For Sale: Canon 75-300mm f/4-5.6 USM IS Lens

05/07/2004 01:52:09 PM · #1

Greetings...

For Sale

Canon 75-300mm f/4-5.6 USM IS (Gray Market Version)

I purchased this lens new from B&H in October of 2003. It's in perfect condition with no marks on the lens casing or glass surfaces. In addition to the lens, I will ship it in a Sigma lens pouch that came with my Sigma 105mm macro lens.

I will sell and ship this lens for $350 anywhere in the continental US.

Contact me if interested...

John Setzler

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

05/07/2004 06:34:57 PM · #2

bump

jimmythefish

Canon EOS-10D

05/07/2004 06:57:57 PM · #3

whatcha gettin' instead? i'm interested in that 100-400...

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

05/07/2004 07:11:02 PM · #4

I'm getting ready to order the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 to replace it.

justine

Canon EOS-50D

05/07/2004 07:15:57 PM · #5

Canon 70-200 f/2.8
Just saying that makes me swoon.
Lucky you Johnboiey!

ChrisW123

Canon EOS-1000D Rebel XS

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

05/07/2004 07:24:22 PM · #6

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

I'm getting ready to order the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 to replace it.

God, those lenses are expensive. I did a search and the top one on the list is $1600! Does the "f/2.8" feature make it so expensive?

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

05/07/2004 07:26:03 PM · #7

Originally posted by ChrisW123:

...God, those lenses are expensive. I did a search and the top one on the list is $1600! Does the "f/2.8" feature make it so expensive?

The f/2.8, the IS, and the "L" build. It is definitely worth the $$$$

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

05/07/2004 07:26:24 PM · #8

Originally posted by justine:

Canon 70-200 f/2.8
Just saying that makes me swoon.
Lucky you Johnboiey!

I'm sure I'll be happy with it. I'm NOT buying the Image Stablizer version though. I have not been able to realize the benefit of that function with the 300mm so I'm not going to spend the extra money on it for this lens.

My delay is trying to decide whether to buy the 1.4x extender or the 2x extender or possibly both.

Message edited by author 2004-05-07 19:26:49.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

05/07/2004 07:31:18 PM · #9

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

Originally posted by justine:
Canon 70-200 f/2.8
Just saying that makes me swoon.
Lucky you Johnboiey!

I'm sure I'll be happy with it. I'm NOT buying the Image Stablizer version though. I have not been able to realize the benefit of that function with the 300mm so I'm not going to spend the extra money on it for this lens.

My delay is trying to decide whether to buy the 1.4x extender or the 2x extender or possibly both.

The 1.4x definitely John. I have the 2.0x II and find it marginally useful with the 70-200 2.8. Where you want it is at 200mm, but at 200mm there is not enough "headroom" in the resolving power of the lens to accommodate the 2x linear magnification "hit" from the TC. So in order to get "tack sharp", you wind up shooting 2 stops from wide open, or f/11 after the 2 stop hit from the TC.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

05/07/2004 07:31:42 PM · #10

Do lens really uphold that much in value?

Natator

Canon EOS-5D

05/07/2004 07:58:43 PM · #11

Hey John, great choice of lens there.

From what I have read, and I stress it is reading only, no practical experience, I think I'd go for the 1.4x.

I was looking at exactly that lens a couple of weeks ago, but I want it mainly for wildlife. 200mm isn't enough for the type of shots I am after so I considered that lens you are getting but with the x2 extender.

Found some, actually far too many, reviews, but one particularly good one that did a detailed comparrision between that lens, with IS, and the 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 IS L series lens.

The 200mm lens is definitely the sweeter lens up to 200mm (I can't see the difference but more experienced eyes are able to). Using the x2 converter it was debatable which lens was best in the 200-300mm range, different people had different views. Out at 400mm the 100-400mm lens had the edge.

Debates I read were mixed on the teleconverters, but the x1.4 got mostly thumbs up, but the x2 was quite mixed. How do they justify the price of those though! I'd suggest going for the x1.4 first and if you get good results look at the x2 later.

As I anticipate shooting mainly in the 300-400 range the larger lens suited me better and means no messing around with an extended, as well as the considerable additional $. 200mm range I'd have definitely gone for the lens you are getting, with IS maybe.

I am absolutely delighted with the lens I have, the L series lenses are just supberb, never had anything even close to this clarity. Even with the IS turned off (and I do get a noticeable improvement with it on, maybe because my hands are not that steady and thus I feel the benefit) it leaves any other lens I have used for dead.

Overall ... the 100-400mm is probably more versatile and better value for money, but the 70-200 has the superior optics.

Can't seem to go wrong with an L series lens though :)

Jacko

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

05/07/2004 07:59:16 PM · #12

Yes they do. Just follow lenses on EBay.

Originally posted by jmlelii:

Do lens really uphold that much in value?

doctornick

Apple iPhone 13 Pro

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

05/07/2004 08:34:05 PM · #13

Originally posted by Jacko:

Yes they do. Just follow lenses on EBay.

Originally posted by jmlelii:
Do lens really uphold that much in value?

Absolutely! People should consider the lenses they want when they consider which camera to buy. The Cameras will be long gone and replaced before the good Lenses.

doctornick

Apple iPhone 13 Pro

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

05/07/2004 08:37:23 PM · #14

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

The 1.4x II is a definite must-have, the 2x II can wait but is nice to have. They both work very well with the 70-200mm f/2.8L. I'd get the IS version though, remember that it's a very heavy lens and for hand holding at 200mm you will want every bit of stabilisation available. Just my 2cents.

05/07/2004 10:09:01 PM · #15

Originally posted by doctornick:

I agree that IS may have its place. My personal shooting style is a bit different though. Approximately 85% of all my photographs are done on a tripod or monopod. I use one or the other unless I have some specific reason that I can't.

I think I will buy the 1.4x extender and hold off on the 2x for now. I'll spend the 2x money on something else if I can find something I want or need.

05/07/2004 10:11:08 PM · #16

I may be interested in the lens, but I wont be have the money for atleast 2 weeks because, well, im going to Myrtle Beach tomorow

05/08/2004 07:59:05 AM · #17

Originally posted by jmlelii:

I may be interested in the lens, but I wont be have the money for atleast 2 weeks because, well, im going to Myrtle Beach tomorow

Bike week trip? :)

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

05/08/2004 08:50:13 AM · #18

yes sir! Ive already set my camera to take medium quality shots lol. So now I've got about 500 shots. I dont think Ill lose too much quality =)

Count

Canon EOS-30D

05/08/2004 08:59:50 AM · #19

Hmmm... I could use that lens for my rebel, but i'm broke for a while now.

You be interested in trading for one of the LCD's I'm selling John? This is my thread //www.dpchallenge.com/forum.php?action=read&FORUM_THREAD_ID=88766

If not, best of luck man...

Dave

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

05/08/2004 09:05:58 AM · #20

wish I had the money, my monitor now just BLOWS, always making images appear darker than they really are, and its hurt some scores on here!!! blah

EDIT: Woops wrong post hahhahaha

Message edited by author 2004-05-08 09:06:29.

Flash

Nikon D700

05/08/2004 03:06:51 PM · #21

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

My delay is trying to decide whether to buy the 1.4x extender or the 2x extender or possibly both.

John,

I cannot explain or share the reasoning because I do not know it, however I was reading where extenders on "zomms" was not good. It was at a Nikkor lense review site and the reviewer had rated literally all Nikkor lenses. In discussion with other canon users, they claim that there is no problem with extenders on zooms....and based on some photos it appears that there is not. That said, I know that there was a reason to avoid tele-converters on zooms, I just can't remember what it was. It may just be a Nikon thing. Tele-converters were only suggested on fast primes. (However 70-200 f/2.8 may have been an exception).

EddyG

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

05/08/2004 03:14:51 PM · #22

Canon's teleconverters are specifically designed to only work with certain zoom lenses for optimum results. They have a protruding front element, which means they can only mate to lenses that have a deep enough recess for the protruding element to fit into. There are Canon-compatible third-party TC's that are "flush", but most agree that if you are using a Canon zoom lens that can accept a Canon TC, that is the way to go. (For example, a Canon TC will not work on any non-L series zooms at all.)

I use the 1.4X on my 70-200/2.8L IS when I want a little extra reach and the only thing I notice is that my lens is now an Æ�/4 lens. =]