Canon 75-300 Cheap One, for 75-200m Only?

[e_lin]

I heard some pretty bad stuff about the canon 75-300 Non-Is lens. I

was wondering how useful the lens is if I only use it to 75-200mm. I

own a canon elan 7 and a 50mm 1.8II lens. Thats it :( I don't know

how these zooms work. Im just a kid, so i can't afford all the

expensive stuff. Im thinking about persuading my parents to give me

the 28-105mm, the good one, and something a bit longer.

[doreen_miller]

I don't know about the non-IS version, but I have the IS version, and I think it's a pretty decent consumer lens. You may want to consider the 100-300mm Canon lense. It's $279 at B&H and I believe most people say it's optically better than the 75-300 lenses.

[kiestphoto]

I had the 75-300 IS (actually, I have, I just don't shoot with & have yet to sell). Mine is

an older version, so apparently a little bit worse than others. I find it fine from 75

-180mm, and crummy from 250-300, even stopped down. The problem I found was

that I would see something like a bird, and couldn't restrain myself from using the rest

of the zoom.<br>

The 100-300 is supposedly better.<br>

I am a similar boat. I am a student, and got a D30, 28-80 & 75-300IS from my uncle

who had upgraded to 10D and better lenses. I got my parents to get me the 28-135

for my B-day & the 200/2.8L for Xmas. the 200/2.8 is what i use now over the 75

-300IS.<br>

Now I have enough money to upgrade cameras, but am awaiting 10DmkII or

whatever.<br>

To mirror everyone else who will say as such: Don't forget the 50/1.8! I love it for

portraits on my D30.

[kiestphoto]

I missed the fact that you already had the 50mm. Good on ya! You might want to

consider the 28/2.8 and the 75-300 instead, if you like the 50/1.8.

[tom_swanson]

In general I think the lens is okay from 75-200. I really don't like it close to 300. There is CA with the lens.

 

If you want to spend more the Sigma 70-300 APO Super Macro II is supposed to be better and have less CA for about $210. On the other hand you can get the 75-300 USM III for cheap. (Check the classifieds for my ad for instance.)

 

I'm looking to replace it with a 70-200/f4L. I've waffled and waffled about going to the sigma but in the end I think I'm going to pick up my first L lens.

[mark u]

I agree with Tom. Since you are really looking for a 70-200, the best solution is the f/4 L. However, that is probably beyond your parents' generosity at this point, so I'd look at the Sigma 70-300 APO Macro Super II instead - which will give you the bonus of a useable 300mm (otherwise not bettered without spending quite a bit more), and up to half life size macro.

[bobatkins]

You can read my reviews and comparisons at <a href="http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/"><b>http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/</b></a>.

<p>

All the 75-300 and 100-300 Canon lenses are just about equal optically. At 300mm they are quite usable, despite comments from either people who haven't ever used one or people who don't know how to use a 300mm lens properly. Not as good as a 300/4L, but OK. Up to 200mm they aren't bad at all. Again, not "L" series performance, but still quite capable lenses

[suman]

Best bait is to go with canon EF75-300mm USM lense, no future compatibility problem, excellent resale value and quite good for non-pro level work. I personally have both of the lenses you mentioned. 28-105 is very decent lens although you may notice some vignetting problem from time to time. 75-300 is humongous in size and even my USM version is way too SLOWWWWWWWWWW compared to 28-105mm lens. 250-300mm range is almost unusable even after stopping down, but below that is accepatable in picture quality. Try to get the USM version if you can spend some extra 20 bucks which is worth in this case.

[tom_swanson]

>>All the 75-300 and 100-300 Canon lenses are just about equal optically. At 300mm they are quite usable, despite comments from either people who haven't ever used one or people who don't know how to use a 300mm lens properly. Not as good as a 300/4L, but OK.<<

 

Okay, I'll bite. I've used one so I obviously don't know how to use a 300mm lens properly. How should one properly use a 300mm lens?

[ron c sunshine coast,qld,a]

I've had several non IS 75-300's(but they are near identical optically).While they tend to be soft at the long end and have chromatic aberation,they are still quite usable.

<BR>If one of these is your only choice don't worry.You can allways sell it later to trade up to something better-they sell well on ebay.

<br>I must disagree with Bob(wow,how often does that happen?!lol)on the 100-300.I've only tried one example so far but it EASILY beats a 75-300 at the long end.Everything else about it is better too-focus speed + MF convenience,build quality and contrast.

<br>There's also the very odd issue i have with the 75-300-it just drives me insane trying to get sharp pics at anything below 1/1000.

The first time i used the 100-300 i got MUCH better results even when used used down to silly speeds.

<br> i highly recommend the 100-300.Don't be afraid to buy 2nd hand

[ron c sunshine coast,qld,a]

Here are some pics from the 75-300.<BR>http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=368574

<br>Most of these were taken at or near 300mm

[bobatkins]

I tested two samples of the 100-300 USM against a 75-300 IS USM and a regular old 75-300 non USM. This was back in the days when I was deciding which one to get/keep. I did the usual shots of resolution test charts etc. The difference between them was pretty negligable. I ended up with the 75-300 IS USM. The 100-300 is nicer to use, but the IS function (and the 75-100 range) makes the 75-300 IS the all around more useful lens (for me).

 

The fact that I had two samples of each to test - and I didn't see much difference - makes me think the results I got were reliable. I expected the extra optics in the IS lens to make a difference, but they didn't seem to.

 

Proper use of these lenses at 300mm means a sturdy tripod. Stopping down to f8 can give a slight improvement in image quality too. A lens hood is recommended since they aren't as resistant to flare as the "L" series lenses.

[bobatkins]

I tested two samples of the 100-300 USM against a 75-300 IS USM and a regular old 75-300 non USM. This was back in the days when I was deciding which one to get/keep. I did the usual shots of resolution test charts etc. The difference between them was pretty negligable. I ended up with the 75-300 IS USM. The 100-300 is nicer to use, but the IS function (and the 75-100 range) makes the 75-300 IS the all around more useful lens (for me).

<p>

The fact that I had two samples of each to test - and I didn't see much difference - makes me think the results I got were reliable. I expected the extra optics in the IS lens to make a difference, but they didn't seem to.

<p>

Proper use of these lenses at 300mm means a sturdy tripod. Stopping down to f8 can give a slight improvement in image quality too. A lens hood is recommended since they aren't as resistant to flare as the "L" series lenses.

<p>

There's a comparison between shots taken with the 75-300/4-5.6 IS USM at 300mm and the 300/4L at 300m at the bottom of my article <a href="http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/x-300.html"><b>http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/x-300.html</b></a>

[tom_swanson]

I was hoping you had a technique to reduce CA.

[andrew robertson]

How do you intend to acquire the self-control to only use them up to 200mm? I think

that's almost impossible.

 

I would also consider the 100mm f/2. With a 3rd party TC (like the nice Tamron 2x) you

can hit your maximum range of 200mm, at f/4 (faster than with the 75-300 or 100-300).

I used to have the 100-300 f/4.5-5.6, and liked it a lot, until I used the 300 f/4L IS.

 

The moral of the story is that you don't know what you're missing until you've used

something better and had to go back.