Question about canon 75-300 f4.0-5.6 III USM

[debejyo]

Hi All,

I'm posting this for my friend who bought the mentioned lens and is extremely unhappy with the picture quality,

specially at the high focal lengths. In his opinion, at 300mm, the lens is a piece of junk.

 

I welcome any opinion/comment/review on this lens if anyone ever tested/used it.

 

Thanks for your responses.

[debejyo]

Oh and I forgot to add the link for this product:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/169269-USA/Canon_6472A002_75_300mm_f_4_0_5_6_III_USM.html

[jimstrutz]

What did your friend expect from such a low cost tele lens?

 

I wouldn't call it junk, but it's certainly not great either. There has been a lot of comments about this in the past. The equally low cost competition is no better. Sigma's APO version is an improvement, and Canon's newer 70-300 is better than that. If you want more quality, you have to pay for it.

[rainer_t]

There is always the chance, you get a bad lens. Without any sample images its hard to tell if the results are within the limits of the lens. Anyhow, the old 75-300 isn't overly well regarded ... especially in comparison with the (more expensive and newer) EF 70-300/4-5.6 IS USM.

 

From the older lenses, I personally found the EF 70-210/3.5-4.5 USM and the EF 100-300/4-5.6 USM to be the most useful ones.

[ahockley]

It definitely falls into the "you get what you pay for" category. My experiences (when I had the lens) were that image quality was noticeably soft at either end of the zoom range. Near the middle it wasn't horrible, but not great.

 

There's a reason I don't have the lens anymore :)

[phule]

The lens is not spectacular by any means, but neither is the price.

<p>

If this is your friends first telephoto zoom and he is new to photography, perhaps the problem is more about

technique than bad hardware.

[arie_vandervelden1]

Be aware that 300 mm f/5.6 without image stabilization is pretty much impossible to shoot handheld - you need a tripod.

[model mayhem gallery]

Well this is a simple one. That's because that lens really is a piece of junk at 300mm. I purchased this lens when I

first got my Drebel and hated it. I took it back and got the 55-200 which is also a piece of junk, but was much better

that the 75-300. I haven't actually done this myself, but I would recommend getting the Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS and

the 1.4 extender to get you 280 MM F4 IS.

[debejyo]

Thanks for your responses. At this point, does any of you suggest looking at the tamron/sigma lenses in this price/focal length ranges? I had good experience with these companies with my Nikon system. However, I have no idea how they are for Canon.

 

Thanks for the suggestions.

[amol]

You could look at the "Canon 55-250 IS" for about $280 and the "Sigma 70-300 DG APO" for $200.

 

The Canon 55-250 image quality is still below the Image Quality of the Canon 70-300 IS, but close. Not sure, how the Sigma compares to the 70-300 IS.

 

I'd probably go with the 55-250 IS, due to compatibility issues with previous Sigma lenses.

[freelance]

This picture was made with the same lens not USM:

 

 

For 203 euros I think it is OK

[freelance]

Now it costs 150$

[freelance]

This other picture resized is made with the same lens 75-300 USM. The 400 mm 5.6 is not 6 times better<div></div>

[freelance]

The previous picture was made with 350D and 35-700 but USM, like yours. This is with 40D and 400 mm 5.6. You only see the difference at 100% and not very much.<div></div>

[freelance]

400mm+2xTC<div></div>

[freelance]

Of course, all with tripod

[phule]

[[be aware that 300 mm f/5.6 without image stabilization is pretty much impossible to shoot handheld - you need a tripod.]]

 

The problem with generalizations is that they are almost always wrong. This is indeed the case here.

 

Anyone who says this lens "sucks" and then turns around and says the only lens you should have is the 70-200 L IS has completely missed the point.

[michaeljlawson]

I have the 75-300 and most of the pictures in my gallery were taken with it. I wouldn't recommend for a serious photographer, but it was fun to use and has made me hungry for more. It can take extremely good pictures even at 300mm under the right conditions (good lighting, steady hand or tripod), and it can be disappointing when you know it could have been better (color, sharpness). It's good enough to keep me heading out and looking for places to shoot a often as possible. It's not so good that I would stop saving for better glass.

[freelance]

I agree with Michael. Sometimes the quality of a lens is enough for certain needs (not art, of course). To my work I use sometimes a Panasonic Z50 (420 equivalent in 35 mm) that can give me the details I need for a report. As the camera has IS, I have no problem to shoot a lot of pictures hand held. The Canon 75-300 we are talking about is 480 equivalent, but handheld is difficult. Now you have the Olympus SP-570 UZ (26-520 equivalent) that can be shot hand held easily. I have found that for certain tasks, this type of gear has much more advantages than a expensive equipment.

 

I am not a photographer (yet) as you may have guessed. But a photography lover.

[jimstrutz]

There is nothing close to the same price that is significantly better than the Canon. Since you can get it for $150 ($200 with USM), it compares to Sigma's $140 version, and Tamron's at $160. (All current B&H prices)

 

Sigma has an APO version that is $220, and is a little sharper, but lacks USM, so you have to say it is $70 more than the similar Canon. Still, I would get that one is I was severely limited in Camera funds. The Canon 70-300 is very noticeable sharper and has a good Image Stabilization system, but costs $550. Canon's 100-300 is about the same optically as the mediocre 75-300, but is built better and focuses faster for $300. Canon's 55-250 is said to be somewhere in between the 75-300 and 70-300 in sharpness for $280, and includes an Image Stabilization system. That is probably the best choice for low cost quality, but is not exactly in the same price range as a $150-200 lens..

 

BTW, USM in this case (other than the 100-300) refers to the cheaper micro motor focusing USM, and other than being quiet, offers no appreciable benefit. It's not noticeably faster, and does not do Full Time Manual (FTM). So save the $50 and get the non USM version.

[nick_botham]

In my opinion, there is no point getting a lens this size, without having the image stabiliser feature. Unless you are using a tripod, most of your pictures will become blurred if your taking a zoomed in shot. These lenses are slightly more expensive but you do get a much better quality picture. This is my opinion, and hope it helps.

[photo_dark]

It's not what you have it's what you do with it. This applies to both relationships and lenses. Great pictures can be taken with crappy lenses. Great pictures can be taken with $5 Holga cameras... Even the 75-300 can be useful in the right hands.... stop down to F8 or F9, use a tripod.

 

That being said... it's not a 'working' lens... that is, it certainly wouldn't be something i'd bring with me to shoot a wedding or an event.

 

Tight budget? The EF-S 55-250 is reported to be a decent piece of hardware... Look into Tamron or Sigma alternatives. Have more to spend? 70-300 IS USM or the 70-200 F4L are great lenses for the intermediate..... great quality, minus the fast apertures.

 

Demand Perfection? Then crack out your wallet and look at the 70-200L F2.8, F4 IS or F2.8 IS ($1100, $1300, $1800 respectively)

[freelance]

I am with Jim. The choice should be the non USM ($150) or then pass to another segment as 70-300 with IS. I have both 75-300 and I would sell the USM first.

[phule]

[[in my opinion, there is no point getting a lens this size, without having the image stabiliser feature. Unless you are using a tripod, most of your pictures will become blurred if your taking a zoomed in shot]]

 

In my opinion, people who forget what "shutter speed" means should not be giving absolute advice about tripods.

[William Michael]

:)

 

The first comment about general technique encompassed it all, IMO, though Shutter Speed choice would likely be a significant part of the issue, I think.

 

***

 

Debejyo,

 

I think before your friend buys anything to replace the lens he considers junk, it would bode well to post a couple of images with EXIF attached and ask ``how might I have done this better?``

 

WW