Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III lens ??

Discussion in 'Canon' started by Mike R, May 19, 2005.

  1. Mike R

    Mike R Guest


    Looking for a lens for my (still to arrive) 350d. ICD have in the package
    on of the above lenses. I noticed on a quick search that there are several
    versions of this.: DO IS USM, USM and Imag stab

    As a total novice - whats the difference? My budget is < £300?

    Is this a good lens or should I be looking at non-canon lenses

    Do the sigma etc work with the 350d?

    Any advice will be great


    Mike R, May 19, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. Mike R

    dylan Guest

    The DO is supposed to be close to the L series pro lenses and uses a special
    lens to enable it to be very short, you pay the price for this but you will
    get better quality compared to the other 2.

    I believe the other 2 are very similar apart from the IS. I have the IS
    version which is very useful for hand holding it especially at 300mm, gives
    you 2 or 3 stops improvement. The usual comments are the lens are soft at
    the 300mm end, but I'd say still very usable.

    Basically you pay the price for the quality and features you want.

    Can't comment on non-canon lenses, don't have any.
    dylan, May 19, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. Mike R

    eatmorepies Guest

    The 75 to 300 is a decent lens but does not make full use of the abilty of
    the sensor in the 350D. Also; it's fairly slow and 300mm is very long on a
    1.6x sensor.

    I keep advising the L series and I won't stop now because £300 is quite
    close to the £333 you would need to spend.

    With your camera you will get a book of vouchers for cash back. One of them
    is £70 back on the 70-200mm f4 L series. 7 Day Shop will sell you one for
    £403 - delivered - they are a Channel Island company. I wrote to Canon and
    asked if the cash back offer applies to the Channel Islands, they wrote
    back - and it does. The 70 to 200 will translate in to 112 - 280mm in old

    Get the L series zoom and you will have paid very little for a fantastic
    piece of kit that will knock the 75-300 into next week. The L lens will be
    bigger but it will be much better built and will be worth a lot more if you
    decide to sell it at some time.

    Go here for
    details on all the Canon lenses.

    I bought the f2.8 version and that extra stop cost an extra £400, the lens
    is bigger and heavier, I am wondering if I should have bought the f4 one and
    jack the ISO up on the camera. Today I took some shots in a school canteen
    with the blinds 3/4 drawn. I used ISO 1600 and no flash - most of the time
    the camera was hovering around f4 with a shutter speed of 1/200 - several of
    the shots are very good. I would not have missed much with the f4.

    Save up for L series lenses, you will never go back.

    eatmorepies, May 19, 2005
  4. Mike R

    Mike R Guest

    Thanks for this John, I feel a bigger dent appearing on my visa.
    Mike R, May 19, 2005
  5. Mike R

    jean Guest

    OH NO HE'S BACK!!!

    Don't listen to GP, buy Canon "L" lenses and you will not regret it!

    jean, May 19, 2005
  6. Mike R

    jean Guest

    I have the 70-300 DO IS lens and it does not perform as well as my old
    75-300 IS, the pictures are soft, very soft and not worth the price of the
    The 75-300 with IS is a solid performer, it has it's flaws like slow
    focussing and the front element rotates so polarising filter use is
    problematic. The IS works very well.
    Exactly, as others have pointed out, a good buy is the 70-200 f4 L, it's
    only drawback is the color (white) which may attract attention. After
    getting the 70-200, save your pennies and get the 1.4X teleconverter which
    will give you 98-280 or 156.8-448 taking the 1.6X factor of the camera.
    Don't get the 70-200 f2,8, it's too heavy to carry around on trips. I have
    one and it stays home unless I have a special event to attend and I know for
    sure I will be using it.
    I had a Sigma 28mm f1,8 and it was a disaster so I shy away from Sigma, they
    may make good lenses, but having been burned once, I will not try them

    jean, May 19, 2005
  7. The Canon 75-300 IS is an excellent choice. I also have a 100-400 IS and my
    test shots show that it is indeed sharper, but not all that much. Here is a
    shot taken with the 75-300 IS (hand held at full zoom from a moving tram in
    the FL everglades):
    Charles Schuler, May 19, 2005
  8. Mike R

    jean Guest

    The Sigma lens I had was a Sigma Wide Angle 28mm f/1.8 EX Aspherical DG DF
    Macro and it didn't work on my Drebel, after sending it back twice, they
    sent me a brand new lens directly from Japan. That one worked, but the
    quality of my pictures was nothing to write home about, lots of purple
    fringing in the corners and a slow noisy focus motor. Half the price of a
    similar Canon lens for sure, but surely half the quality.

    EX does NOT equal EXcellent!


    Since Sigma makes only lenses and cameras, they should get it right? no?
    jean, May 19, 2005
  9. Mike R

    Tony Guest

    If you can afford the Canon IS get it - my wife won't take ours off her
    camera. For the money it is a lot of lens. The USM and standard versions of
    this lens are good for the money too. The DO version has some problems that
    would not make it a good ONLY telephoto. The Sigma is junk
    Tony, May 19, 2005
  10. Mike R

    Tony Guest

    Correction - Preddy is a liar. He owns no cameras or lenses, and has some
    bug up his rectum for promoting Sigma - which is the poorest of the off
    label lens brands and has severe compatibility problems with both Canon and
    Tony, May 19, 2005
  11. Mike R

    Mike R Guest

    Thanks for posting the image Charles - it helps clarify what is possible.

    Kind Regards

    Mike R, May 19, 2005
  12. Mike R

    Felix Guest


    I started with this lens, but rapidly upgraded to the IS version for
    wildlife photography. Neither are the very best for optical quality
    but are good on a price/quality scale.

    Before buying, look at the B&H Photovideo website. You can buy the
    lenses from them much cheaper that from the UK. Shipping is about £35,
    handling about £11 and VAT is payable on top of all this. Placing
    order to delivery in UK is about 40 hours. Consider the 7-year
    worldwide warranty on an expensive lens, though Canon UK do appear to
    honour US warranties (they did on my camera).

    You may find that you can obtain a better lens for you £300 when
    buying from the USA.


    Felix, May 20, 2005
  13. Mike R

    Zed Pobre Guest

    Actually, some of the Sigma EX lenses really are getting better
    reviews than Canon L-series lenses. The new Sigma 80-400 EX OS lens
    is being reviewed as sharper than the Canon 100-400 IS L, more
    flexible, and about $600 cheaper (about 60% of the cost, not 25%, as
    GP would like to claim, but still significantly cheaper), at the cost
    of slower autofocus. The 80-400 is on my current shopping wishlist.
    The 100-400 is not.

    On the other hand, for just about every other range, I own Canon
    lenses. The main problem with Sigma is the quality control (or lack
    of it) on their lenses. If you're lucky, you get a good one - the
    Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX is reportedly better than the Canon 24-70 f/2.8
    L, both in sharpness and in the fact that the Sigma is macro-capable
    (though it doesn't have USM), and the Sigma is about a third of the
    cost of the Canon... but it make take you three tries to get one that
    isn't defective, however (if your test shots come out soft or have
    flare problems, try returning it), and the amount you save may not be
    worth the hassle of testing and returning. I haven't heard about any
    problems with the new Sigma 80-400 or 18-125 lenses yet, the way there
    were with the 12-24 EX and 24-70 f/2.8 EX among others, but they
    haven't been out very long.

    To be fair, the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L also had its share of bad lenses,
    but from what I've read, the hit rate seems to be much higher.
    Zed Pobre, May 20, 2005
  14. GP is perhaps a generic identification for folks with a trolling impulse.
    If that is so, or if that is not so, makes little difference ... enjoy GP
    posts but never consider them as information.
    Charles Schuler, May 20, 2005
  15. Mike R

    JPS Guest

    In message <d6j020$s85$1$>,
    .... with 28% downsizing? The quality of the lens has very little effect
    on such a downsample.

    If all you're interested in is 1000-pixel-wide output, you don't need
    quality lenses at all.
    JPS, May 21, 2005
  16. Mike R

    Skip M Guest

    I would like to see one of those reviews you mention. When the Sigma 80-400
    came out, the reviews were universally scathing, image quality was found to
    be poor, AF slow, and the OS only gave 1-2 stops advantage, rather than the
    2-3 of the Canon.
    Also, B&H lists the Canon 100-400 at $1409, the Sigma 80-400 at $999, about
    $400 less. The Sigma is significantly cheaper than it was a year ago, when
    it sold for about $1200, IIRC.
    Skip M, May 21, 2005
  17. Mike R

    Tumbleweed Guest

    I've seen quite a few favourable reviews, Skip, and for a while I had it on
    my shopping list in preference to the Canon.
    But I've been put off by all the anti-Sigma postings on this NG.
    So I guess I'll never know if I've missed a gem or not and will have to wait
    a bit longer 'till I've earned enough for the Canon 100-400 :eek:(
    Tumbleweed, May 21, 2005
  18. Mike R

    Skip M Guest

    Are those user reviews, or lens tests? I seldom take user reviews
    seriously, everybody wants to believe that whatever it is that they just
    bought is the greatest thing since sliced bread, or they are so seriously
    disappointed in a product that they will never, ever buy any product from
    that manufacturer, ever again. And that goes for all makes, not just Sigma,
    or anything that someone has that I don't. It includes products that I use,
    Skip M, May 21, 2005
  19. Mike R

    Zed Pobre Guest

    Fred Miranda:
    Photography Review:,Zoom/Sigma/PRD_145261_3128crx.aspx#reviews

    Also check the performance survey at Photozone, comparing it to
    Canon's 100-400:"brand='Canon EF' OR brand='Sigma AF'"
    I haven't seen any reviews like that. Links?

    Ah, the 100-400 was $1600, last I checked.
    Zed Pobre, May 21, 2005
  20. Mike R

    Zed Pobre Guest

    Actually, they said the light vignetting *wasn't* obvious except on a
    bright, even background on a full frame camera shooting wide open, and
    went away completely at f/8. The Canon 100-400 behaves the same way,
    reportedly, and I've seen similar on the Canon 10-22 wide open.

    Note that this can be corrected fairly trivially in post-processing,
    at the import stage or later.
    Zed Pobre, May 22, 2005
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.