anyone have this lens?

[Spinning]

Canon Zoom Telephoto EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III Autofocus Lens

I currently need just a wee bit more reach for my daughter's marching band. I really don't want to spend a lot of money. I have two lenses 85 prime and my basic lens, 18-200 3.5-5.6 IS I have been able to get good shots with this lens in the past but with the new season and new show my daughter is further back this year.
I can't see myself using this lens a lot so do you think it will do the job? I will be shooting under lights. I have a canon 50D camera.
Thanks!

 

[vwlizard]

I had it and returned it. It was extremely heavy and had a long focusing time. Hard to get low light pictures and not sharp at the highest range. It gets good reviews, though.

If you get it at Best Buy you can return it without a problem if you don't like it. How do you like your 85 prime?

 

[Spinning]

I really like my 85. Sometimes I get some purple fringing at night under the field lights but it was a really lens for me. I use it a lot for indoor spring board diving. No regrets!
Thanks for your input. Maybe I will look and see how much it is a best buys.

 

[photo_chick]

Don't buy it. It's the only lens from Canon that I'll say that about. The 75-300 is an elephant of a lens. It's slow, has muddy contrast and is pretty soft in general. It also has some pretty wicked fringing issues. It was a great entry level telephoto zoom for film, but it just doesn't hold up with digital. Not that it's unworkable, I've gotten some great shots with it, but there are much better lenses in that price range. Like the newer Canon 55-250 or you could go used with the older 70-210 f/4. Though they won't give you mich more reach than you already have.

 

[Spinning]

how do I know if a lens was orginally made for a 35 mm?

 

[photo_chick]

how do I know if a lens was orginally made for a 35 mm?

Look it up online. But a lot of the EF lens designs that Canon still uses were originally designed for 35mm. Though they have made changes and updated many. It's not that being designed for film is what makes the 75-300 bad, it's that you could get away with a poorer quality lens with 35mm film. Especially if you shot black and white. I tend to wonder if this might be a small part of why Canon dropped pretty much all of the other entry level zooms they made in favor of newer EF-S zooms (although the wider focal length has a lot more to do with it). Because as low quality as the 75-300 is, lenses like the old 28-80 kit are just awful on DSLR's.

 

[kshark]

Skip it! If you are looking for a budget Canon telephoto lens, go for the 55-250mm (unfortunately, only 50mm longer than your 18-200mm). It's a fantastic lens for the money. If you can step up the budget a bit more, take a look at the 70-300mm.

 

[alloyd1170]

I had the 70-300 and loved it. Ended up selling it on Ebay for more reach and picked up a 100-400 (for less than half of retail through Ebay). I use it for soccer, wildlife, etc and really like the reach on it. Gets me a lot of attention too!

 

[bob100]

Skip it! If you are looking for a budget Canon telephoto lens, go for the 55-250mm (unfortunately, only 50mm longer than your 18-200mm). It's a fantastic lens for the money. If you can step up the budget a bit more, take a look at the 70-300mm.

the Canon 55-250IS would get my vote - at $185 (Amazon)

 

[Spinning]

Thanks! I just saw you can get tthe canon 55-250 at best buy. That might be the way to go. It is cheap and if it isn't enough reach I can return it. I don't need a ton more. I would love the 70-300 but I don't want to spend that much for something I don't know I would use a lot....I think this is the one reason I stayed away for DSLR for so long I knew I would start wanting more and more lenses for this and that...
Thanks!

 

[GrumpyGoat]

I had the 70-300 and loved it. Ended up selling it on Ebay for more reach and picked up a 100-400 (for less than half of retail through Ebay). I use it for soccer, wildlife, etc and really like the reach on it. Gets me a lot of attention too!

The non-stabilized 75-300 is one of the worst lenses Canon ever offered. It's very much an entry level lens. If you could find a good used copy of the now-discontinued 75-300 f4-5.6 IS (Image Stabilization) you'd be a lot better off. It's a decent lens that usually sells for about $300 on the used market.

These may be way out of your budget, but either the 100-400 f3.5-5.6 IS L or any of the 70-200 L lenses would be a better bet. The 70-200 f2.8 L and the 70-200 f2.8 IS L are both superb lenses and take the 1.4 and 2X extenders, but are also very pricy... (You get what you pay for...)

 

[Spinning]

the L lenses are out of my price range. Plus I have a reach of 200 I want something more.
I may end up just waiting till I can afford a better lens.

 

[photo_chick]

I had the 70-300 and loved it. Ended up selling it on Ebay for more reach and picked up a 100-400 (for less than half of retail through Ebay). I use it for soccer, wildlife, etc and really like the reach on it. Gets me a lot of attention too!

The non-stabilized 75-300 is one of the worst lenses Canon ever offered. It's very much an entry level lens. If you could find a good used copy of the now-discontinued 75-300 f4-5.6 IS (Image Stabilization) you'd be a lot better off. It's a decent lens that usually sells for about $300 on the used market.

These may be way out of your budget, but either the 100-400 f3.5-5.6 IS L or any of the 70-200 L lenses would be a better bet. The 70-200 f2.8 L and the 70-200 f2.8 IS L are both superb lenses and take the 1.4 and 2X extenders, but are also very pricy... (You get what you pay for...)

The 70-300 IS and 75-300 IS are two different lenses. The 75-300 IS was actually the same glass as the 75-300. The 70-300 IS is a decent entry level zoom that you can still buy new. And there's also a 70-300 L and 70-300 DO just to confuse us even further. That 5mm makes all the difference in the world apparently. Because yeah, the 75-300 blows.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

The 70-300 IS and 75-300 IS are two different lenses. The 75-300 IS was actually the same glass as the 75-300. The 70-300 IS is a decent entry level zoom that you can still buy new. And there's also a 70-300 L and 70-300 DO just to confuse us even further. That 5mm makes all the difference in the world apparently. Because yeah, the 75-300 blows.

I had the 75-300mm IS. I got it back in the '90s. It was OK as long as you stayed below 150mm and kept your aperture above f/8. If you shot anything with high contrast while fully zoomed out and wide open, it looked like a dream sequence from Harold and the Purple Crayon.

 

[alloyd1170]

If you buy from Best Buy, try to hold out for the coupons they send out every few weeks. Might save you 10-12%. Also, try dealing with the salesman. Print out a copy of the lowest price that you find online- (ie Amazon, B&H type retailers) as well. It's worked for me a few times, in addition to the extra coupons.

Also, be sure to sign up for the free rewards program for even more bonuses.