| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/26/2005 10:04:15 AM · #1 |
| I am looking to purchase a zoom lens for my new Digital Rebel XT, and need some advice. I don't have a lot of money to spend, and am looking at the CANON EF 75-300MM/4-5.6 USM II/III AF. I have heard conflicting reports on this lens, and I was wondering if anyone uses this lens, and what you think of it. Also are there any other comparable, low priced lenses to consider. As always, any comments would be appreciated. |
|
|
|
04/26/2005 10:09:39 AM · #2 |
That was the first lens I bought after getting my new 20D. Although the IS (Image Stabiled) is somewhat better, for what I use it for the price of the one you are loking at is a great deal. Look around, I've seen them selling in stores for $195 and I'm sure you can beat that mail order. After using it I want more power and zoom .... can't get enough power and zoom, Im crazy for more power and zoom. See whatever you buy you'ss always want more ... just like a single potatoe chip, ya can't eat just one. Best of luck.
|
|
|
|
04/26/2005 10:12:42 AM · #3 |
I have this lens. Its slower than I like because I use it to shoot my son's baseball team and wildlife. But, for the price you can find it (KEH has it used for $144) its not bad. A little soft at some points...
Have a couple of shots with it in my portfolio...
d
|
|
|
|
04/26/2005 10:16:01 AM · #4 |
| I JUST bought the 75-300mm with the IS. It came in the mail Friday, and I am attempting to return it to BHPhoto as of yesterday. I find the images are way to soft and the IS is not worth the money. |
|
|
|
04/26/2005 10:30:00 AM · #5 |
Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 LD Aspherical AF
Great lense and not overly expensive.
|
|
|
|
04/26/2005 10:30:33 AM · #6 |
I have the IS version and find I can get very sharp shots. I agree that it is soft at the extremes (f5.6 @ 300mm) however when stopped down to f8 or f11 the softness goes away. Also, the IS comes in handy due to the slowness of the lens. It allows me to hand hold shots at 1/125 @ 300mm. Without IS this would result in camera shake (for me).
It all depends on the types of shots you will be taking. If you will be using a tripod a lot then the IS is not worth the extra money.
|
|
|
|
04/26/2005 10:32:14 AM · #7 |
Go for the 70-200 F4L, cheapest telephoto worth having.
Beach Camera |
|
|
|
04/26/2005 10:48:25 AM · #8 |
I know this lens is criticised, perhaps rightly. But for the price - you get right into the action.
I took this with my 35mm body using 400 ISO b&w film (cannot remember settings). Scanning is poor - done by my lab when I got the film developed - looks better on film & prints. But this gives you an idea. Image is uncropped, but neatimaged to get rid of some grain.
It is one of my favourite photos from my holiday last year. Would have been impossible with a smaller zoom. I have more at home with a close zoom into the riders faces as they got closer (and one where a rider fell off!).
Sharpness is there - see the clods of sand being kicked up by the horses.
Sure, if you have the money buy something better. But if you want to take telephoto pictures, this lens works. It works better than not having one and taking photos at 85mm and cropping!
Also, allows for some amazingly small DoF (took some photos of tiny objects in the Egyptian collection at the Louvre - less than an inch long, with focus on the front and blur on the back). Had to try a few shots, and stand about 1.5 metres away, but could not have done them without this lens.
I wouldn't worry about the plastic construction works fine, tough enough (the glass will break first). It is also v. light.
It is cheap enough that if you later upgrade and resell, you will only lose, say, $50. And in the meantime, you have something useful.
I have the USM III without IS. I find the IS on my 17-85mm EF-S useful, but not critical. I cope alright without it on the 75-300 USM III. Especially on digital, because the high ISOs allow for some fast shutter action anyway.
So yes - go and get it. Don't worry about the nay-sayers. When you can afford a better lens, and if you use this zoom length a lot, go for it.
PS this is a moonshot with it through London light pollution at 300mm, underexposed, cropped (this is full scale, I think) and sharpened. Not as crystal clear as some of the others on this site, but a darn site better than my 17-85mm could do with cropping and better than the human eye can see!
Message edited by author 2005-04-26 10:57:44. |
|
|
|
04/26/2005 11:02:41 AM · #9 |
Here is one taken with that lens:
hand-held, 300mm 1/750 at f/8. ISO 100
|
|
|
|
04/26/2005 11:12:00 AM · #10 |
I'm very happy with mine. I use it more than I used to use my old 35 zoom. First thing I did was use it at a football game and got some great action pictures. It was a sunny day. Probably wouldn't work as well at night, but during the day, it stopped action very well. It is clear, and easy to use. I don't have any pictures to share right now, as I'm at work, but I can say, I've been very happy with it. Good luck!
|
|
|
|
04/26/2005 02:30:05 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by srdanz:
Here is one taken with that lens:
hand-held, 300mm 1/750 at f/8. ISO 100 |
How far away were you when you took this photo |
|
|
|
04/26/2005 04:51:20 PM · #12 |
I think I was standing about 7-8m from the duck.
|
|
|
|
04/26/2005 05:20:37 PM · #13 |
I own a 75-300 IS. While it can be a bit soft, it has one major advantage if you go all day carrying your gear: it's light. Both of the alternate lenses that I'm considering (the Canon 70-200 and the Sigma 80-400) weigh more than twice as much.
Since most of my work is handheld, IS is practically mandatory for me on a telephoto lens.
|
|
|
|
04/26/2005 05:57:25 PM · #14 |
I like the lens although mine's not USM...as long as you're not used to something like a 400mm f4 L or a 28-200 f2.8, the lens does just fine!
 
 
In all honesty, I don't worry about breaking it as much as I would probably with a super expensive lens....don't know if that's a reason to go out and buy one, but I have a few prints of a few of the shots above and they look great in 8x10 or 6x9.
|
|
|
|
04/26/2005 06:06:16 PM · #15 |
| I don't want to start a whole thing here....but this is the absolute worse lens I ever got to try. it's slow... it's slow to focus and the field of view is minuscle. |
|
|
|
04/26/2005 06:12:00 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by Gil P:
the field of view is minuscle. |
huh? How can the field of view be different on this 75-300 from any other 75-300?
|
|
|
|
04/26/2005 07:48:44 PM · #17 |
Most say that the Canon 75-300 is soft at 300, check the review with phtots by Bob Atkins on his site. For that price range and zoom range, I'd recommend the Sigma 70-300 APO II, same price much sharper lens after having tried both.
Message edited by author 2005-04-26 22:36:47.
|
|
|
|
04/26/2005 07:48:45 PM · #18 |
It can be soft, but it depends on your uses. You may have to work at the image alittle to sharpen it for large prints. It's a fairly decent, robust lens in my view but I've not tried anything else to compare.
These are taken with the non IS version:
  
 
 
 |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/16/2025 02:01:45 AM EDT.
