Canon 75-300mm IS zoom (1 Viewer)

madmike

Well-known member

• May 20, 2005

• #1

Hi There
I recently bought a new Canon EF 75-300 Image Stabilised lens, but was not happy that it was working properly so had it sent it back, along with my 20D camera for checking.
It has now been returned, having had the firmware updated and both items checked, but, I feel the results from the lens are no better than from my normal Canon 300mm zoom!
Has anyone got the Canon 75-300 IS lens, and if so what do they think about it?
I tested the Canon 100-400 IS lens a while back and was VERY impressed with image sharpness, but, could not afford it!

Cheers,

madmick

 

robski

Well-known member

• May 20, 2005

• #2

Mike

When I saw you post your first request for info on this lens I thought then you would not be pleased. From what I can workout the IS has the same optics as the non-IS version. All you are getting is IS for your money and I don't think it is worth an extra £200 to bolt on IS to a poor/average lens.

Most reviews indicate there is no quality improvement apart from resolving camera shake.

A Bob Atkins review

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/x-300.html on that range of 300mm lens

Robert

 

madmike

Well-known member

• May 20, 2005

• #3

Lens probs

Hi robski,
You may well be right! However, I can't afford a grand or more for a lens, and as I like to shoot handheld thought the IS would at least give me a better chance of a reasonable pic most of the time. I tend to use the 300mm end mostly, which on a Digi camera is over 450mm, so it's quite a lot of magnification!
I think I would have been better to get the 100-400, but it's a lot of dosh!
I was unable to find a lens to test prior to purchase - damm!

Thanks for your comments anyway

Cheers,
Mike

 

robski

Well-known member

• May 20, 2005

• #4

Yes I can see why folk go for the 75-300 IS it's in the right price range. That is why I went for the Sigma 135-400 as my upgrade path. It is a step up from the 75-300 but I don't think I will be truely happy untill I have a Canon L. ( putting pennies in piggy bank for that day) They are much sharper and better on contrast. I did a test with the 300D kit lens against the 50mm f1.8 prime and the difference was staggering. For a cheap lens the 50mm f1.8 optics are great, shame about the cheap plastic body.

Robert

 

postcardcv

Super Moderator

Staff member

Supporter

• May 20, 2005

• #5

I've wondered about this lens myself (but haven't tried one), I used to use a 300mm lens on my Minolta slr and never had problems hand holding it, so assumed the IS would not be very usefel, except at slower shutter speeds. Currently I use a 170-500 on my dslr and can mostly hand hold that even at 500mm.

I'm sorry to hear that you're not happy with the new lens, if I were you I'd try and send it back to the retailer. I would hope (and expect) that most retailers would take it back in this situation. Lets hope you can get it sorted and get a lens that you are happy with and enjoy using.

 

J

jiminlondon99

Well-known member

• May 21, 2005

• #6

Robert
Thanks for a very good link, I think his summary comparision (see link below) is really useful.

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/70-300do.html

Although I have not tested the L lens I am sure the website is right when he says the L series is the best lens "but is heavy and expensive".

As for my 75-300 IS, it is light to carry, the low end of the zoom allows me to find the birds easily before framing the picture and I have got decent pictures @ 1/30th sec, so to answer madmick's question I am happy with it. I just wish I had more opportunity to use the iso 100 setting to see how good it really is!

 

madmike

Well-known member

• May 21, 2005

• #7

canon IS lens

Hi you'all,
Thanks for your various comments etc - all noted!
I've been testing the lens again today and I think that where it is useful is at slower shutter speeds that allow a better DOF.
Bearing in mind that our weather is more often than not a bit dull this will be helpful.
As has been mentioned, the lens is not any better than the non IS version, but I guess at £330 that's about what I should expect
I would love a prime IS lens or whatever, but can't justify the cost although I'm really tempted particularly when I see some of the good stuff on BF taken with some of the top end lenses!
Any further comments still welcome especially on the use of the IS aspect as the instruction book is less than basic!
Am I right in thinking that the IS only works on the first shop?

Thanks again guys,

Cheers,

madmike

 

robski

Well-known member

• May 21, 2005

• #8

To be fair the 75-300 is better than some of the budget lens in this range. If you can keep it at f8-f11, not fully zoomed, not a very high contrast subject, use a lens hood and hold the thing still it can get fair to good shots. But I had days where the whole shoot was put in the trash can. It's main weak points are high flare and high CA in high contrast scenes. When the aim is to get clearer and sharper shots then it is time to move on from this lens to greener fields. Most of use do not have bottomless pockets when it come to funding a hobby. Remember those who make a living from photography who need good equipment to sell their photos have already funded their photography hobby.

Robert

 

G

ghocking

Member

• May 22, 2005

• #9

I bought the 75-300 IS already having the 75-300 thinking that the IS would improve the sharpness because of camera shake, it didn't. Moved up to the 100-400 L IS and it is in a different league. I have seen shots taken with both 75-300 lenses on the net and they are excellent, so keep working at it to find best settings.

 

madmike

Well-known member

• May 22, 2005

• #10

Canon 75-300 IS Lens

Hi ghocking,
I tested the 100-400 IS lens and found it to be very good albeit a bit heavy, but, it's a lot of money!
It seems the 75-300 IS lens DOES improve those low light/slower shutter speed photos, but overall it's not that good although being able to use a smaller aperture does helps picture quality a bit I think.
I guess I'll just have to start saving the pennies again!

Thanks for your feedback.

madmike

 

J

jpratt88

Active member

• Jun 8, 2005

• #11

Hi,
I recently purchased a Canon EOS XT and after reading as many reviews on lenses I opted for the 100mm - 300mm USM lense instead of the IS lens and I am very happy with my chioce. From what I understood is that the IS lens is the lower grade lens with IS. where the 100-300 USM is a better quality lense and is about $100 less than the IS version.

Thanks

 

C

CANONROB

Well-known member

• Jun 9, 2005

• #12

madmike said:

Hi There
I recently bought a new Canon EF 75-300 Image Stabilised lens, but was not happy that it was working properly so had it sent it back, along with my 20D camera for checking.
It has now been returned, having had the firmware updated and both items checked, but, I feel the results from the lens are no better than from my normal Canon 300mm zoom!
Has anyone got the Canon 75-300 IS lens, and if so what do they think about it?
I tested the Canon 100-400 IS lens a while back and was VERY impressed with image sharpness, but, could not afford it!

Cheers,

madmick

Click to expand...

Hi

I have the same setup as you.

Try this, it may seem a strange thing to do, but it works for me.

Up your ISO to 400 or even 800, go for around f9, look to get a shutter speed of 1200 to 1600, BINGO clear sharp pictures.

I find it hard to see why the 20D works in the opposite way to the other cameras I have owned, but this has helped me no end.

I am sure you will see a marked improvement.

Rob

 

greypoint

Well-known member

• Jun 9, 2005

• #13

Most cheaper lenses work best at around f8 or more. I had a Canon 75-300mmIS last year but sold it on as it was'nt that brilliant optically - and i kept forgetting to switch off the IS for flight shots and got lots of blur! The problem with birds is that most of them move quickly so high shutter speeds are often a must. If I had ther money to spend I think a fast lens allowing the shutter speed to be upped is a better option. For most of us who have to watch the budget it often comes down to higher ISO and use of noise reduction. Looking through a load of pictures I've taken during the past year I would say most images can be improved re sharpness in PC processing but CA is the big thing to watch out for if you're going to be pointing your camera towards a [hopefully] sunny summer sky! I can recommend both the sigma APO lenses I now use in that respect - for anyone on a budget.

 

madmike

Well-known member

• Jun 9, 2005

• #14

Hi greypoint,
Yup, I think you are right, the lens is not that good although I think it's not bad in poor light allowing a slower shutter speed and better aperture.
Looking at the photos on the BF web site it seems that the best photos are with either good zooms or prime lens. Generally the more expensive bits of kit!
The big problem I find is being able to test a lens prior to buying it. I have managed to test one or two at Jessops and a couple of other shops where I'm known, however I would like to test the Canon 200/F2.8 and 300/F4 lens, but no-one sems to have them in stock!
I do have the Sigma 170-500 lens and find it quite good albeit heavy and a bit slow to use. The focus though is pretty quick for it's size.

Cheers,

madmike