What do you think of this lens???

[iRyzzz]

CANON EF 75-300mm III ZOOM Lens (MARK 3) 75-300 mm on eBay (end time 07-Mar-11 14:46:16 GMT)


CANON EF 75-300mm III ZOOM Lens (MARK 3) 75-300 mm

What do you think of this lens for a beginner with a canon 450D?

Thanks

[OsmosisStudios]

You'd be better off with the 55-250 or 70-300 IS.

Also: Please learn WHERE posts should go. General Chit Chat is for general talk: the Canon forums are for specific enquiries.

[BCampbell]

It's junk.

But it's better than not having a lens in that range at all.

There is no shortage, I definitely wouldn't pay more than $75 or so for one on ebay.

[inkista]

Originally Posted by BCampbell

It's junk.

Yeah, but not total junk. And it is a lot cheaper/lighter/smaller/more discreet than a Great White L. It's still usable in a surprisingly wide variety of situations. If you live in Southern California and have lots of sunshine most of the year.


Canon XT. EF 75-300 III. @210mm, iso 400, f/8, 1/1600s.

It's great at being cheap. So if you're budget-limited, it's probably the one for you.

The 75-300 III taught me everything I know about getting the best out of mediocre glass. Stop down to at least f/8. Back off from 300mm a lil' bit. Shoot RAW and learn to post-process like hell. Learn the 1/focal_length rule. Fast action, outside in the sunshine only. Forget handheld indoors or using a TC with this baby.

[BCampbell]

Oh, I've used it quite a bit... while we're sharing, even to get action photos:



But it's a really bad lens and Os is right that for most people the 55-250 is a better choice (edit: note that the price difference new is $150 vs $250) The 75-300 III especially has some serious fringing issues. Plus, it's an EF lens; putting it on an APS-C body, you're lugging around extra glass that you're not going to use. And if you have a full frame body it's kind of a waste to mount such a poor lens. Note that I am not a role model.

You know, at some point we just have to admit things are bad... and this is a bad lens. As I said, it's better than not having anything at all, and if you can get it cheap enough it's worth the money.

[RichardTaylor]

It's a very cheap solution to getting some reach

For good light, where you can use it around F8, it will be ok for web publishing and smaller prints..
Be sure to budget for a lens hood.

I replaced mine about 6 months latter with a Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens

Here are a couple of examples taken on vacation. (the only time I really used it). All were taken hand held (at high shutter speeds) and have been PP'd (mostly sharpened) from the original RAW files.
I don't have exif info available.

(1)


(2)


(3)


(4)

[inkista]

Originally Posted by BCampbell

You know, at some point we just have to admit things are bad... and this is a bad lens. As I said, it's better than not having anything at all, and if you can get it cheap enough it's worth the money.

Yes, it's probably the worst of the telephoto zooms Canon currently offers. But bang-for-the-buck can make up for an awful lot. And, as we've both stated, it's not like it immediately turns all photos you take with it butt ugly.

Originally Posted by RichardTaylor

I replaced mine about 6 months latter with a Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens

Yes, all of us who got a 75-300 III have since replaced it. Sometimes twice over.

And normally, I would have pointed to the 55-250 IS or the 70-300 IS (non-L) or the EF 70-200 f/4L USM (non-IS), but this OP is the same guy who posted that he had a total budget of £130 for a do-everything lens. I figure even suggesting the Sigma 70-300 as a sub may not meet the budget (given that maybe we're also probably talking about squeezing in a 50/1.8 II for the cheap training-wheels triple), while, as Bruce mentioned, the 75-300 III is cheap and plentiful on the used market.