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

[8caliace]

I have recently entered the DSLR world with the Canon Digital Rebel XT. I have the kit lens, but am looking to add some lenses to the camera. Being relatively new to photography, I am not looking for an out of this world lens, just something to use for pictures of the kids and their sports, outdoor photos, vacations, etc. Target listed in a mailer I received today at $199, however, a web search showed it through pcnation.com at $124 with free shipping. Is this lens worth adding to my camera? Any feedback/opinions are appreciated.

 

[Master Mason]

To the lens... I have it, it works fine in good light, but will suffer badly in less than optimal lighting conditions. It is not the sharpest lens you can get, but I did get some decent pictures with it as well.

to the store check out http://www.resellerratings.com/store/PCNation looks like a mixed bag.

 

[pjacobi]

There are four options:

75-300 ~$149
75-300 USM ~$189
75-300 USM IS ~$549
70-300 DO IS ~$1200

Skip the very cheapest and order at least the USM version for fast, silent focusing, and strongly consider investing in the USM IS version.

The Image Stabilizer is extremely useful!


-Paul

 

[pisco]

If you are willing to look at a non-Canon lens the Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO DG Macro has always been highly regarded as a budget zoom. It has a critical advantage over the Canon version in it's 1:2 macro capabilities.

If you can afford to move up to the IS version, do it. That is what I finally settled on and it is invaluable in helping to handhold shots in lower light. At f5.6 at the long end it is often hard to get a fast enough shutter speed to avoid camera shake in anything less than full daylight.

 

[SharonLowe]

There are four options:

75-300 ~$149
75-300 USM ~$189
75-300 USM IS ~$549
70-300 DO IS ~$1200

Skip the very cheapest and order at least the USM version for fast, silent focusing, and strongly consider investing in the USM IS version.

The Image Stabilizer is extremely useful!


-Paul

I would not buy the entry level ones - not very good quality and you will grow out of it if you keep it up. At the cost of the IS version, I would instead spend my money on the 70-200mm f/4.0 IS at $984 or the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS at $1574 (B&H prices; might find better). Those are both exceptional lenses and give you a wider aperture over the whole range.

 

[pisco]

I would not buy the entry level ones - not very good quality and you will grow out of it if you keep it up. At the cost of the IS version, I would instead spend my money on the 70-200mm f/4.0 IS at $984 or the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS at $1574 (B&H prices; might find better). Those are both exceptional lenses and give you a wider aperture over the whole range.

One thing that always surprises me with these lens conversations is how quickly someone will suggest something very different from what the original poster had asked about.

Undoubtedly, the 70-200 f/4 and f/2.8 are both great lenses but they are roughly 8-12 times more expensive than the original lens asked about and give up 100mm of reach.

Sharon, I know you are only trying to be helpful and I really don't want this to come across as an attack. I just wanted to point out that if the original poster is starting out as a new DSLR owner and looking at a $125 lens it is extremely unlikely that they will spend $900-$1500 on a new lens. Seems like it would be just too far out of the budget range they are looking at.

I say start out with what you think you need and can afford and evolve your collection as you go along. The only way to truly know where your lens money will be best spent is by figuring out your shooting style and what will best enhance it.

 

[Master Mason]

I say start out with what you think you need and can afford and evolve your collection as you go along. The only way to truly know where your lens money will be best spent is by figuring out your shooting style and what will best enhance it.

I actually agree with this mostly. My suggestion is always to just use the kit lens until you figure out what it is that you can't shoot with your kit lens, and then get a lens which will allow you to get that shot. If your just buying a zoom because you think you want zoom, then your probably throwing your money away. You have to think about why you need the zoom, and what it will be used for. If you simply look at the fact that it goes to 300mm, and not think about the fact that it will be primarily used under the lights at foot ball games, you might buy a low end 75-300 and then when you get out there, realize that the apeture wont open enough under the lights to be able to use it.

so, it is really important to know what the lens will be used for before spending the money. I have 1K or so worth of lenses sitting in a drawer, because I didn't know that when I started.

 

[SharonLowe]

One thing that always surprises me with these lens conversations is how quickly someone will suggest something very different from what the original poster had asked about.

Undoubtedly, the 70-200 f/4 and f/2.8 are both great lenses but they are roughly 8-12 times more expensive than the original lens asked about and give up 100mm of reach.

Sharon, I know you are only trying to be helpful and I really don't want this to come across as an attack. I just wanted to point out that if the original poster is starting out as a new DSLR owner and looking at a $125 lens it is extremely unlikely that they will spend $900-$1500 on a new lens. Seems like it would be just too far out of the budget range they are looking at.

I say start out with what you think you need and can afford and evolve your collection as you go along. The only way to truly know where your lens money will be best spent is by figuring out your shooting style and what will best enhance it.

I realize what I said was much higher than the original poster but I was responding mostly to the person I quoted who had the most expensive 70-300mm listed. Also, I speak from experience having bought the inexpensive 70-300mm early on and quickly learning it was not the lens I needed and was much lower quality than expected. I sold it in less than a year for a big loss. I hate to see people throw their money at something that won't make them happy. I would rather they save their money while learning more about photography rather than buying something they won't like, as I did. The original poster talked about sports photography and the lens mentioned is a waste if that is the goal. I'm not saying it to be mean or a lens snob; I know from experience you need a faster lens for decent sports photography, even if it is just your kids.

 

[8caliace]

Thanks to all for the advice. I will definitely keep playing with what I have right now before making a quick decision, especially just because it is a cheap lens.