Thoughts on this lense

[imayoda]

I've been meaning to get a zoom lens for my Digital Rebel and right now this one is looking about right.


http://focuscamera.com/prods/226523084.asp

 

[[TQ]]

That is a very popular lens. It's going to produce decent shots. It makes the average user happy.

Check out pbase.com

Go to search
Camera
Canon

Then find the lens, it'll show you some example shots.

In my opinion though you'd be a ton better off getting the 70-200 f/4 L.

It is a much better lens and only a fraction more $ wise.

 

[mdude85]

Here is a little more info on the 75-300...


http://www.photo.net/canon/75-300IS/

By the way, there is a non-IS 75-300 Mark III available for about $175. If you're not a very discerning critic it might be worth picking up. I don't know anything about its quality...

 

[FLECOM]

is image quality of concern? will you be using it outdoors? indoors? lots of light? low light?

if you dont mind loosing a little on the long end you can get a 70-200 f4 L lens for about $100 more and the iq and build quality of the 70-200 is worlds better than the 75-300 IS... of course the IS is nice for indoor / low light shots...

depends on what your needs are

 

[imayoda]

That is a very popular lens. It's going to produce decent shots. It makes the average user happy.

Check out pbase.com

Go to search
Camera
Canon

Then find the lens, it'll show you some example shots.

In my opinion though you'd be a ton better off getting the 70-200 f/4 L.

It is a much better lens and only a fraction more $ wise.

Well, really didn't want to spend over $500 for a lense right now; given that I don't spend enough time taking pictures to justify such a lense. But I do plan to get into it more in the future.

Maybe in a couple of years I'll be ready to start buying L series glass, but for now I just need something that'll take a decent picture if you know what I mean.


So for my needs, do you think the 75-300 is a sound purchase?



Also, what website do you guys recommend for buying lenses from? I've been browsing over www.focuscamera.com and was wondering where you guys shop.


Thanks for the input so far.

 

[imayoda]

is image quality of concern? will you be using it outdoors? indoors? lots of light? low light?

if you dont mind loosing a little on the long end you can get a 70-200 f4 L lens for about $100 more and the iq and build quality of the 70-200 is worlds better than the 75-300 IS... of course the IS is nice for indoor / low light shots...

depends on what your needs are

I'll be using it outdoors mainly. I take a lot of landscape shots, and I also take pictures of houses for brochures. I use a tripod most of the time, but I take my Digital Rebel on vacations and such, and I don't have a tripod then. That's why a lens with IS appealed to me.

Is there that much of a difference in the L series?

 

[Joony]

Do you guys believe that the 200mm end of the 70-200mm F/4L lens can reach far enough for sporting and wildlife photography?

 

[[TQ]]

Do you guys believe that the 200mm end of the 70-200mm F/4L lens can reach far enough for sporting and wildlife photography?

Wild life is iffy, but sports...heck yeah depending on your access

www.questphotos.com/football.

The truth is that a lens is not something you should feel like you'll be getting rid of some day. When you buy a lens, buy it because it's a wonderful tool that will work for years to come.

In the end you'll be happier, and save more money.

 

[jimnms]

I have the 75-300 IS, I'm happy with it. It's not as sharp as an L lens, and it's a little slow to focus. I want more zoom, so I'm thinking about getting the 100-400 IS. I'll still keep the 75-300 because that 100-400 is kind of heavy to lug around all the time. Once you go IS, you never want to use a non IS lens again.

Here are a few shots from my gallery, but most of the pics I've taken with it I've yet to process and upload them.

http://www.pbase.com/jchaney/image/30090370
http://www.pbase.com/jchaney/image/30071913
http://www.pbase.com/jchaney/image/29720021
http://www.pbase.com/jchaney/image/33533122
http://www.pbase.com/jchaney/street_wreck

I have a ton of plane spotting pics, some RC planes and some birds that I haven't uploaded yet.

You can also see other people's pics taken with the 75-300 lens here:
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon/ef_75300_4is

 

[mdude85]

Wild life is iffy, but sports...heck yeah depending on your access

www.questphotos.com/football.

The truth is that a lens is not something you should feel like you'll be getting rid of some day. When you buy a lens, buy it because it's a wonderful tool that will work for years to come.

In the end you'll be happier, and save more money.

it doesn't look like it reaches nearly far enough in those football pictures ...

 

[[TQ]]

it doesn't look like it reaches nearly far enough in those football pictures ...

Do explain...

Instead of posting a load of negative crap...why dont you go play in the sand.

 

[Joony]

[TQ], wow, the 70-200mm F4/L looks very sharp are the pictures above 100% crops?

 

[[TQ]]

[TQ], wow, the 70-200mm F4/L looks very sharp are the pictures above 100% crops?

I actually have the 2.8 version...but they are just resizes.

Here is a 100% crop example for ya though.

 

[mdude85]

Do explain...

Instead of posting a load of negative crap...why dont you go play in the sand.

I'm not sure which is worse -- posting "a load of negative crap" which is simply an opinion which disagrees with your opinion ...... or posting a load of pictures in hopes that people will be impressed with them?

 

[[TQ]]

or posting a load of pictures in hopes that people will be impressed with them?

I try to avoid the idiots...i'm adding you to my list.

I posted the pictures to show that 200mm is quiet close.

The photos them self pretty much suck, if you'd like me to critique myself i'd be glad to...however, if you recall i'm gonna try not talking to you anymore because...your an idiot.

 

[KevySaysBeNice]

[TQ]: I think it was just his opinion, which we are all entitled too.


Now, I am going to have to agree w/ [TQ] and others, and recommend that your purchase the 70-200L. It is what I would purchase if I had the money, hands down. Owning one of canons lesser lenses (80-200 USM) I am happy with it, however I feel like it just doesnt compare to the quality of the 70-200L.

I personally think that even though its only 70-200 vs. 75-300, the range is not NEARLY enough reason to NOT get the L. Even if it was the 28-300 L, i wouled still say "get the 70-200L".

It just seems like really really good lens, and a really really good lens to have around

 

[phixt]

I've been pondering the same question over the past few weeks as the OP posted. I already have a non-IS 75-300mm and I've been pleased with its range and versatility over the past 4 years. Not so pleased with its slow AF which spends a few seconds hunting for the right focus (wildlife better be still) or with its softness on the long end. I've read a lot on fredmiranda and other places about both lenses and I'd pretty much made up my mind to go for the 75-300 IS because of the range and since $415+ is already stretching my budget. Reading this thread has given me new doubts...now I'm leaning towards the L, but the price really hurts even if it is a great value. I shoot some wildlife, occasionally sports and people.

BTW, another thing to take into consideration is the extra range the increased resolution of L glass will give you, and the necessity to downsize 300mm shots from the 75-300 to get them to a clarity comparable to the L. I just got my cheap-but-high-quality 50mm f/1.8, and it's opened me up to greater clarity, larger print sizes and cropping ability that I previously thought my 300D couldn't touch.

Anyways, just thought I'd share that. Good luck to the OP finding a lens he(/she?) likes.

 

[mdude85]

I think 200 mm *is* long enough for some wildlife shots though, but many ppl recommend 300-500 mm. consider purchasing an extender.

 

[mdude85]

I try to avoid the idiots...i'm adding you to my list.

I posted the pictures to show that 200mm is quiet close.

The photos them self pretty much suck, if you'd like me to critique myself i'd be glad to...however, if you recall i'm gonna try not talking to you anymore because...your an idiot.

I never said they sucked, I said I didn't think they reached far enough.