01-28-2009, 11:35 AM

Hi, I'm thinking of getting a new DSLR soon (Canon XS). It comes with an 18-55mm lens. I want a telephoto lens to go along with my camera. I am looking at this model here:

Canon | 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III USM Autofocus Lens | 6472A002AA

So I had a few questions.

1.) Does anybody use this lens? Any flaws you have found in it?

2.) Does it support manual focusing?

3.) Will it give me nice looking bokeh / background blur?


Thanks ahead.

01-28-2009, 12:54 PM

I have the one without the USM I am looking to sell. I have not even opened it yet. Let me know if you're interested:

Canon | 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III Autofocus Lens | 6473A003AA | B&H

01-28-2009, 01:04 PM

That lens doesn't get the greatest reviews...by most accounts it's a POS. On the POTN (Canon)forum most would recommend the 55-250. My suggestion is skip the XS get the XSi with the 18-55 & 55-250 as a kit...some pretty good deals on right now. (I only found out about that lens AFTER I had bought the 2 lens kit with that one included...now I'm going to try and sell it for a nice new 100-400L) Get a decent body and put the BIG $$$ in the glass.

01-28-2009, 04:24 PM

Something that I am doing is trying out the lenses first by renting a few different ones. Actually just placed an order for a rental about 2 hrs ago... Might give you a good chance to try it out before shelling out big bucks only to find that you don't like the results.

01-28-2009, 04:53 PM

Have to second the POS comment. I recommend checking out fredmiranda.com and the review section there for people's opinions on basically anything you can think of.

The 70-200 f/4 is the cheapest telephoto I'd really recommend, but I understand that the price is pretty daunting when you've just gotten your first DSLR.

That said, I would make sweet love to my 70-200 f/2.8 if I could, haha.

01-28-2009, 07:09 PM

Originally Posted by jbarket

Have to second the POS comment. I recommend checking out fredmiranda.com and the review section there for people's opinions on basically anything you can think of.

The 70-200 f/4 is the cheapest telephoto I'd really recommend, but I understand that the price is pretty daunting when you've just gotten your first DSLR.

That said, I would make sweet love to my 70-200 f/2.8 if I could, haha.

If you can wait, save for the 70-200F4. It's a great size, has the extra aperture speed on the 200mm end, and performs very well.

01-29-2009, 10:06 AM

Used 70-200 f/4's for for about $500.

It's going to be hard to get a shallow DOF with any aperture narrower than f/2.8.

01-29-2009, 10:45 AM

This isn't true.

Originally Posted by Village Idiot

Used 70-200 f/4's for for about $500.

It's going to be hard to get a shallow DOF with any aperture narrower than f/2.8.

01-29-2009, 10:51 AM

I have the IS version which you can get used for around $400. I don't recommend anyone getting a nonIS lens until they are more experienced with how to hold the camera steady, etc....

I just got this lens and after shooting with a Canon XTi (my wife's camera) at ISO 1600 with flash inside of our daughter at 300mm (which is effectively 480MM in 35mm terms), I was across the room and able to put just her face in the frame (and this is a small child mind you), so the reach is great and the lens is a pretty sharp lens for the money.

I am happy with it. You can manual focus any lens from Canon since you can switch off AF with any lens.

Background blur is a combination of 4 factors:

1) Aperture (the wider, the shallower depth of field)
2) How close you are to your subject literally (the closer, the shallower depth of field)
3) Focal length (longer = shallower depth of field).
4) I will add this as well - distance from subject to background (further background is from focused subject, the more out of focus the background will be).

Therefore, just because racked out at 300mm this lens is at 5.6, you can get please blurred backgrounds. Yeah, it won't be like a 50mm 1.4 at 1.4, but you can do pretty well.

Originally Posted by BlueMac

Hi, I'm thinking of getting a new DSLR soon (Canon XS). It comes with an 18-55mm lens. I want a telephoto lens to go along with my camera. I am looking at this model here:

Canon | 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III USM Autofocus Lens | 6472A002AA

So I had a few questions.

1.) Does anybody use this lens? Any flaws you have found in it?

2.) Does it support manual focusing?

3.) Will it give me nice looking bokeh / background blur?


Thanks ahead.

01-29-2009, 10:53 AM

detractions from the 70-200 f/4 lens are:

1) weight, much heavier than a 70-300
2) range, you lose a very valuable range from 200-300
3) costs more

Yeah, the 70-200 f/4 is wonderful and built well and sharper than sharp; but if you are going the L route, don't mess around. Save up and get the 70-200 IS 2.8. Then you are talking. Yeah, the 2.8 is heavier than an f/4, but it simply is the king of the 70-200 range.

I suggest you get good enough to tell the difference between how lenses perform before getting a much better lens.

This is a bit different than how I used to think, because I used to tell others get a cheap camera (I still think this is good advice) and get a good 24-105 f/4 L lens since the glass the light is penetrating dictates what the sensor picks up.

I now think that people should just get a cheap dSLR kit (used Rebel and a lens as we are talking about in this Post) and learn how to compose and flash photography. Then you can appreicate all the extras coming on those more expensive units.

Originally Posted by nikonjin

If you can wait, save for the 70-200F4. It's a great size, has the extra aperture speed on the 200mm end, and performs very well.

01-29-2009, 11:32 AM

I really have to echo Macaflan's comment.

When I bought my first DSLR, I intentionally kept the kit lens and decided that until I could turn out great shots with crappy glass, there was little point in upgrading.

This left me with some gaps in my range, but learning to compose shots with your feet and not just the zoom is incredibly important. A good prime (50mm f/1.8 is nice and inexpensive) will really drill this home.

It'll also give you time to save up and go big. Resale on well treated lenses is good enough that it is possible to stair step your way into great gear, but you're still better off going all out the first time around if you can.

You'll also learn what you like to shoot. I'm a complete portrait, so when I first picked up my 50mm f/1.8, it became my walk around lens. If you end up spending most of your time photo sniping birds or people or whatever at great length, a 70-200 will probably be the way to go.

If you fall in love with the range your kit lens has but want better glass, you'll be better off replacing it than filling in focal length gaps.

Anyway, just food for thought.

01-29-2009, 01:22 PM

Originally Posted by Macaflan

This isn't true.

Yes it is, depending on the situation of course. That and the fact that you get sharper photos with a narrower aperture up to a certain point and that the 70-300 and 75-300 are definitely not lauded as a sharp lens.

Originally Posted by Macaflan

detractions from the 70-200 f/4 lens are:

1) weight, much heavier than a 70-300
2) range, you lose a very valuable range from 200-300
3) costs more

Yeah, the 70-200 f/4 is wonderful and built well and sharper than sharp; but if you are going the L route, don't mess around. Save up and get the 70-200 IS 2.8. Then you are talking. Yeah, the 2.8 is heavier than an f/4, but it simply is the king of the 70-200 range.

I suggest you get good enough to tell the difference between how lenses perform before getting a much better lens.

This is a bit different than how I used to think, because I used to tell others get a cheap camera (I still think this is good advice) and get a good 24-105 f/4 L lens since the glass the light is penetrating dictates what the sensor picks up.

I now think that people should just get a cheap dSLR kit (used Rebel and a lens as we are talking about in this Post) and learn how to compose and flash photography. Then you can appreicate all the extras coming on those more expensive units.

1) Canon 70-200 f.4 = 1.6lb Canon 75-300 = 1.05lb. Not that much. The 70-300IS is 720g where the 70-200 is 705g.
2) Never had a problem with that. I was always having problems using my 70-200 f/2.8L IS on a crop body because it wasn't wide enough. 5D MKII fixed that.
3) Slighty, but it's about the same price as the 70-300IS you reccomend.

Saving up for the 70-200 f/2.8L IS is great, but that's a $1000 difference.

IS is good, but you can't depend on it all the time. After all, it only helps with shake and won't stop motion. Plus reccomending that people only buy IS lenses until they learn how to "shoot right" is a little backwards imo. Plus IS isn't as effective at smaller focal lengths, so sometimes it's an investment you can do without if you don't want to spend the money.

01-29-2009, 04:16 PM

Starting out, I really think it's a lot smarter to spend the cost of a 70-200 f/2.8L IS on a regular 70-200 f/2.8 and another L lens of your choosing.

Also, if the range loss is an issue, the 70-200 takes both TC's. 1.4x puts you close to 300, and 2x puts you well over.

01-29-2009, 07:08 PM

I would agree with macaflan, he got it all just about nailed but I would add I have the 100/400 and at 400 f5.6 taking bird shots I get really blurred backgrounds, i can post a few pictures if you want.. so I would, if I were you go with the 70/200 f4 L lens and have some change for eithe a wide angle lens or a converter, but using a converter will add up to a couple stops on the aperture. but not so much that you would really notice..
good luck.

01-30-2009, 10:49 AM

This is hilarious. The OP is looking for a cheap telephoto lens and people are pointing him to lenses that cost over a grand.