Canon 70-200mm vs 75-300mm....???

  • Thread starter Thread starter englandshottest2
  • Start date Start date
E

englandshottest2

Guest
hi all, well im stuck on which lens to go for...after having found the bargain telefoto from Canon (EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 USM) and thinking 'hey that's the one!' i then stumbled across another which is so similar (unless i'm totally missing something), I don't see why there's really a price difference! well that one is the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 USM, and at nearly three times the price, I can't honestly see why. can somebody set me straight as to why theres such a dramatic price difference?
 
I m willing to bet that the first is the standard lens and the second is designated as an L lens. This means it is the Canon Luxury lens with better glass and hence attract a higher price. BUT they do take a lot bette rpicture. I am currently buyin my first L piece of glass for the wife a 70 - 200mm L to complimet my Sigma 170 - 400mm lens I brought last week.
 
The title says 70-200 but you dont mention it in the post...

if it is the 70-200 then its a much better lens, the glass is better and the build quality is better, it also had water and dust protection.. It quick at focussing too.. although the 75-300 is USM so im not sure if it'll be quicker..
 
oops oh yes typo, so many 00's lol :D, yea the 70-200 sounded nice, but i thought after seeing the 300mm options, it would be better for what i had in mind (which would be outdoor event type things).
 
awww yes been readin up on the reviews, apparently the IS is what i missed in the cheaper version...can't be without that! :D
 
I think the 70-200 is too short.. i think they should do another lens exactly the same but 100mm longer.. but with the 2.8 and the IS.. that would be nice.. Oh, and for the same price too.. lol..

Edit, iv just looked, they do the 75-300 in a non IS and WITH IS.. and the Non is £100 and the IS is £300+ i get it now.. lol..
 
lol...yea i the IS is important, just wish it came in a lower f/#!
 
There is always a trade off isnt there.. you could go for the 70-200 2.8 but u lose the lenth, and then the orice really goes up!! lol.. Less it more eh!! For THEM it is!!
 
I had the 70-300 iS - it was so slow to focus and hunted in low light (even as my first proper lens it stood out as not-for-me), the 75-300 is reputed to be much less worth the money - softer slower etc, but I have never used one.
The 70-200 is a different kettle of fish, or even class of lens. I had the f2.8IS and still have the f4 IS. Both fantastic, but the 2.8 was too big and heavy for me.
I would suggest a play with the 70-300 and the 70-200 f4 - a long lens is no good if it can't focus in time..(I also have the 1.4 converter which gives me about 280mm and about f5.6..)
 
I would avoid the 75-300 at all costs. It's very soft and suffers chronic CA.
On a Canon based forum it has been acclaimed as "Canon's worst ever lens".

Bob
 
Yep the 75-300 is a rubbish lens. The price tag reflects it at under £100 I believe.

With lenses you get what you pay for, cheap out and your photos will be rubbish. Splash out on the good stuff and you will get beautiful photos (although don't think that expensive kit will make you an amasing photographer, the kit will only perform to it's fullest if you know how to use it properly).

The L series lenses are very expensive becuase they are made of very high quality glass, built like tanks and give excellent results.
 
8utters said:
With lenses you get what you pay for, cheap out and your photos will be rubbish. Splash out on the good stuff and you will get beautiful photos (although don't think that expensive kit will make you an amasing photographer, the kit will only perform to it's fullest if you know how to use it properly).
Click to expand...

well said, i know what you mean too, its more than apparent in my lenses when i do comparisons, etc. and yea it aint so much the gear, it's how ya use it, too! i've got the h3d-39 and, well, let's just say it doesn't get used often :D :thinking:
 
hmmm TC...that's a new thing for me :D, never owned one (yet!)....i'm told they comprise image quality (in terms of sharpness, etc.)...or if you get a good one, do images turn out well???
wonder if there's one for the canon 28-135 EF USM f/3.5 :lol:

well seems as though i'm gonna have to go with the better one, as i thought £100 was rather rediculously cheap! lol thus why i thought what's the deal??!? :lol:
 
I used to have a 28-135. It's good value for money, costs about £200 and you get a fair bit for your price.

Good range, good image quality. Has IS and is built pretty well too.
 
yea i like it, had it for about 18months now, paid about £250 as it was a 'newer' thing at the time :D
 
Yeah I paid £220 for mine a while ago.

Then I sold it about 6 months later for £230 :D
 
All these 70/5 -300mm lenses, has anyone tried the 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 DO IS Lens and is it worth the money.

I have read its 'L' quality glass but has a green ring because of the diffractive optics.
 
I've got the 70-300 F/4.5 - 5.6 IS (non-DO) and am very pleased with it. It's also got some L optics and has had several good reviews. Also it's a very light lens so it's easy so walk around with it. With the canon cash back you can get them for around £300. A lot of lens for the money.
 
thanks for all replies, i've gone for the goody one of them all, the canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top