Can a soft lens be fixed with a service ?

BigRuss

BigRuss

Suspended / Banned
Messages
467
Name
Russell
Edit My Images
Yes
Asking this question for a friend, he has a Canon 75-300 IS, i've had a play with this lens, and seems a little slow to focus, and is also quite soft at 300mm, this lens is 5-6 years old so obviously had plenty of use.

Would a service fix these 2 issues ? I'm guessing the slow focus may be fixable...but not sure if the softness of a lens can be fixed ?

Thanks in advance

Russ
 
daugirdas said:
It is easy to fix - 70-200mm. 75-300mm is the worst / softest Canon lens.
Click to expand...


If it is the 'IS' model then it is often quoted as 'almost an L' in terms of sharpness.

A service could definitely help if it was either faulty IS, or poor calibration at fault.

Phil
 
daugirdas said:
It is easy to fix - 70-200mm. 75-300mm is the worst / softest Canon lens.
Click to expand...

Very helpful lol...I've heard the 70-300 is soft...but not heard much bad about the 75-300 ?:thinking:

philthejuggler said:
If it is the 'IS' model then it is often quoted as 'almost an L' in terms of sharpness.

A service could definitely help if it was either faulty IS, or poor calibration at fault.

Phil
Click to expand...

Cheers Phil

I tested it against a 55-250...and it was not in the same class, does seem very soft comparatively....definitely not 'L' class....it might be worth him trying a service before he bangs it back on e-bay for someone else to be disappointed with it.

Cheers

Russ
 
philthejuggler said:
If it is the 'IS' model then it is often quoted as 'almost an L' in terms of sharpness.

A service could definitely help if it was either faulty IS, or poor calibration at fault.

Phil
Click to expand...

I think you are referring to the 70-300 IS which is good not what the OP is talking about, the 75-300 which is very poor indeed
 
BigRuss said:
Very helpful lol...I've heard the 70-300 is soft...but not heard much bad about the 75-300 ?:thinking:

Cheers Phil

I tested it against a 55-250...and it was not in the same class, does seem very soft comparatively....definitely not 'L' class....it might be worth him trying a service before he bangs it back on e-bay for someone else to be disappointed with it.

Cheers

Russ
Click to expand...

The 55-250 is way better. Don't bother servicing, as you could probably just buy another for the same price, but don't, buy something better like the 55-250 or the 70-300 or indeed a 70-200 l
 
Last edited:
amtaylor said:
I think you are referring to the 70-300 IS which is good not what the OP is talking about, the 75-300 which is very poor indeed
Click to expand...

Aaah....ok - yup the non-IS one doesn't have a great reputation!
 
The IS 75-300 is very poor too, and particularly in the corners is even worse than the non IS one.
 
Thanks for your input guys

Just to clarify, it is the 75-300 IS version, as stated in the OP,

I'm a bit confused here, because I while back when I first joined and was looking for my first longer zoom, the common theme was 'go for the the 55-250IS which is very good or if you can stretch to it go for the 75-300IS which is rated as slightly better glass' ?
 
BigRuss said:
Thanks for your input guys

Just to clarify, it is the 75-300 IS version, as stated in the OP,

I'm a bit confused here, because I while back when I first joined and was looking for my first longer zoom, the common theme was 'go for the the 55-250IS which is very good or if you can stretch to it go for the 75-300IS which is rated as slightly better glass' ?
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure your mistaking it for the 70-300 IS
No one is going to encourage anyone to buy the 75-300 as it is awful
 
BigRuss said:
I think you must be right...i'll check ...
Click to expand...

I'm not saying the lens you want to service is not the 75-300, all I'm saying is the recommendations would have been for the 70-300 but then it does cost about 3 times as much.
 
amtaylor said:
I'm not saying the lens you want to service is not the 75-300, all I'm saying is the recommendations would have been for the 70-300 but then it does cost about 3 times as much.
Click to expand...

Andy

it is the 75-300IS that he has.....when he was looking for one...he nearly bought a 70-300 non is by mistake and remember saying to him that was the wrong version, I don't recall the 70-300IS being an option at the time, either because we didn't know one was available or it was at a much higher price point.

Either way, i do recall the 75-300IS being recommended as a good lens ? ... I may be wrong...I'll have a troll through previous threads and see if i can find it

Thanks for your help anyway mate :thumbs:
 
Ahh I see. Yeah the non is 70-300 isn't very good either.
The only problem with that is the 70-300 IS was released before the 55-250. Perhaps the 50-200 then?
Either way, the lens he has, is actually going for a reasonable amount used on eBay. They seem to all get over 150 which is suprising so the best bet would be to sell and get something better. You could actually get the 55-250 used for less. And the 70-300 is used go around the 250ish on the forum if I remember right.
 
Last edited:
I agree. The 70-300 is great value for money, but the 75-300 makes a reasonable doorstop.
 
amtaylor said:
I'm pretty sure your mistaking it for the 70-300 IS
No one is going to encourage anyone to buy the 75-300 as it is awful
Click to expand...

I still have a 75-300mm USM lens and frankly it is nowhere near as bad as some people think:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/20926615@N05/sets/72157625949886818/

All those pics were taken with it and the only reason I bought the 70-300mm was the IS because I found I simply couldnt hold it steady at much under 1/1000 sec and didn't want to carry a tripod everywhere.

It IS fairly soft from 200-300mm but the pics are still very acceptable with a bit of sharpening.

.
 
I guess its down to what you consider acceptable. The fact is the OP was describing an unacceptably soft lens and then later describes it as noticeably worse than the 55-250. He wants to know if servicing will make it better. The fact is its probably as good as it came out of the factory as the observations are what you would expect from this lens and so its owner does not seem to find them acceptable.
I hope this doesn't sound patronizing as I'm not at all trying to be. It's just different people have different expectations. I would love to be happy with cheaper lenses and my wife would love it even more but alas I'm selling my 24-105 l because its not as good as the l series primes. The chap I bought my 35mm 1.4 off sold all his stuff for a leica m9 and lenses. The sky is the limit.
 
amtaylor said:
I guess its down to what you consider acceptable. The fact is the OP was describing an unacceptably soft lens and then later describes it as noticeably worse than the 55-250. He wants to know if servicing will make it better. The fact is its probably as good as it came out of the factory as the observations are what you would expect from this lens and so its owner does not seem to find them acceptable.
I hope this doesn't sound patronizing as I'm not at all trying to be. It's just different people have different expectations. I would love to be happy with cheaper lenses and my wife would love it even more but alas I'm selling my 24-105 l because its not as good as the l series primes. The chap I bought my 35mm 1.4 off sold all his stuff for a leica m9 and lenses. The sky is the limit.
Click to expand...

Obviously if you're a professional you need the best you can afford to keep your customers happy so possibly FF and "L" glass is de rigeur.

But if like me you're an enthusiastic amateur then it becomes more of a choice between what you want and what you can afford (or your wife will let you have :lol: ).

For me I slowly get what I can afford then make the very best of it.

And the sky always was the limit even in the days when I was a pro with Hasselblads and motorised backs and 1000mm dichroic lenses and f.09 (yes that's .09) or f1 lenses.

.
 
petersmart said:
Obviously if you're a professional you need the best you can afford to keep your customers happy so possibly FF and "L" glass is de rigeur.

But if like me you're an enthusiastic amateur then it becomes more of a choice between what you want and what you can afford (or your wife will let you have :lol: ).

For me I slowly get what I can afford then make the very best of it.

And the sky always was the limit even in the days when I was a pro with Hasselblads and motorised backs and 1000mm dichroic lenses and f.09 (yes that's .09) or f1 lenses.

.
Click to expand...

Fair play to you. Im impressed that you can be happy with more modest equipment after using stuff like that. Its definitely better to use lower end stuff to the full than have real expensive stuff and not know what to do with it.
 
amtaylor said:
Fair play to you. Im impressed that you can be happy with more modest equipment after using stuff like that. Its definitely better to use lower end stuff to the full than have real expensive stuff and not know what to do with it.
Click to expand...

Thaks for that but I made a mistake when talking about "dichroic" lenses - I meant catadioptric mirror lenses which were used quite a bit when you needed far reach and a very compact design.

.
 
If a lens is softer than it should be, then it may be possible for that to be fixed with a service.

But a lens that is soft by default will not be. The Canon 75-300mm IS is the first lens that Canon built the image stabiliser into and the design dates back to 1995. The lens was discontinued in 2005 when Canon replaced it with the superior 70-300mm IS lens.

So to answer your question, probably not. Exactly how soft is it? If you want to check post up a couple of shots with the shooting settings and we can help determine if there is a fault.
 
RichardtheSane said:
If a lens is softer than it should be, then it may be possible for that to be fixed with a service.

But a lens that is soft by default will not be. The Canon 75-300mm IS is the first lens that Canon built the image stabiliser into and the design dates back to 1995. The lens was discontinued in 2005 when Canon replaced it with the superior 70-300mm IS lens.

So to answer your question, probably not. Exactly how soft is it? If you want to check post up a couple of shots with the shooting settings and we can help determine if there is a fault.
Click to expand...


Cheers Richard

Here are a couple of side-by-side comparisons I did with a 55-250IS....I think the images speak for themselves tbh

Russ


55335871.jpg


55335875.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top