 |
|
|
Foto_Munki
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 11, 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 11, 2011
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
It works well enough for its price point and has some use with reversed lenses for macro work.
|
|
Cons:
|
Lens creep especially with a reversed lens attached to the filter mount.
|
|
|
Got this from my dad. He had a EOS II film camera, the kit lens, and the 75 - 300 zoom. It has to be at least 10 years old and has no USM. Pics from it have looked good to the untrained eye though IS would be great to compensate at the long end and lower light. However, this older version has looked good so far. One area it is very good on initial tests is to have it attached to the camera body and use a reversing ring with a 50mm prime attached to the end. Picked up a cheap eBay 50 mm prime for $10 and reversing ring for $8. Now I can get nice macros on my 20D anywhere from 3:2 to 6:1 if I can get good light. Really a great way to use such an inexpensive lens. Did not notice any vignetting on my 1.6x crop sensor.
Besides, how can you appreciate the best if you haven't used the rest first?
|
|
 Jan 11, 2011
|
|
Jon_Doh
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 2, 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 129
|
|
Review Date: Oct 17, 2010
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 3
|
|
Pros:
|
Decent reach, stabilized
|
|
Cons:
|
Poor construction, soft pictures at all focal lengths.
|
|
|
This was given to me as a gift so I don't know how much it costs. I used it on two different Canon cameras, film and digital with the same results. Pictures were soft at all focal lengths and apertures. I traded it for the 70-300 IS consumer lens and the results were very noticeable. If you are looking for an affordable midrange consumer Canon lens then get the 70-300 IS. It has one L glass element and is a surprisingly sharp lens. I can't recommend the 75-300 for any reason as the pictures are so bad its a total waste of money.
|
|
|
Oct 17, 2010
|
|
cam94z28
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 19, 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Aug 19, 2010
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
|
Forgot to mention in my previous review. Mine is the version III
|
|
|
Aug 19, 2010
|
|
cam94z28
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 19, 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Aug 19, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
fast zoom, softness correctable with dxo optics pro
|
|
Cons:
|
any negatives with this lens can be corrected in software.
|
|
|
Received this as a gift, and IMO it is a very good lens. I have not had the CA people here are claiming, and I believe there is a reason for it. There is only one listing for a non IS version of this lens on this site. There was originally a 75-300 USM I(non-numbered), II, and III. If this is not specified in each review, the review is pointless. There are vast differences between the 3.
|
|
|
Aug 19, 2010
|
|
Dr.Strangepork
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 8, 2009
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Apr 8, 2009
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Cheap, light, sharp at the wide end.
|
|
Cons:
|
Soft with CA beyond about 200mm, slow max aperture, average AF, no IS.
|
|
I owned one for about 9 years. Optically I thought mine was pretty good between 70mm and about 200mm; sharp, ok contrast and colours. Shots wide open at max zoom were very soft, and in a high contrast scene the CA was terrible. Having said all that I have taken a few nice pics with this lens and it's the lens I used the most.
Probably my biggest gripe was the slow/picky AF (particularly in AI servo when compared to a ring USM lens). A slow max aperture and no IS also makes it pretty poor in low light... but hey you get what you pay for. Price on the used market is now really low so they can be good value.
If you can get a good copy and work within it's limits I reckon these lenses are ok... having said that I no longer own one 
|
|
|
Apr 8, 2009
|
|
NJ Bob
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 28, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 7
|
|
Review Date: Sep 15, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $190.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Good range, price is good, takes good pictures for the average guy like me.
|
|
Cons:
|
You have to buy the hood separate and no zoom lock.
|
|
I have take some pretty nice pictures while using this lens even though it has a poor rating. At the time this was about the only long lense I thought I would need and afford. I was only starting out in the DSLR camera. Before that I was using the Sony DSC H1 with a range of 36-432mm and image stabilization. I fell in love with the DSLR though and moved on. Here is a link for the last hike I used this lense. The first 6 photos are from a different hike and a different lense. I think this 75-300 took some pretty nice photos:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rpealit/sets/72157606220632768/
There all not good but I send a slide show out when I'm done hiking to the people in my address book with an explanation of the days activities. I don't think its as bad a lens as people say it is. Just my opinion. Bob
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2008
|
|
Burk Young
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 27, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 455
|
|
Review Date: Aug 29, 2008
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $179.00
| Rating: 5
|
|
Pros:
|
It is certainly quiet.
|
|
Cons:
|
CA, very soft...
|
|
|
Bought this new with my 350D then used it when I purchased a 30D. The lens was soft, very very soft above 200 as indicated by others. The CA was there, in a very distracting way when cropping. I just bought a used Tamron 70-300 LD that is very very loud AF compared to Canon but is pretty darn sharp from 70-200 to maybe 250... for the money I would buy the Tamron used, at least its pretty sharp but it too has about the same CA as the Canon (maybe slightly less) but at least the Tamron is decently sharp.
Overall I dont really think this lens (at least my copy) is worth having, not impressed at all... UNLESS you are needing a quiet pretty fast focusing lens that you dont mind being soft. Im really trying not to slam this lens, especially since I love Canon but comparing it to the plastic fantastic, and even the EFS 18-55 it leaves me wondering if Canon could'nt have done better for the price even with a budget lens.
Saving my pennies... someday I will get L glass :-)
|
|
|
Aug 29, 2008
|
|
Cboydrun
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 1, 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jun 1, 2008
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 4
|
|
Pros:
|
cheap, decent reach
|
|
Cons:
|
SOO SLOW. soft
|
|
|
I have missed so many shots with this lens because Im waiting for its noisy autofocus to lock in, or to get into focus. I mean its cheap not a bad start up lens, but there are SOO many better options. I have gotten some nice shots that I otherwise couldnt have, but they have a tendancy to be soft.
|
|
|
Jun 1, 2008
|
|
whitetail
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 21, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 140
|
|
Review Date: May 22, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $125.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Size (for a telephoto), price, filter size, range
|
|
Cons:
|
Build feels cheap, some chromatic aberration, bit soft, picky AF
|
|
I bought the non USM version of this lens, and I do not regret it. This was my first lens (besides the kit), and it completed my range nicely. I bought it refurbished on eBay, and it has withstood a lot of abuse. A lot of my portfolio was shot with this lens. For its price, it has surpassed my expectations in quality and ability. Despite the f/4-5.6 maximum aperture, it has managed all sorts of shots, even in dark indoor rooms (with no flash!). I loved having a range to 300mm, it gave me a lot of freedom with shooting. I used it a lot for shooting elusive subjects, like animals.
For a beginner, this is a great lens to have. It's relatively inexpensive and completes a beginning photographer's set nicely. Since many new dslr buyers have the kit lens, it can cut down on filter costs with its identical 58mm sized thread. It can be a little soft, but it's not really a problem, especially with enough light. Its AF can hunt noticeably with certain subjects, but that's more of a shooter issue. I began upgrading my equipment recently, and this was the last piece to be replaced. I really like this lens a lot. I decided it was time to buy another high end lens, and my Canon 80-200 f/2.8 L took its place. I gave this lens away to a friend, so she can learn from it like I did. It definitely paid for itself!
A few examples of shots I took with this lens:
http://iaiarose.deviantart.com/art/Travis-Willingham-86113365
http://iaiarose.deviantart.com/art/Chester-56918239
http://iaiarose.deviantart.com/art/Am-I-fat-yet-66798711
|
|
|
May 22, 2008
|
|
bertiee
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 8, 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: May 8, 2008
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 2
|
|
Pros:
|
I'm struggling here . . . weight perhaps?
|
|
Cons:
|
Build quality, image quality
|
|
|
I bought this lens from a well known high street photographic retailer yesterday afternoon - and promptly returned it this morning.
I really wasn't expecting a lot for my £200 but this was total disappointment. I took the salesman's advice as I'm a bit of a novice and bought this lens as it 'satisfied my requirements'. How I wish I had taken time out to check the reviews on this and other sites.
The build quality was very poor, so much so that I was afraid of breaking it! A previous reviewer likens it to a child's plastic toy - how right they are. I took about 40 - 50 shots when I got home but can't say I was actually impressed with any of them. They were ok I suppose but I just expected a little bit more from a Canon lens.
What did I get in exchange? - The Sigma APO equivalent which is much 'chunkier' , feels like a real lens and image quality is just fine. Oh, it was £40 cheaper as well.
|
|
|
May 8, 2008
|
|
adam613
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 17, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 894
|
|
Review Date: Jan 23, 2008
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $159.00
| Rating: 5
|
|
Pros:
|
Small. Cheap. Good range. Quick autofocus.
|
|
Cons:
|
Poor image quality. Mediocre build quality.
|
|
|
This is the cheapest telephoto lens available for Canon. In more ways than one.
You can pick one up very inexpensively. But it's soft pretty much throughout the focal length, especially above 200mm. And it takes noisy pictures on my 20D; I haven't seen that much noise since I got rid of my point-and-shoot.
The one thing I liked about it was the quick autofocus...USM makes a huge difference.
If you are only an occasional telephoto user and are unwilling to spend more than $200 on a 300mm lens, this might be a good option, but if you are at all concerned about quality, save up for the 70-300 IS.
|
|
|
Jan 23, 2008
|
|
Scott Grassel
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 4, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Jul 7, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $239.00
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
cheap price, Great beginners lens, zoom range, metal mount, light weight.
|
|
Cons:
|
Rotating front element, need a tripod when zoomed out.
|
|
|
I bought this lens for use on a Canon EOS Digital Rebel XT. The price was right, not bad for learning how to use a zoom lens. With the 1.6 cropped sensor like on the XT, the lens becomes a 120-480mm. A lot of zoom for those times you just can't get close to something for a good shot. If you do use alot of zoom you should use a tripod for clearer pictures. With out a tripod the pictures comes out blurry and you can really tell through the view finder how much your body moves about even when you think your standing perfectly still. The front element rotates while focusing so its pretty hard to use a circular polorizer on this lens.
When you use this lens and have the camera mounted on a tripod you will get decent pictures. This lens is not sharp and images are somewhat soft but when you need alot of zoom to take a picture you can get a decent shot. Sometimes the auto Focus hunts a little when focusing in on a object. This lens is not a fast lens for sporting events, but great for zooming in on objects not very close such as wildlife. I keep this len in my bag at all times for those times i need the zoom for that shot i would miss if i didn't have it with me.
I do recommend this lens for anyone who doesn't have the money for an expensive zoom lens and just wants to get some pictures of things way out there. Great for beginners to learn how to use the zoom lens and what its able to do. I think its a good investment and a keeper for me.
|
|
|
Jul 7, 2007
|
|
The Imagician
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 4, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Jun 11, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $200.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
inexpensive, sharp and contrasty from 75mm through 200. USM fast and accurate.
|
|
Cons:
|
Soft over 300mm. Noticeable CA on shiny objects and with strong backlighting.
|
|
|
This lens was initially a disappointment, but quickly became a joy. I am a street photographer. I like candid people shots, and this baby is a joy to use, once you realize it's limitations. It is a good portrait lens too, but I mostly use my nifty fifty for that.. It's an excellent 75-200+ lens. If you need a good 300mm lens, this ain't it.
I have a nifty fifty, a 28-135IS USM, and the 75-300. This became my walk-around lens. It was on my camera most of the time. I frequently leave the 28-135 at home.
|
|
|
Jun 11, 2007
|
|
tstrauss
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 26, 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: May 2, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Light weight, good range.
|
|
Cons:
|
Rotating front element.
|
|
|
I have the non USM version of the lens for some 8 years now. It's always in my camera bag and i would not miss it. The images taken are of reasonable quality even at 300mm. Good value for the money.
|
|
|
May 2, 2007
|
|
dellis
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 11, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Apr 12, 2007
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $150.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Cheap; long focal length; fairly quiet AF;
|
|
Cons:
|
Poor build quality; Poor optics;
|
|
|
If your looking for a beginners zoom lens, pass by this one and get a Canon 100-300mm f4.5-5.5 USM. You won't pay much more but you'll get a reasonable step up in quality. I took very few photos with this lens that I liked.
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2007
|
|
Seth Tower
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 9, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 3751
|
|
Review Date: Mar 24, 2007
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 2
|
|
Pros:
|
A nice long zoom for a FILM CAMERA. Quite light.
|
|
Cons:
|
Just plain awful on a cropped sensor digital camera; images completely unusable at 200mm and above.
|
|
|
I originally purchased this lens for my Elan 7 film camera and loved it. Decently sharp, nice zoom range, and light. Then I upgraded to a 10D (at the time). This fun lens suddenly became my bane. Not a single shot was useable at 200mm or longer. Every shot was blurry and ghosty. Of course I found this out at a wedding I was photographing. I was not a happy camper. I immediately sold it for next to nothing and bought a 70-200 2.8L IS. I realize that the 2.8L is 10 times the cost, but it has paid for itself many times over.
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
61
|
217156
|
Jan 11, 2011
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
64% of reviewers
|
$193.03
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
5.15
|
7.20
|
5.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
