Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM or EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM

[BirdsOfPreyDave]

I've got a Canon Digital Rebel XT and am looking to expand my collection of lenses to get some longer range shots. I was originally looking at the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM, and saving to get it. Last night, I was in CompUSA and saw the 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM for less than half the cost.

I know the image stabilization would be nice, especially since I'll be using the lens in the parks, mostly, and won't be using a tripod. But I'm wondering if I really need that much lens. (Can you say Ka-ching?) It occurs to me that a $550 lens is a bit much for someone who uses the camera mostly for vacation pictures.

Can I save myself $300 and just get the 75-300? Will I regret it? Will I be disappointed with the handheld shots from it and wish I'd spent the extra money? Or is the 75-300 all I really need?

[MarkBarbieri]

The 75-300mm is a much older optical design. It's not very sharp wide open and it's not very fast. It's also soft beyond 200mm and it lacks in contrast. Mechanically, it's a nuisance because it tends to extend itself whenever you point it down.

Having a long lens that really wants to be shot at f/8 or above means that you'll need a lot of light to shoot with it. It is a lot cheaper (I think B&H has it for $150), but you get what you pay for.

Value questions are hard to answer because only you know how much you'll use it, what you shoot, how dear the money is to you, etc. The 75-300mm will take acceptable 4x6 shots in bright light. It's IQ is not as good as the 70-300mm, which itself is behind the 70-200mm. All these lenses continue to sell in their price ranges because they are rational choices for different people with different needs.

[cpbjgc]

and generally speaking I am happy with it. I have not experienced zoom creep with it myself (as Mark pointed out) but I have seen that mentioned in reviews. Optically I am pleased with it, but agree it is on the slow side once you're past 200. I have actually gotten some very nice low light shots with it (at DS's school play) using a monopod, but I disagree that you'll only get usuable 4x6 (my mileage varies from what Mark said) and I have printed some nice 5x7 and 8x10 with it. I do agree that it is only really usuable handheld on a bright day, especially past 200mm, so it that's how you intend to use it, you probably are better off with the IS.

[SharonLowe]

If you go here, you will find some very well written reviews of both lenses:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showcat.php?cat=27&page=3&sort=7&perpage=12&stype=

I had an older model of the 70-300mm sans IS. Great for a beginner but I quickly outgrew it and sold it. I recommend saving your pennies for a better lens.

[Master Mason]

I have the 75-300 it worked fine in bright light, but suffered greatly in mid to low light. I purchased a 70-200 f/2.8 that fits my needs much better. But it is about twice the 70-300, so probably not a good solution for you.

However, the 70-200 f/4 non IS version is in the same ball park with the 70-300 and gives you constant f/4 through the range and puts you into L glass with its benifits. I think they go for around $550 or so. For me personally that would be my choice as IS doesn't help me with sports which is what I primarly shoot. Just something else to throw into your equation though.

[pisco]

I have the 70-300 and I think it is well worth the difference in price. If for nothing else, shoot at 300mm handheld is a tricky thing unless you have hands of stone. For me, being able to have the IS stabilize the image in the viewfinder while I am composing is worth the price difference alone.

As Master Mason pointed out, you can get a faster lens in the same price range. If you are interested in shooting fast moving subjects, then this would be the way to go. But if you are looking for as much reach as you can get for your money then go for the 70-300. I had been shooting with a 55-200 prior to getting this lens and can tell you that 100mm makes a huge amount of difference.

ETA: No worries of zoom creep with the 70-300 as it has a zoom lock button that will keep it at 70mm no matter what.

[MarkBarbieri]

I disagree that you'll only get usuable 4x6 (my mileage varies from what Mark said) and I have printed some nice 5x7 and 8x10 with it.

That's true, but in my experience, shots larger than 4x6 is where you really start to notice a difference between this lens and the much more expensive lenses covering a similar range. I suppose it would be better to say that if you are only planning on using it for 4x6 shots, you won't see much of a difference between this and the others (assuming that you use a good aperture/shutter speed). If you plan on going larger, the difference will be much more noticeable.

To reiterate, the cheaper lens is obviously not as good, but its obviously cheaper. Whether the difference is worth it is an entirely personal decision. Neither lens is garbage or, IMO, a rip-off. Neither is an incredible bargain. Spend what you want to spend to get what you want to get.

[Lizziejane]

I'd recommend you try both before purchasing, if at all possible. I have the IS, and honestly, can't imagine getting one good shot out of a lens at 300mm handheld without the IS. Perhaps I'm just overly shakey, but IS is a godsend!

[jann1033]

just to throw in an other option, for a little more than the IS you can get a canon 70-200mm f4 L. it's very sharp, great build quality and you can crop so it looks pretty close to 300. it's my favorite lens( i got it for 550, it might have a rebate now, don't remember). i also like it as you can get a pretty good "macro" /closeup type shot using 200mm from about 4 ft away. i was deciding between the f4 and 70-300 IS and am glad i got the F4. you can also down the road get a kenko 1.4 teleconverter for under $200 if you want more distance.

[MarkBarbieri]

just to throw in an other option, for a little more than the IS you can get a canon 70-200mm f4 L. it's very sharp, great build quality and you can crop so it looks pretty close to 300. it's my favorite lens( i got it for 550, it might have a rebate now, don't remember). i also like it as you can get a pretty good "macro" /closeup type shot using 200mm from about 4 ft away. i was deciding between the f4 and 70-300 IS and am glad i got the F4. you can also down the road get a kenko 1.4 teleconverter for under $200 if you want more distance.

Ah....the lens desire disease. Start with a $150 75-300 and get tempted to move to a 70-300 IS for $550. But if you're going to do that, why not get the wider aperture and better IQ of the the 70-200 f4 for about the same price? Of course, you probably still want IS, so why not cough up about $400 more for the IS version of the f4? Then again, is IS really better than having f/2.8? The f/2.8 lens is only a couple hundred more and would be better for sports shooting. Still, IS is nice to have, so why not get the f/2.8 with IS for $450 more. Then you won't be tempted to replace it down the road. Well, you'll probably be tempted to plunk down some money for the 70-300 IS DO after you lug around the heavy 70-200 f/2.8 IS (which I hope you carried by the lens and not the body). After all, it's not much more than half the price you paid for the big lens and it's so cute. Sure, you're now out $2,700, but if you pull the money out your ungrateful kid's college fund, they'll never know the difference. Besides they'll probably just waste it anyway.

[jann1033]

Ah....the lens desire disease. Start with a $150 75-300 and get tempted to move to a 70-300 IS for $550. But if you're going to do that, why not get the wider aperture and better IQ of the the 70-200 f4 for about the same price? Of course, you probably still want IS, so why not cough up about $400 more for the IS version of the f4? Then again, is IS really better than having f/2.8? The f/2.8 lens is only a couple hundred more and would be better for sports shooting. Still, IS is nice to have, so why not get the f/2.8 with IS for $450 more. Then you won't be tempted to replace it down the road. Well, you'll probably be tempted to plunk down some money for the 70-300 IS DO after you lug around the heavy 70-200 f/2.8 IS (which I hope you carried by the lens and not the body). After all, it's not much more than half the price you paid for the big lens and it's so cute. Sure, you're now out $2,700, but if you pull the money out your ungrateful kid's college fund, they'll never know the difference. Besides they'll probably just waste it anyway.

:rotfl: so far i have not crossed that $600 line drawn in the sand but once i get my 30d+ what else do i have to dream about:lmao:
truthfully though everytime i go cheap i regret it .....my little cheapo phoenix 100macro is making a loud noise the barrel goes out really jerky when it focuses so that means another trip to lens repair land( what is it with me and lenses),,,should have waited and got the canon for 150+ more

[DueyDooDah]

I once thought I needed the 70-200L but I find I am very happy with my 70-300mm IS. I like the extra reach and I am getting very good results. Here's are three examples using the lens on a Canon 30D:

Sample birds

These pics have gone through minimal processing, adjusting only WB and cropping.

BTW: This is a shameless way for others to take a look at these picks, which many have not done due to it being in a thread few are looking at.

[BirdsOfPreyDave]

Thanks for all the advice. You've me convinced that I should spend the money on the better lens. (I'll stick with the 30-700 IS; I don't think I need to go to the level of an L lens and do want the reach of the 300.)

Unfortunately, the point is somewhat moot for this year's trip. The mechanic just called, and I've got an unexpected $1400 bill to deal with to get my pickup out of the shop. I'll be dipping into what was going to be my camera splurge money, and then some.

I'll have to remember to put some pictures of the shiney new timing chain and radiator in the first few pages of this year's Disney photo album. :rotfl2: