Canon 75-300mm F4-5.6 IS... Good or Bad?

captures.in.time

captures.in.time

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,764
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi

I have a canon 75-300mm F4-5.6mm.

I dont use it much I must admit... but want to get more into nature type photography. I've never had much of a problem with it in the past and for me it has produced ok results... but at the same time i've noticed it can be a bit slow... Although I like it because as well as giving me the 300mm range its quite managable to hand hold and im not big on the idea of lugging huge lenses about with me as I do lots of travel photography... However I never hear many people talking about it on here... or suggesting it as a lens to buy... Is it just rubbish and I dont have enough evperiance of that type of shot to know!

I know there has been two versions and I think mine was the first as I've had it since 2004.

Mark
 
At 300mm you are getting f5.6. Now I'm no nature tog, I don't have the patience to sit in the cold! But f5.6 is going to be a bit slow with a bit too much depth of field for the serious nature tog. They tend to plump for those huge primes/zooms that you don't want to lug around. The reason being that they tend to be around f2.8 even at that length so they get much faster shutter speeds and much better separation of the subject from the background.

I'm sure someone in camo gear will sneak along in a minute to help out with a coherent reply :)
 
I used to have a non-IS 75-300 III and despite all it's bad press, for what it was (and cost) it was a good enough lens in good light. Maybe I was lucky with the copy I had but it served me well at many an airshow from film days and into digital. From what I read the IS version is defintely better.

Really depends how serious you are, it would certainly let you develop the interest and see how you like it.

Russ
 
The 75-300mm is a budget lens, the new 70-300mm IS (£350) is a better option, it has faster focusing motors than the 75-300mm. The 70-300mm is a great lens on a small budget, but for wildlife images, 300mm isn't really enough zoom range, 400mm is more the minimum you need. Most people on a budget go for the 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 (£900-1000), or use primes like the 400mm f5.6 or the expensive variety (which currently at the moment have been clobbered by the poor £)

The 75-300mm is an OK lens, and in good light will get you some good images

Peter
 
I have the 70-300 is and its great. Not the fastest but in good light its good enough. But then its not a huge amount of money either
 
I guess i'd love canon to do a 70-300mm IS L series... a bit like the 70-200 f4 with IS...

But they dont as far as im aware.... the 100-400 is a possibility but is quite large... but then like you suggest... im going kind of specialist... and then I need to think specialist at that point...

I'll maybe just stick with my 75-300mm F4.5-5.6 IS for the moment... and if I get into it using this then buy something L series...

I want to replace my 28-135mm IS with the 24-105mm L IS first anyway...

Is there any other mid range (£500-£1250) lenses that I should consider... do sigma lenses actually cut the cheese? I've never even thought seriously of buying anything other than canon... after my experiances with a tamron lens.
 
markelliot said:
I guess i'd love canon to do a 70-300mm IS L series... a bit like the 70-200 f4 with IS...

But they dont as far as im aware.... the 100-400 is a possibility but is quite large... but then like you suggest... im going kind of specialist... and then I need to think specialist at that point...

I'll maybe just stick with my 75-300mm F4.5-5.6 IS for the moment... and if I get into it using this then buy something L series...

I want to replace my 28-135mm IS with the 24-105mm L IS first anyway...

Is there any other mid range (£500-£1250) lenses that I should consider... do sigma lenses actually cut the cheese? I've never even thought seriously of buying anything other than canon... after my experiances with a tamron lens.
Click to expand...

Ive been a ladies private part... dont even know my own equipment... for the avoidance of doubt... its the 75-300mm IS USM f4-5.6 I have....
Mark
 
Mark

I replaced my 75-300 with a sigma 100-300 F4 EX. It is a superb lens, fast focussing, sharp and fast(ish) glass. Also retains AF with a 1.4 converter without too much drop in quality. Secondhand they do come up £440-£500. Cant recommend it highly enough.

Russ
 
Rodintee said:
Mark

I replaced my 75-300 with a sigma 100-300 F4 EX. It is a superb lens, fast focussing, sharp and fast(ish) glass. Also retains AF with a 1.4 converter without too much drop in quality. Secondhand they do come up £440-£500. Cant recommend it highly enough.

Russ
Click to expand...

Ive seen allot of bad reports regarding sigmas havig to be sent back with front focus issues... im warey of buying any camera equipment second hand to be honest... prob stupid I know... but I like the pice of mind you get with a warranty!

Is there any online retailers of second hand stock that offer waranties on line???
 
Bear in mind with all these replies, the 75-300 and the 75-300 IS are not the same lens. They are different in a few ways (not just IS).

The 75-300 is a budget lens, still made and is in the same price range as the Sigma 70-300. The 75-300 IS is a discontinued lens, now superceded by the 70-300 IS, which is slightly sharper at the long end.

With mine it is a bit soft at the long end (sharp a a tack at 75-150mm though) and quite slow to focus, so I got a 300 f/4 L to go along side it. If you don't want another (bigger and heavier) lens how about going for the 70-300 IS, same size and weigh but lightly sharper at the long end, and probably only an extra £100 after selling the 75-300 IS?
 
Amp34 said:
Bear in mind with all these replies, the 75-300 and the 75-300 IS are not the same lens. They are different in a few ways (not just IS).

The 75-300 is a budget lens, still made and is in the same price range as the Sigma 70-300. The 75-300 IS is a discontinued lens, now superceded by the 70-300 IS, which is slightly sharper at the long end.

With mine it is a bit soft at the long end (sharp a a tack at 75-150mm though) and quite slow to focus, so I got a 300 f/4 L to go along side it. If you don't want another (bigger and heavier) lens how about going for the 70-300 IS, same size and weigh but lightly sharper at the long end, and probably only an extra £100 after selling the 75-300 IS?
Click to expand...

God Im not sure exactly what one i've actually got now... got myself all confused... it could be the 75-300IS or the newer 70-300IS... I cant believe I now dont know what lens I have... will be checking as soon as I get back from work. Feel such a fool!

Why do you think canaon have not produced a managable 70 or 100-300mm L series IS zoom though???... seems strange to me as its a very usefull focal range!
 
markelliot said:
God Im not sure exactly what one i've actually got now... got myself all confused... it could be the 75-300IS or the newer 70-300IS... I cant believe I now dont know what lens I have... will be checking as soon as I get back from work. Feel such a fool!

Why do you think canaon have not produced a managable 70 or 100-300mm L series IS zoom though???... seems strange to me as its a very usefull focal range!
Click to expand...

The 2 lenses are

Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM (budget lens, £130, slow autofocus) and
Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens (better lens of the 2, £350), hope this clears up the confusion

Peter
 
pete.rush said:
The 2 lenses are

Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM (budget lens, £130, slow autofocus) and
Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens (better lens of the 2, £350), hope this clears up the confusion

Peter
Click to expand...

Right... home now and it is the older IS version I have... the 75-300mm F4-5.6 IS USM lens...

SO my question still stands... s this good or not? How does it compair to the newer IS version?

Mark
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top