75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM

[ibcrewin]

Okay, this lens buying thing is getting out of control.. It's like

crack. I have the 50mm 1.8, a 420ex flash, and the kit lens for my

digital rebel. So I want to kick up my tele-glass. I was looking to

get the 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM lens without the IS because money

is tight and I don't want to have to sell the kid to support the

habit. Is it worth it? Or should I just suck it up for a couple of

months, save up and just get the IS?

 

My early guess is suck it up and wait to buy the lens with the IS.

What say you?/ happy shooting..

[yakim_peled1]

<p> If your budget is <b>very</b> tight than the <a href="http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html#compatibilitythirdparty">Sigma</a> 70-300 APO <b>II</b> or APO <b>DG</b> (the ones with the red stripe) are optically the best of all the <a href="http://www.photo.net/nature/x-300.html">x-300</a> cheap zooms. That said, its AF is very slow so the USM versions also have some advantage in other parameters.</p>

 

<p> The new 70-300 IS is vastly better but a lot more expensive. </p>

 

<p> Happy shooting , <br>

Yakim. </p>

[upe_vantonni1]

i think at that range you should go for the IS. you'll end up shooting a lot at 300 and the IS will save the photos. its worth the price of the upgrade.

 

i just got the new 70-300 and i was shooting reasonably sharp 300 mm shots (on a 20d so thats like 480(?)mm) at 1/80th of a sec. but in a room with little lighting I was pushing 1/80th at 3200iso. so the IS is invaluable.

 

PS. just wait on the lenses. you have yet to get the 70-200 4/L the first in most of our lives of L glass (which is another option at around 500$). personally I'm more of a prime man, you get more "bang for the buck" in my opion. lighter, faster lenses that are 300-400$. the 85/1.8 is simply fantastic.

 

and wait till you start freebasing the heroin that is Leica.

[bobatkins]

You need to be aware that the IS lens isn't just the same as the non-IS lens, but with IS added. They are optically different.

 

The IS lens would be optically better even if it didn't have IS.

 

The non is lens is 75-300, the IS lens is 70-300. The 75-300IS is no longer available.

 

There is also a 70-300 DO IS lens, but I'm not talking about that one.

[steve_dunn2]

<p>Since the 75-300 IS lens was recently discontinued, there may be a chance of finding a brand new one which a vendor still has in stock and would like to get rid of at somewhat of a discount ... otherwise, you'll either be buying it on the used market, or spending quite a bit more for the new 70-300 IS.</p>

 

<p>Do you prefer to shoot handheld, or are you happy to use a tripod for telephoto shots? If the former, you will find IS very useful as long as you're shooting stationary subjects. If the latter, IS won't be worth the extra money you'll pay. If you use a monopod, I'd suggest getting IS; the combination <a href="http://www.stevedunn.ca/photos/animals/1304Snowleopardhidinginfoliage.jpg" target="_blank">works very well</a> and I find it much less cumbersome than using a tripod.</p>

 

<p>As someone else pointed out, if you think this lens buying thing is bad now, wait until you get your first L lens. L lenses are seriously addictive, as well as seriously expensive. I just bought my third (though I'll soon be selling the one I bought it to replace) and already have planned what's next.</p>

[jojo_ma]

I would highly recommend you look at the new 70300IS, or if on a real tight budget, the Sigma 70300 APO DG Macro. See my site here http://www.pbase.com/fstopjojo/70300s

[rogernoel]

If you can survive without the capability for awhile, I would think you should go for the new 70-300USM IS lens. I just ordered it yesterday. Under $600 with a small rebate. I discovered the value of IS with the 28-135 lens I bought a year ago, and it took a lot of blurry shots out of my portfolio. I still use a tripod for Xmas lights etc, but I think the IS is worth the extra bucks.

[ed_kubacki]

IMHO.

If you can, try the lens out yourself first. Pay close attention to the difference from 200-300mm. To me, it was not enough of a difference. Taht said, I had the 75-300mm F4-5.6 IS. I now have the 70-200mm F4L and I am MUCH happier! The 70-200 F4L is everything everybody has said about it. For about $150 bucks more (depending where you buy it) you get a whole lot more lens.

 

Don't be fooled by the IS, it only worksin some situations. I bought mine thinking it would help with sports photgraphy,it will not. It is useful for handholding at slow shutter speeds with non-movung subjects. I find the CONSTANT F4 to be more important then th IS (High School Soccer fields are the worst lit venues, ISO 1600 and F4 are about the limit, 5.6 just dosen't cut it).

 

The fit, finish and optical quality will make it worth the extra bucks. The other thing I did not like abot the 75-330 washowthe lens will extend the barrel whenever the front element was pointed down (the F4 L is internal zoom and dosen't change lenth).

[vincent_j_m]

I have the new sigma 70-300 APO DG macro. It is probably the best low cost lens in this range. Build quality is *far* better than the canons. Optics are very very good for the money, and it comes with a lens hood. I got mine for about $160 used. Well worth it.

[icephoto]

<i>Okay, this lens buying thing is getting out of control.. It's like crack.</i><br>

And just like crack, the first hit is for free...<br><br>

The 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM is not a bad lens. It is pretty soft at the 300mm side, but it treated me well for the three years that I owned it. For under $200 it is one sturdy lens--I dropped my in a lava field (just barely cushioned by my foot) and it survived with only a little cosmetic damage.<br><br>

Now having said that, mine is packaged and ready to send to my dad because I replaced it with the 70-300mm USM IS. I did it because I made the "mistake" of receiving at 300mm f4L IS as a college graduation gift from my wife and if you think buying lenses is like crack, IS lenses are like heroin.<br><br>

The 75-300mm III will be a quick fix, but likely eventually you'll want to have the image stabilization. Your call, but you won't be sorry either way.

[jim_larson1]

Bah. I took photos for 15 years without IS lenses. . .. In fact. . . I still don't have one!

 

The 75-300 USM is a cheapo telephoto. . really no going wrong with this lens.

 

The 75-300/IS is the same telephoto with IS. . .. at $425, it is no longer worth the effort.

 

The 70-300/IS is a "new and improved" version of the 75-300/IS At $570, it is an ok value. .. and quite decent optically (so I hear)

 

The 70-200/4L is simply the bee's knees. You just can't beat the optics in this $575 lens. . . but it does not have IS.

 

The 70-300/DO-IS: At $1100. . .avoid this lens.