Canon EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III

[photoshooterOTW]

One of my friends has the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III lens, and since he is upgrading, he has offered to sell it to me for $125. It’s in great condition (practically new) and all-but is it worth it? I’ve been going through older forum posts on this, as well as reviews etc, and I’m not even sure if I should even pay $125 for it. Is the lack of IS going to really affect my “hand-held” shots that much? There has also been discussion on the max aperture size, and the sharpness of photos- does someone have experience that? The max aperture size doesn’t worry me to to much, but I was under the impression that telephoto lenses were supposed to give sharp/detailed shots?! I’m only considering this lens because I think while it may not be great- it might be good enough for my use… Thoughts?

 

[KmH]

Moved to the Canon Lenses forum.

 

[GlennT]

I'm fairly certain you can get the sigma apo DG 70-300mm brand new for about $50 more and I'd much rather have that lens. It is $156 on Amazon right now, although I prefer buying from a local shop. I've used both briefly and the Sigma is much nicer. Better feel and performs better. I'm not sure what else is in that price range.

Whether or not IS matters depends how you intend to use it. I have the non IS version of the canon 70-200mm f/2.8L and rarely even think about the lack of IS.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[photoshooterOTW]

Moved to the Canon Lenses forum.

oops- thank you!

I'm fairly certain you can get the sigma apo DG 70-300mm brand new for about $50 more and I'd much rather have that lens. It is $156 on Amazon right now, although I prefer buying from a local shop. I've used both briefly and the Sigma is much nicer. Better feel and performs better. I'm not sure what else is in that price range.

Whether or not IS matters depends how you intend to use it. I have the non IS version of the canon 70-200mm f/2.8L and rarely even think about the lack of IS.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

I'm reading some good stuff about it! My local shops have the sigma a good deal over 200 dollars plus I'm in Canada, so the $156 isn't applying to me either This is disappointing. I was keeping IS at high priority- i guess its going to have to change!

Anyone else have any input on the canon 75-300 or different lens? I was looking at this as well: Tamron AF 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di LD Macro

 

[GlennT]

I wouldn't suggest dismissing IS, but I can say that it certainly isn't automatically a must have. My Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L gets used mostly in good light or on a tripod. A good example is for our kids outdoor sports. I have no problem with keeping the shutter speed fast enough for handheld. It even does well enough in well lit gymnasiums. Bear in mind, the f/2.8 helps a lot and a lens that is f/4.0 or smaller is going to be more limiting.

The only time I wish it had IS is when we're in a poorly lit auditorium for something like ballet or piano. If you get into scenarios like weddings a lot, then it can really help out. The IS version of my lens was $900 MORE ($1300 vs $2200) at the time; I couldn't justify it based on my usage. At the same time, the Canon 70-200 f/4L IS was $100 LESS, and is also an excellent lens. I however decided the f/2.8 was more useful to me than f/4 with IS. That can very easily be different from one person to the next.

Also, FWIW, I am a Tamron fan - Love my Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 - but when I was looking at those lenses 6 years ago, I actually favored the Sigma slightly. A few years later, I was favoring the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 (~$600.) I did try that lens for a few days, and it was a very good lens. I had simply grown to a point where I thought I might want Canon L glass, and my wife didn't want to hear me whine and moan about buyer's remorse.

 

[photoshooterOTW]

ok- Thanks for the advice! Hoping for some sigma and tamron sales here right now. I'm leaning for the canon cause of the price- but I don't want to end up spending more because I was cheap the first time round. Responses welcome