 |
Page: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4
|
|
|
|
John57
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 14, 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 50
|
|
Review Date: Jun 24, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $400.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Image quality better than you would expect after reading many of the reviews.
IS useful
|
|
Cons:
|
Cost compared to non IS version.
Slow focusing.
|
|
|
I have just traded this lens for a 70-200L.... but that doesn't mean I didn't like it! I had it for a couple of years and found the image quality to be quite acceptable. If you read many of the reviews of this lens on the different forums you may think it's a bit of a dud - well I had no complaints re the quality. It doesn't cost the same as the L lenses so it is not fair to compare it with them.
The problems I did find were mainly related to the slow focusing ability of the lens. I also think it's a bit dear when you think how much the non IS version costs. The IS worked well but I found I just didn't use the lens that much - mainly due to the poor focusing.
|
|
 Jun 24, 2003
|
|
trsqr
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 25, 2002
Location: Finland
Posts: 38
|
|
Review Date: May 20, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $350.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Image stabilization, sharpness
|
|
Cons:
|
Zoom creeps, a little slow, AF slow
|
|
|
I was happily surprised with this lens when I first looked at the results. When reading some reviews I thought that the lens would produce much less sharp images than mine does. Especially below 200mm the lens seems to be sharp enough for me.
When zoomed to 300mm the AF sometimes hunts a while and once in a while the AF misses.
When the camera is held lens facing down, the zoom creeps. If I keep it at 75mm and then let the camera hang from my neck, the lens is zoomed to 125mm after a little while.
The IS feature is quite neat, although you should not expect miracles from it.
Overall, I like this lens and can recommend it.
|
|
|
May 20, 2003
|
|
mfurtman
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 8, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 53
|
|
Review Date: May 9, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
light in weight, inexpensive, IS
|
|
Cons:
|
bad match for 10D and moving subjects
|
|
|
First, I love this lens, and use it extensively for hand held wildlife photography. It may not be Canon's top of the line, but I've produced many, many saleable photos with it. However, I wanted to point out that there is a problem with the 75-300 IS when used on the 10D (I have both).
The autofocus system on the 10D is such an improvement over the D60 (which I also own), that it apparently has outstripped the ability of this rather slow focusing lens' to quickly lock on. When shooting moving subjects, if the lens loses focus, there is a very noticeable and annoying lag time of a half second or more, during which you can do nothing. I've tried just about every other IS lens on the 10D, and they work just fine. I've also confirmed that this is a problem with the 75-300 IS and 10D with several other photographers, and with a Canon pro-rep, all of whom, at my request, put their own 75-300 IS lens on a 10D body, and found the same problem. It seems to be universal, and not specific to a particular 10D body or lens (I tried my lens on not only two different 10D bodies, but several EOS film bodies, including the Elan 7E, A2, and 1N -- it only displays this lag on the 10D).
A simple test is to mount the lens on your 10D, and just pan and fire. You'll hear and feel the irregular shutter release. The camera won't fire if the lens doesn't focus. You might consider that a plus, except that it causes the lag-time I menitoned, which means that it also sometimes stops you from taking a shot once you're back on the subject.
So..., if you shoot action photos, and own a 10D, this combination isn't the best. You can learn to live with this hesitation, but it is annoying.
|
|
|
May 9, 2003
|
|
Fried
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 2, 2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 38
|
|
Review Date: May 6, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $500.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Good optics
|
|
Cons:
|
Build quality, IS not so good with monopod
|
|
I bought this lens 3 weeks ago. I'm quite happy with it, it is sharp, has good contrast and color.
I compared it with a used one that was 15(?) month old, the used one was not nearly as good.
So it seems to me that Canon has made some "silent update" inbetween.
I hope Bill Gates has not bought any Canon stock.. 
|
|
|
May 6, 2003
|
|
dsundberg
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 12, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 300
|
|
Review Date: Apr 17, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $300.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Great 'travel' lens and a good value for the price. Very sharp, even wide open at 300 mm. (See review below).
|
|
Cons:
|
Edge light fall off wide open and underexposes 1/3 to 1/2 stop from wide open to f 11. No tripod collar available and will not accept extenders.
|
|
|
For a camera club presentation on lenses, I compared this lens (at 300 mm) to my 300 F 4L IS. The test used Provia slides so no digital crop came into play. The target was a sheet of want ads from the newspaper and a portion of a lens resolution chart. I was amazed that the center and edge sharpness of the 75 - 300 at f 5.6 was as good as the 300 L wide open at f 4.0. The one drawback was exposure. The 75 - 300 showed light fall off on the edges at 5.6 and 8.0 amounting to about 1/3 of a stop. (This is easy to see on newspaper). The overall underexposure was also between 1/3 and 1/2 of a stop until the lens was stopped down to f 11. Now that I know that, I set the exposure compensation to allow for the underexposure.
|
|
|
Apr 17, 2003
|
|
Snead
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Mar 17, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 263
|
|
Review Date: Apr 2, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $390.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
From what I've been able to discover, Canon has recently made improvements to the 75-300IS and the results are very impressive. It is very sharp, focuses fast on the 10D and IS is very helpful. It is not to be compared to "L" lenses which are heavier and had a stronger build, but if you're not going to see high high they bounce, the 75-300IS is an outstanding value.
|
|
Cons:
|
I advise using the center focus point only when using above 200mm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 2, 2003
|
|
TweetyRN
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 31, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 193
|
|
Review Date: Apr 1, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $415.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Lightweight,Fast Focus Outdoors
|
|
Cons:
|
???
|
|
|
I am happy to see that I am not the only one who is loving this lens! I found it to be fast,sharp,and produces good image quality. I am a SLR newbie.......but I am very pleased with this lens!
|
|
|
Apr 1, 2003
|
|
fred_jb
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 21, 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 66
|
|
Review Date: Mar 31, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $415.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Good range - esp with digital, IS is effective, good sharpness - at least as used with digital crop, light and reasonably compact
|
|
Cons:
|
Lightweight build quality, lens front rotates, no hood supplied
|
|
I'm an SLR newbie, though I do have a 28-70 f/2.8L, and even by comparison I really rate this lens. I suspect that the image circle crop makes best use of the sharpest part of the lens so maybe it is best used with a digital camera. Anything that can clearly show individual hairs on a llama, shot handheld at 300mm setting is OK by me, but maybe I'm too uncritical! ( Some test shots can be seen at http://www.pbase.com/fred_jb/10d )
I have also found this lens to have accurate and reasonably quick focus performance (with the 10D), even in poor light, though it obviously requires relatively lengthy exposures in these conditions.
I've seen reports that current examples are much improved over past production, so maybe people reviewing should state age of lens. Mine is new.
|
|
|
Mar 31, 2003
|
|
stan_g
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 9, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 232
|
|
Review Date: Mar 31, 2003
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $500.00
| Rating: 4
|
|
Pros:
|
Good zoom range, IS
|
|
Cons:
|
Soft, poor AF in medium and low light
|
|
|
At full zoom, AF hunts and hunts except in full sunlight. Very soft between 250-300mm. Wish it was better because the size/weight of this IS zoom makes it desireable.
|
|
|
Mar 31, 2003
|
|
GrizzlyMike
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 23, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 403
|
|
Review Date: Mar 30, 2003
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 4
|
|
|
This was my first IS lens way back when IS first came out years ago. It was an interesting lens because of the IS feature but its optical quality is not the best. Very soft images. Compared to some of the IS zooms available today I would rate this lens as 'junk'. I ended up giving it away to my Uncle a few months after purchase. The 28-135 IS would be a much better choice if you need image stablization and dont have the cash for one of the more expensive IS L zooms.
|
|
|
Mar 30, 2003
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
58
|
176767
|
Jul 19, 2011
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
76% of reviewers
|
$1,439.74
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
6.81
|
7.04
|
6.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
