Canon 75-300 vs. third party 70-300?

[barefootpoetry]

I am looking for a budget zoom lens that can do macro. I've been looking at different 70-300s but just stumbled across the Canon 75-300 which I can get for pretty much the same price. I am drawn to having the real Canon name, but the insanely low price throws me off (since the 70-300 is about six times more expensive!), and reviews are mixed. I also don't know if has the macro capibilites like 70-300. I know neither of them is a perfect lens because you get what you pay for, but out of the two, should I get the Canon or go with something from Sigma/Tamron/etc.? (they all seem interchangeable in my eyes) Thanks for the advice!

[inkista]

No, you don't get anything extra except maybe a lower price, and the possibility of IS and/or USM. And, of course, better future compatibility (since Sigma is reverse engineering the electronics of the mount. If Canon changes their mount electronics, they'll make sure their own lenses still work, but they don't care whether Sigma's lenses still do).

The Canon 75-300 is one of the oldest current designs, and it comes in many many variants:

EF 75-300 f/4-f/5.6
EF 75-300 f/4-f/5.6 USM
EF 75-300 f/4-f/5.6 IS USM
EF 75-300 f/4-f/5.6 II
EF 75-300 f/4-f/5.6 II USM
EF 75-300 f/4-f/5.6 III
EF 75-300 f/4-f/5.6 III USM

The 75-300 IS USM may be the only one worth finding, and only because it would be cheaper than the current 70-300 IS USM (which is much better optically) or the Sigma 70-300 OS.

A Sigma 70-300 is probably optically better than the el cheapo 75-300 III. But be aware that the Sigma isn't really a macro lens. It doesn't do 1:1 magnification like a true Macro lens would, maybe only a third of that. And it is still limited in the same way the 75-300 III is by a slow max. aperture. While it's better, it's not THAT much better.

[GadgetRick]

Originally Posted by inkista

No, you don't get anything extra except maybe a lower price, and the possibility of IS and/or USM. And, of course, better future compatibility (since Sigma is reverse engineering the electronics of the mount. If Canon changes their mount electronics, they'll make sure their own lenses still work, but they don't care whether Sigma's lenses still do).

I've heard this argument many times, however, has this ever happened in the past with any manufacturer? I'm just curious as I just don't know.

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by GadgetRick

I've heard this argument many times, however, has this ever happened in the past with any manufacturer? I'm just curious as I just don't know.

Many "very" old third party lenses dont work completely with newer bodies. I've seen issues with Sigma and Tamron as well as a few other smaller manufacturers

[GadgetRick]

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

Many "very" old third party lenses dont work completely with newer bodies. I've seen issues with Sigma and Tamron as well as a few other smaller manufacturers

So, basically, we're usually talking old lenses...lenses which may not be terribly useful otherwise....

Of course, if Canon made a change tomorrow, that would suck if you had a 3rd party lens which won't work.

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by GadgetRick

So, basically, we're usually talking old lenses...lenses which may not be terribly useful otherwise....

Of course, if Canon made a change tomorrow, that would suck if you had a 3rd party lens which won't work.

Note the use of quotation marks. I've heard of issues, with both Canon and Nikon, of "old" sigma lenses that were one a couple of years old. THis issue usually arises with used lenses, too, which makes it all the more difficult.

[barefootpoetry]

Yes, I have had problems with compatability as well, which is why I'm debating getting Canon vs. third party. I just bought a Quantaray 70-300mm and it is incompatible with my XS. It's not that old either. I had no idea this problem was so common until it happened to me! I Googled it and found out so much!

[barefootpoetry]

Originally Posted by inkista

No, you don't get anything extra except maybe a lower price, and the possibility of IS and/or USM. And, of course, better future compatibility (since Sigma is reverse engineering the electronics of the mount. If Canon changes their mount electronics, they'll make sure their own lenses still work, but they don't care whether Sigma's lenses still do).

The Canon 75-300 is one of the oldest current designs, and it comes in many many variants:

EF 75-300 f/4-f/5.6
EF 75-300 f/4-f/5.6 USM
EF 75-300 f/4-f/5.6 IS USM
EF 75-300 f/4-f/5.6 II
EF 75-300 f/4-f/5.6 II USM
EF 75-300 f/4-f/5.6 III
EF 75-300 f/4-f/5.6 III USM

The 75-300 IS USM may be the only one worth finding, and only because it would be cheaper than the current 70-300 IS USM (which is much better optically) or the Sigma 70-300 OS.

A Sigma 70-300 is probably optically better than the el cheapo 75-300 III. But be aware that the Sigma isn't really a macro lens. It doesn't do 1:1 magnification like a true Macro lens would, maybe only a third of that. And it is still limited in the same way the 75-300 III is by a slow max. aperture. While it's better, it's not THAT much better.

I know it doesn't do REAL macro. I should've put "macro" in quotes. It's good enough for me, though...I can't afford a true dedicated macro lens right now. So none of the Canon 75-300 do "macro?" Dang. This is a hard decision. Maybe I should see what I can find in 1:2 for cheap if I'm going to go with the 75-300....

[FormElement]

I guess one important question is how bad do you really need 300mm reach? I mean, I used it, and I owned the 75-300 III USM, and I decided to sell it because I just really didn't use it that much, and when I did, I really needed a lot faster, sharper glass.

I did get a few real keepers out of that lens, but it's definitely worth what you pay for it.

[barefootpoetry]

Originally Posted by FormElement

I guess one important question is how bad do you really need 300mm reach? I mean, I used it, and I owned the 75-300 III USM, and I decided to sell it because I just really didn't use it that much, and when I did, I really needed a lot faster, sharper glass.

I did get a few real keepers out of that lens, but it's definitely worth what you pay for it.

Good question. I'm not really sure how often I'll be needing to zoom that far. I don't shoot stuff that I'm very far away from that often. I guess what I really want is the "macro" capability because I definitely do a lot of that. Now I am looking at what other lenses could give me that, and it seems like everyone slaps "macro" on any old lens. Blah. I'm toying with the idea of getting an old FD macro lens and a converter.