Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III Telephoto Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras
Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III Telephoto Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras
- 75-300mm telephoto zoom lens with f/4-5.6 maximum aperture for Canon SLR cameras
- Improved mechanism makes zooming smoother; front part of zoom ring sports silver ring
- Measures 2.8 inches in diameter and 4.8 inches long; weighs 16.8 ounces; 1-year warranty
- 4.9-foot closest focusing distance; 32- to 8-degree diagonal angle of view
Is this lens as bad as some people say it is?,
No it’s not especially if you take into account its intended users. If you use a Canon digital SLR and are satisfied with the kit lens (18-55) then buying this lens can be the perfect next step for you. Practically speaking, you will be able to increase your zoom reach to the point where you can A) photograph birds in moderately distant trees, B) be able to zoom in on the other side of a valley and frame something of your interest. Those are just two examples. One thing you will NOT be able to do effectively with this lens, however, is to take sport shots with it. How so? Consider some of the following weakness:
*At 300mm zoom range the highest aperture is limited to 5.6 (You will have to use very slow shutter speed to snap fast action shots; remember the inverse relation between aperture and shutter speed.)
*The lens size/weight combination makes it hard to hold steady when attached to a camera like the Rebel XT
*Slow and often inaccurate auto focus (I just don’t understand why Canon makes a USM version of this lens for $20 more, but never includes it in the triple rebate program)
*Chromatic aberration is significant in high contrast lighting like in full sun (if you do not know what Chromatic aberration means search the term online or check out my review of the Canon 28mm 2.8 on Amazon, but to summarize, it would be a discoloration at the fringes of objects in your picture)
Those kinds of weakness will limit your ability to use this lens in all sorts of other situations/circumstances. As a practical rule to follow, if the lighting is less than ideal this lens will give you a hard time. Meaning, it will be possible to use it, but you may get too many blurry images because of shake from slow shutter speeds. As for what are ideal lighting conditions? That would be full sun with few or no clouds and with the light bathing your subject/object from the front or the side.
So is this lens that bad? Not really, as with many other lenses, when the lens is coupled with a good camera it still out performs most Point and Shoot cameras. Plus it provides results at par or slightly below the kit lens (18-55). So if you are satisfied with your kit lens, which provides you with a zoom range comparable to 3X zoom (55/18= 3), why not add another lens that will expand your zoom range by another 4X (300/75=4)? Nothing wrong with expanding your horizon!
PS. TWO MORE POINTS ABOUT USING THIS LENS: First, if you’re confident you can handhold this lens at slow shutter speeds (I know I can’t) then the low maximum aperture shouldn’t be a major problem. Second, if you’re fine shooting at high ISO (more like 400 or 800) then again the low maximum aperture shouldn’t be a problem. The nice thing about photography is that you can do one thing in so many ways, so don’t be afraid to explore with this lens!
Was this review helpful to you?
|Could be better, but works well within its price range,
After reading several online reviews of the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM lens, I had nearly talked myself out of even looking at one. However, thanks to a local Canon demonstration, I was able to play with several lenses, the 75-300mm f/4-5.6 among them. I got to try it out alongside the IS version (which costs just under 3x as much), the non-USM version, and some of their L-series professional lenses.
That said, I found there to be less difference among the directly-comparable lenses (the non-USM, USM, and IS versions) than I’d have thought. On the test shots I took using a Canon Digital Rebel XT, I didn’t find full-zoom telephoto shots to be appreciably softer in the non-IS version reviewed herein, nor were the images overly soft for my liking period.
The USM focusing didn’t seem to make as much of a difference as I’d expected over the non-USM model, either. Focusing was still relatively slow (as other reviewers have pointed out), although once an initial focus has been made, adjustments aren’t too slow unless changing to a subject substantially nearer or farther away. HOWEVER, the AF engine did make a number of “mistakes” when using this lens that it did not using the IS lens (or, of course, the L-series glass); more than once I had to either switch to manual focus or try multiple times to get the right focus “lock.” Furthermore, the USM model doesn’t get you internal focus, either, like with higher-end lenses, so the end still rotates during focusing, which can be problematic with a circular polarizer or other filters.
Overall, I’d say that you “get what you pay for”; this is a very inexpensive lens, and it shows in some areas. But it’s not nearly as bad as some would make it out to be. I tried it out both on several indoors shots under less-than-ideal lighting conditions and was pleased in most respects, and outdoors, I got very good results on even moving subjects.
Pros:
– Cost; at under $200, you would be hard-pressed to find a lens with the same reach with even half-decent optics.
Cons:
– Slow focus
– Autofocus seems to confuse somewhat easily over the IS model
– The USM version is still not an internally-focusing model, and thus the end of the lens will still rotate (and can affect filters, etc.)
I’d recommend the IS version if you have the extra funds, but if you are on a budget and just can’t wait, I saw less of a difference than others have between the two. Of course, the real step up would be to a comparable piece of glass in the L series, but with it comes a real step up in price, too.
Was this review helpful to you?
|Buy the “IS” version instead,
If you’re looking at this lens, you’re more demanding than the average Joe who takes photos and have high expectations. This lens is not blazingly fast (f/5.6 at 300mm), and to reliably freeze camera shake, you’re going to need a 1/500 sec shutter speed, which means that with ISO 100 film, you only can lose one stop of illumination under “Sunny 16″ conditions before you have to decide comprimise somewhere to get your shot.
Consequently, shots into the shade, or conducted under the warmer and softer lighting conditions of the morning/evening will inevitably drive you to the comprimise of a high ISO grainy film or the bulk of a tripod to make up for this lens’s lack of optical speed. If you always shoot in full noon sunshine, you’ll be okay.
Even though its a great tool, most people don’t like to carry a tripod, so the solution is to either accept grain in enlargements, not take certain photos, spend more money to go to a faster lens, or some combination of the above. I’ll say it again: the most cost-effective alternative is to use a tripod. The next cost-effective alternative is Canon’s “IS” (Image Stabilization) lens technology. There are two contenders in this focal length, the 75-300mm IS and the 100-400mm IS. The former is nearly a duplicate of this lens…. The latter is a 3 lb pro lens…. Of these two, the 75-300mm IS is the bargain.
I started with this lens and after just a few test rolls, returned it and got the 75-300mm IS. The IS technology reliably affords an additional effective two stops of speed, although it cannot be used to freeze subject motion as the shutter will normally also do. But it makes the use of high quality films, such as Fuji Velvia (ISO 50), Kodachrome 64 and even Ekta (Kodak Royal Gold) ISO 25 feasible. -hh
Was this review helpful to you?
|