EF 70-300mm f4-5.6 USM III

[peng_kit_wong]

I am planning to buy this lens, I was wondering how you users of this

lens rate it. Please tell me what you feel about this lens; focusing

speed, contrast, etc.

Also would love to know if anyone knows about reports regariding this

lens.

 

I am using EOS1V and EOS10D.

 

Thanks in advance and merry chrismas!

[yakim_peled1]

<p> I would not recommend it. Optically, your best bet is 70-200/4 USM L + Canon 1.4X TC. Your second best bet is the 100-300/5.6 L. </p>

 

<p> See <a href="http://www.photo.net/nature/x-300.html">http://www.photo.net/nature/x-300.html</a> , <a href="http://www.photo.net/canon/70-200">http://www.photo.net/canon/70-200</a> and <a href="http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html#telephotos">http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html#telephotos</a>. </p>

 

<p> Happy shooting , <br>

Yakim. </p>

[darklights]

Well, as quality and getting the most from your lenses goes...I'd agree with Yakim. However, for those on a smaller budget lets break this down some:

 

A: Canon 70-200mmf/4L USM cost average 580.00 USD, Canon 1.4x TC cost 270.00 average USD, for a total of 850.00 USD + shipping & handling.

 

B: Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM cost average 150.00 USD, Kenko (or tamron)1.4x Teleplus Pro 300 Teleconverter 180.00 average USD, for a grand total of 330.00 USD.

 

Now, if "O.K." image quality suits you just fine and your budget is small, go for the second choice. But, if you can afford the extra $520.00, then by all means get the good stuff!

 

Here is a link to images so you can judge for yourself:

 

http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon/ef_75300_4iiiu

[mark u]

Frankly, owning those bodies I'm amazed that you are even considering that lens. The links that Yakim supplies that cover x-300 lenses (inc. photonotes) are a little dated. Canon still doesn't really have a good x-300 lens, but you might want to consider whether the 70-300 DO IS lens is more suitable:

<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/70-300do/">http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/70-300do/</a></p>

 

<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/70-300do_2/">http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/70-300do_2/</a></p>

 

The best x-300 options come from Sigma: the 100-300 f/4 EX HSM and the 120-300 f/2.8 EX HSM.

[johnb]

Peng <A href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00AJ8b" title="Click to Open Forum" target="_blank">here is where some gave there opinion on the 70-300</A> <br><br>

 

Here a photo.net user shows the lens quality compared to L lenses.<A href="http://www.wildpicture.com/pages/photography/lenstest/index.htm" title="Click to Open Lens test page" target="_blank">www.wildpicture.com/pages/photography/lenstest/index.htm</a><br>

Hope this helps.

[ron c sunshine coast,qld,a]

The canon 75-300 models (they are all optically the same) are what i'd call 'bare minimum' lenses.

<br>They are built rather cheaply,they focus slowly (even the USM versions) and get a fair bit softer above 200mm

<BR>They will get you some <a href="http://members.dodo.net.au/~l8r_ron/">pretty OK pics </a> but the limitations are anoying

<P>Better lenses to consider are:

<BR>Canon 75-300 image stabilized (same slow focus,better build,same optics but the IS feature may help you use smaller apertures?)

<BR>Canon 100-300/4.5-5.6 usm (better built,fast AF and <a href="http://members.dodo.net.au/~l8r_ron/index_2.html">sharper</a>)

 

<BR>Sigma 70-300 Apo macro super II (good macro ability and

<a href="http://www.pbase.com/argylemonkey/lens_comp">sharper</a> )

<BR>The old 100-300/5.6 L (limiting aperture?,slow focus but much sharper)

<br>Canon 70-200/4 L (seriously sharp, fast focus but you'll need a TC if you want to go to 300mm)

[Greg M]

You should have bought an Elan 7n and spent the difference between it and the 1V on some decent glass. On a fairly regular basis people post questions like this and I have to say I wonder how the thought process works. You buy two super imaging machines and then look to buy a lens made for someone owning a $150 Rebel film camera. Does not compute. Then again, I wonder how many of these type questions are legitimate, too.

[peng_kit_wong]

Guys, I really appreciate your comments and opinions. Actually there is a shop offering US$50 for a second hand and I was just wondering if it is worth buying.

 

I mainly use primes, 28mm 1.8, 50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8, 100mm 2.8 macro and tamron 28-78 2.8. Would love to add a tele to this collection but frankly speaking this 75-300mm will not be often used. My main is 50mm, 85mm and 100 mm macro.

 

So if it is $US50 and I don't use it often, if you are in my shoes will you invest in this lens?

 

Thank you again.

[brent_mcdade1]

Unless it is broken, you can get more than $50 for it selling it used if you don't like it.

[citizensmith]

Funny this. A couple of posts up there is someone asking if its wrong to put a 70-200 L lens on a 'lowly' Elan 7E. The general response is that it is the right thing to do as you are better spending your money on glass rather than bodies. The point is also made that spending $1500 on a body and then skimping on a $150 lens is kind of stupid as you are really wasting the money you spent on the bodies.

 

If you can't afford a 70-200 f/4 L then sell one of those two bodies and use it to buy some decent lenses.

 

Or, get the 75-300 and look on the bright side, it comes with built in 'soft focus' mode for the 200-300mm focal lengths (which you can't disable). Oh boy, then you could slap a cheapy teleconverter on it and really see what people mean when they talk about soft and crappy looking photos. :)

 

It'll look great on your 1V though.

[theoldmoose]

Oh, I suppose. After all, if you don't like the lens, the $50 won't be a big loss. And you may discover that you either:

 

a) Don't take any shots at that focal length much, so it isn't worth upgrading, or

 

b) Get frustrated with the limitations of the lens, and using it as a learning vehicle, plan for a nice upgrade in the future.

 

When I picked up my 300D and 18-55 kit lens, I wanted an inexpensive zoom to tide me over until my wallet recovered. Quite fortunately, the shop I bought the 300D from also had a nice used 70-210 f4 -- not the greatest lens by any shot, but it came with the hood for $135. I used it heavily for almost a year, and then upgraded to the 70-300mm DO IS. The shop gave me a tradein allowance of $100 on the 70-210, so I had essentially rented the lens for a year for $35.

 

Hard to beat, and the 70-210 allowed me to learn (actually re-learn, since I still have an old Olympus film body with a tele-zoom, among other lenses) zoom tele techniques with the 300D. I also found the type of shots I tended to take most with the 70-210, and how much weight/size I was willing to carry around to get those shots, and found that getting any thing larger than the 70-210 was not very appealing. On the other hand, a small, compact zoom that gave reasonable quality shots was something I was willing to pay a premium for (given that my wallet could sustain the hit 8-).

 

Have fun with your 75-300, but remember that you can substantially improve the look of your zoom tele shots sometime in the future by trading it in on something better.

 

Happy shooting!

[awindsor]

Ignore the harping.

 

For $50 buy it. Stopped down it gives pretty decent results between 70 and 200mm which is a fairly decent range on a 1.6x crop factor camera. It is soft in the 200mm - 300mm range even stopped down. Contrast also begins to suffer.

 

Of course you should invest in a lens hood.

 

Focusing speed is pretty terrible and the front element rotates during focusing but hey for $50 what do you expect.

 

Your primes definitely qualify as good gear.

[citizensmith1664875108]

$50 is cheap, I just think its a little wasted. You could try and find a used 70-210 f/3.5-4.5 which is a very good lens for a consumer zoom and should be not too much over $100. The 100-300 f/4.5-5.6 USM is also somewhat better than the 75-300. Optics are similar, but better build and faster focusing. Or, if you aren't bothered by slow and clunky use but would like some high quality glass then a used 100-300 f/5.6L would be worth tracking down.

 

Personally I'd rather spend a bit more money and get something I'd trust than $50 dumped on something that sucks. And I've owned a 75-300 so this is speaking from experience. The ethereal glow the lens lends to all its images may occasionally have its place but it sure annoyed me. :)

[ron c sunshine coast,qld,a]

Yeah buy it.