Canon 75-300 IS review - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

04/19/2005 01:47:28 PM · #1

Check out this review of the Canon 75-300 IS USM lens vs. a 300mm L lens by Bob Atkins
//photo.net/equipment/canon/300_compare/
It very clear that the 75-300 is soft and has plenty of CA at 300mm.
Now look at Bob's conclusion and most of the comments by readers, full of excuses for the lens, if Bob had put any other makers name on the 75-300 lens, I'd bet the comments would be full of remarks like, "that's why I only buy Canon lens" and such. Sometimes, the brand name and the price paid seems to be blinding.

PaulMdx

Canon EOS-1D

04/19/2005 05:45:08 PM · #2

Canon 300/f4L: $1,149.95
Canon 75-300: $414.95

What a complete shock the 300L is better. (And incidentally, choose the non-IS and it's only $189.95.)

People defend the 75-300 because in honesty it's a pretty silly comparison in the first place except for curiosity's sake, and secondly, because for the money it is pretty reasonable.

doctornick

Apple iPhone 13 Pro

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

04/19/2005 05:49:42 PM · #3

You cannot compare a Canon L prime to a low-end zoom. Pretty unfair, it's like comparing a Ferrari to a Yugo.

cpanaioti

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

04/19/2005 05:51:59 PM · #4

I've taken several pictures at 300mm with no sign of CA. It must only occur in certain situations.

This one was taken at 300 at about 5 ft away at f10 and 1/125 with the IS turned on. You just have to know the limitations of the lens to get the most out of it.

04/19/2005 06:37:03 PM · #5

Remember, Bob was trying to see if there really is truth to what many say about the Canon 75-300, that it is soft at 300mm and has lots of CA. Of course comparing it to a L prime lens is not a fair contest. He should have ideally added a comprarable third party lens (e.g. Sigma 70-300 APO II) for a comparison. But how do you think most would respond if a $400 Tamron/Sigma/Tokina performed like the Canon 75-300 IS?

Message edited by author 2005-04-19 18:40:48.

the_Seeker

04/19/2005 07:03:32 PM · #6

Originally posted by yido:

This is what I would like to know, what to look for in lower price range, the Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 APO Macro Super II or something from canon? Where can I go to get more info? I tried to sign up at the forums at dpreview.com but I cant since I only have web based email address. I'm ready to pull the trigger on the Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 APO Macro Super II but I would like to know more about it.
Robert

04/19/2005 07:23:01 PM · #7

Seeker,
Popular photography tested pro lenses vs. consumer grade lenses. The biggest difference that they could find was that the consumer lenses were softer at the corners, softer at the widest aperature, and softer at the extreme ends of their zoom range. I'm not surprised the Canon 75-300 is soft at 300mm, but at the center too? I bought the Sigma 70-300mm APO II lens after reading many reviews. Things that pushed me toward the Sigma was no CA and sharpness when stopped down. It does focus slower than my USM Canon lenses though. I bought it for under $200 at digitalfotoclub, plus it came with a hood and a bag. Overall, I think it's the best value in consumer grade lens for 70-300mm range. There is a review of the Sigma on Shutterbug's site. Far as I know, I'm not aware of many direct comparisons. Just do a search on the two lenses at dpreview's forum for Canon lenses. You'll get a sense of the general consensus. I think UK's Practical Photography had a comparison of consumer grade zooms, and I think Sigma won.

Message edited by author 2005-04-19 19:26:08.

bod

04/19/2005 07:28:41 PM · #8

I had the Sigma APO II for about 6 months. I seem to remember seeing some comparison at the time which rated the Sigma and both the Canon's (IS and non-IS) around the same optically, with the Sigma winning on CA (or total lack of).
I plumped for the Sigma because it was the cheapest, and it was always intended as a stopgap lens while I saved for something better.

The Sigma is soft for sure, and slow, but you can get some cracking shots with it. I never saw any hint of major CA with that lens.

A quick search on dpreview found "I have used both and the Sigma is sharper from 200-300. Also, the Sigma has much less CA than the Canon. As far as the consumer grade 70-300 lenses, the Sigma is generally considered the best. It is noisier when focusing though, no USM or HSM." from the guy who wrote this: //emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/toolbox3.htm

Can you not access dpreview at all or just the search? I'll happily link some threads for you.

the_Seeker

04/19/2005 07:35:23 PM · #9

Originally posted by bod:

No I can access dpreview, I just cant register for an account. I would like to so that I may be able to post there, but because I only have a web based email address I can't. I would also be using this as a filler lens while I save for someething better, do you know how this would work on a film body? I have a canon t2 that I am using as a back-up body.

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

04/19/2005 07:38:46 PM · #10

Bod,
My experience with the Sigma is the same as yours. My main point is that people assume that between comparable lenses (consumer grade 70-300 zooms, in this case), that Canon is always better than a third party lens. I have both Canons and third party lenses and don't find that Canon is universally better. It seems like when Bob shows that the Canon 75-300 is soft at 300mm (even in the center), people are making excuses for it, instead of saying that it really isn't a good lens.

bod

04/19/2005 07:42:58 PM · #11

Originally posted by the_Seeker:

Ah right, just search the forum for "70-300 75-300" then, there's loads of comparisons & discussions already. I would expect the lens to work fine on a film body, only difference being that you would be bringing those softer corners yido mentions into use.

bod

04/19/2005 07:50:08 PM · #12

Originally posted by yido:

Hey you can't be a serious photographer if you're not using Canon glass you know ; )

Gil P

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II

04/19/2005 08:13:28 PM · #13

The first ever lens I got was the EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III, this was without doubt the worse lens ever made by humans...and perhaps monkeys.

This lens was soft throughout and was slow... but, I had never bought a lens, and I could not afford more than 300$...and wow, 300mm.... yeah...well.

So I can only hope that this new lens is a major, major step, 'cause otherwise...it's still money poorly spent, no matter the price.

PhotoRyno

04/19/2005 08:29:45 PM · #14

Well, I layed down the bucks today (bhphoto) and bought the canon 75-300IS lens. Why you ask? I cannot pay the thousand plus $$$ for the L series lens. It is not realistic to compare the two, anyone should know that.

Yes you ALWAYS get what you pay for, but for the price and the type of lens I would like to think --- a good decision.

Who knows might win a ribbon with it!

04/19/2005 08:58:20 PM · #15

Originally posted by PhotoRyno:

PhotoRyno,
I'd suggest you should also look at the Sigma. I think it is optically better and cheaper as well, unless you are specifically looking for the IS function.

PhotoRyno