but it seems to do the job... trying to finish the roll and see what develops</p>

<p>It is a very good lens. The autofocus is pretty slow but compared to the newer plastic 70-300 lenses it is optically better IMO. (I don't know about the new VRs) It is a little soft at 300 wide open but stopped down to F8 or so it is much sharper. The tripod bracket is nice. Enjoy your lens.</p>

<p>The 75-300 AF (75 instead of 70 to 300) was quite popular back in the 1990's. The tripod collar was a plus. It should match your F4 well.</p>

<p>I sure hope that your niece does not read photo.net and find out what she has just received is junk. :-)</p>

<p>Actually, the 75-240mm that you're handing down is a pretty impressive lens. It came around at a time when a plastic lens mount, plastic materials, and a "made in China" label were all very taboo, and being variable aperture didn't help, so it wasn't incredibly well received, but just like the plastic-mount 55-200mm and 55-300mm VR lenses today, one thing you can't fault is their optics/image quality. And even today's 85mm f/1.8G and their fastest 50mm f/1.4G lenses are made in China, so it has become more socially acceptable. Those same people that were spitting on you for buying that lens at the time are probably the same ones that were saying that digital photography was just a fad. I know of someone that uses this lens with diopters for some nature macro photography, and he is impressed (this is also someone that uses higher-end 6-element enlarging lenses on a bellows, so he knows what quality is). You can rest well in the knowledge that you've given your niece a rather nice piece of equipment.</p>

<p>The way I see it, unless you got a good price on the 75-300mm and don't mind the size/weight and push-pull zoom (KEH is selling them in excellent condition for $115-$130), then there's not an advantage to use it over a contemporary lens, although it does have about 1.25 times the reach of your old 75-240mm, and it's very nice that you're supporting your niece, as this will help her become a better photographer. Fifty bucks says that the current 70-300mm VR beats it handily, and the Tamron 70-300mm VC, which is a better lens, completely mops the floor with it.</p>

<p>I had the 75-300 a long time ago, got another one recently out of curiousity. At 300mm, a prime such as the f/4 smokes the zoom when both are wide open. I have my friend's 70-300VR right now to mess around with. I guess the 70-300VR is a little sharper wide open at 300mm, but both need to be stopped down to look good, IMO. The VR seems to have very low contrast wide open.</p>

<p>Have just about concluded that the old 70-210/f4 is the best (sort of) small/light/cheap zoom that I have tried, though it has some issues such as noisy focus and not great bokeh sometimes. Have not tried the Tamron VC. I am sure the the new 70-200/4VR is much better than all of these, but too much $'s since I already have the 2.8 version.</p>

<p>I am keeping the 75-300 just because of the high quality of construction. </p>