Any opinions on the Canon 75-300 f4-5.6III lens ??

MacHeadCase said:

Yeah the 70-300 IS replaced the aging 75-300 III USM. In my blog article, I posted about switching to this lens after the major 75-300mm letdown. But if I would have had money for an L series lens, I would have gone with one of those instead. I was looking at the 100-400mm L for one time but couldn't afford it.

Click to expand...

Yeah.. I too have been looking at the 100 - 400 L WOW!! THAT looks like an awesome lens!!!

voicepipes said:

i have the 70-300 IS version and it's not a bad lens at all. It has it's purpose.

My 70-200 L is obviously much better, but you do get what you pay for.

The 70-300 was my first telephoto lens bought with the money I had available. I don't regret having bought it or keeping it.

Jeff

Click to expand...

I also started with the 70~300IS predecessor lens, the 75~300IS, when it was still new many years ago. It was the very first image stabilized lens. At longer focal lengths, any camera shake gets magnified manifold. Unless you are shooting on a very bright day with the ISO cranked way high, the images can get blurred at anything slower than 1/250' at 300mm.

Since I wanted to be able to avoid a tripod at these focal lengths, the IS was worth every penny. You can have the sharpest lens in the world, but if your shot suffers from camera shake, you've wasted the capability of the lens, and it's worse than a non-blurry image taken with a consumer telezoom. This is why I recommend anyone who gets a telezoom to get one with the IS. BTW, these lenses are not as bad as some folks make it out to be. It's just not professional grade. For a different perspective, see this review:

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/x-300.html
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/ef_70_300is_review.html

Same principle applies here. If you intend to get the 70~200L, and shoot handheld, especially with the 1.4x teleconverter, make sure to get the IS version. Otherwise, you could end up with image quality worse than the "dreaded" 75~300.

I've long since passed on my 75~300IS to my daughter when I invested in the 70~200 f/2.8IS lens and a 1.4x teleconverter. It cost me 3 times more than the earlier telezoom, but I've used this expensive lens so frequently, that it has been well worth it.

I have both the 75-300IS and the 70-200L f4 and I couldn't even tell you when I used the 75-300 last. The Canon 70-200L f4 packs a lot of punch for a very decent price. I agree with EORI regarding the value of IS, but it adds significantly to the price of an L series lens. I went with the non IS version of the 70-200L f4 and have not regretted it.

I have the third one down from the BH Photo link that was posted.

Zoom Telephoto EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM Autofocus Lens

Amazing lens.. I have used that in Yellowstone. The pictures come in so clear and crisp. I do have a UV Filter on it. I actually bought this one from a friend, and have been happy ever since. He sold it to me for $450.

Village Idiot said:

Canon 70-200 f/4 L USM $26 a week.
http://www.borrowlenses.com/

Click to expand...

Hi,

Village Idiot, thanks for the mention.

Let me introduce myself. My name is Max and I am the owner of BorrowLenses.com. I saw some hits coming from here, so I decided to pop in and say hello.

Please let me know if you guys have any questions regarding our services. I will monitor this thread to see if there are questions.

Thanks,
Max

http://www.BorrowLenses.com
online photo gear rental

BorrowLenses said:

Hi,

Village Idiot, thanks for the mention.

Let me introduce myself. My name is Max and I am the owner of BorrowLenses.com. I saw some hits coming from here, so I decided to pop in and say hello.

Please let me know if you guys have any questions regarding our services. I will monitor this thread to see if there are questions.

Thanks,
Max

http://www.BorrowLenses.com
online photo gear rental

Click to expand...

Speaking of the devil....

BorrowLenses said:

Hi,

Village Idiot, thanks for the mention.

Let me introduce myself. My name is Max and I am the owner of BorrowLenses.com. I saw some hits coming from here, so I decided to pop in and say hello.

Please let me know if you guys have any questions regarding our services. I will monitor this thread to see if there are questions.

Thanks,
Max

http://www.BorrowLenses.com
online photo gear rental

Click to expand...

Nice!!! thanks for popping in.

I have a question.... I am leaving to go to Vegas on Friday, and will be back the next thursday... anyway to have the Lens here in KS by Friday morning, or could I have it shipped to my hotel in Las vegas??

Thanks for any info!

RiDE said:

Nice!!! thanks for popping in.

I have a question.... I am leaving to go to Vegas on Friday, and will be back the next thursday... anyway to have the Lens here in KS by Friday morning, or could I have it shipped to my hotel in Las vegas??

Thanks for any info!

Click to expand...

Ride, which dates are we talking about here? Friday the 15th? If so, yes, all our packages are sent FedEx 2nd day by default, so you can have the lens sent out. However, I have some bad news as all copies of that particular lens are out. Anything else I can interest you in?

Thanks,
Max

I'll probably get flamed for saying this, but with lenses you get what you pay for and if someone is asking about a $100 lens, and getting recommendations for $500 lenses, I'm thinking there's bound to be bad comparisons between the two.

[Put's on flame-suit]. There's also the point that 99.99% of people who buy these 'top-end' lenses have absolutely no idea how to use them, or how to frame a half decent image or even have any idea what they actually want to shoot. I see these middle-aged idiots wandering around Manhattan with $3000 worth of kit, looking for stuff to shoot - half the time they're not even moving.. just relying on huge Zooms, when walking forward 10 feet would have done the job and gotten a far better frame. [/remove flame-suit]

I have lenses for my OM-1 from the 1980's that even the cheapest standard Canon kit-lens would blow away, and yet you get these review sites, written by teenagers, saying the quality is 'sub-par' because they want to hand shoot with a 200mm lens @ f/5.6 on a windy day. There's way too much reliance on technology these days to take a decent photograph, without understanding the principles behind the art.

[/end rat]

BTW - I do think the recommendations in this thread are sound... Just to be clear...

We're all equipment junkies to some extent (otherwise, why would we frequent this forum), and you're probably right about how most equipment gets wasted on mediocre results because the majority of the unwashed masses have no clue, or inclination to learn, how to use the equipment to its limits.

In the OP's case, I believe he was asking first and foremost whether this used lens was any good; that he could get it for $100. The unanimous answer from actual owners was a thumbs down, even for $100. Since the OP seemed to need a tele-zoom, it was left open to the peanut gallery to make recommendations, and sure enough, we advised the OP to spend money like it wasn't ours. ;D

I think the more responsible thing would have been to make sure that the recommended lens met the OP's needs and skill level. It would be absurd indeed to advise spending hundreds and thousands of dollars if all the OP needed was a telezoom to take snapshots for a blog or 4x6 prints.

EORI said:

We're all equipment junkies to some extent (otherwise, why would we frequent this forum), and you're probably right about how most equipment gets wasted on mediocre results because the majority of the unwashed masses have no clue, or inclination to learn, how to use the equipment to its limits.

In the OP's case, I believe he was asking first and foremost whether this used lens was any good; that he could get it for $100. The unanimous answer from actual owners was a thumbs down, even for $100. Since the OP seemed to need a tele-zoom, it was left open to the peanut gallery to make recommendations, and sure enough, we advised the OP to spend money like it wasn't ours. ;D

I think the more responsible thing would have been to make sure that the recommended lens met the OP's needs and skill level. It would be absurd indeed to advise spending hundreds and thousands of dollars if all the OP needed was a telezoom to take snapshots for a blog or 4x6 prints.

Click to expand...

No, but in ride's case it doesn't seem like $450-$500 is an ureachable goal as far as spending money on a lens goes. Just my observation from his spending. But unless you absolutely have to have a lens in that range, why spend $100, just when you're going to want to turn around and spend $500 when you find out the quality isn't there.

@Zoolook - There can be a huge difference in image quality though, and price usually reflects this. Most of the time, people coming on to forums fall in three groups: I'm rich and I want this, I'm wanting to further my ability and I want this, I'm happy with what I have.

Village Idiot said:

@Zoolook - There can be a huge difference in image quality though, and price usually reflects this. Most of the time, people coming on to forums fall in three groups: I'm rich and I want this, I'm wanting to further my ability and I want this, I'm happy with what I have.

Click to expand...

I understand that, and agree with you. I just wanted to make the point that some of the best ever photographs were taken with nothing more than a 50mm prime and a manual SLR. Good equipment does not necessarily equal good photography.

I must admit, I brought some of my prejudices around 'all the gear and no idea' type people into this thread, and it was probably not warranted. Apologies.