Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III for $132.00

[johnh2005]

I think this is a great deal. I could be wrong. Price just seemed too good to not post.



Amazon.com: Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III Telephoto Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras: Camera & Photo

 

[Dao]

This lens was $99 (on sales) at Target couple weeks ago while the 55-250 IS lens was $149

 

[johnh2005]

Yeah, I caught the 55-250 and bought it. If I had known this one was on sale for even cheaper I would have been all over that. Dang it! Thanks for the feedback about the price though. Now I have a better baseline to judge the price of this by =)

 

[Dao]

If you already have the 55-250mm lens, do worry about the 75-300mm III lens. From what I read, yours is optically better anyway.

 

[johnh2005]

Oh, I was not planning on getting the other one. WAY too much overlap. I was just mentioning it because I thought it was a great deal. Seemed like that lens should cost more than 55-250, but I guess I was wrong. I was just trying to share what I thought was a good deal =)

 

[Original katomi]

A nice walk around lens, this is my go to lens if I am just out with the camera rather than a planned shot. On the 600d it’s a nice light combo that one can lug around and not wish it was lighter

 

[ac12]

Not really.
It does NOT have IS.

IMHO, the LONG lens need IS more than the shorter lenses. Especially for the average person, who is not trained in proper long lens holding technique, like your average soccer and softball parent.

Back in the film days, a 300mm lens on a 35mm camera (6x magnification), was considered the practical limit for handholding by a reasonably trained shooter. The 135mm (2.7x) was the longest recommended lens for most people. A 300mm lens on a consumer APS-C camera is a 8.5x magnification lens. That is beyond the capability of the average (non trained) person to shoot without stabilization issues. So they would have to be up at 1/1000 sec or faster, to make up for lack of technique.

IMHO, leaving IS out is simply a marketing method to advertise a low cost lens, and make 2-lens kits with a low price point.

BTW, IS/VR is not only for a stabilized shot, but also for aiming. It is a LOT easier to hold the focus point on a subject when the the subject is not moving around in the frame, especially at high magnification.

I was brought up in the pre-IS era, and was trained in how to hold and shoot a long lens. Once I used a stabilized long lens, I was totally convinced of its practical value, and won't go back to an unstabilized long lens. Today I would NOT buy an unstabilized 70-300, unless the camera has IBIS (In Body Image Stabilization).

 

[ac12]

Yeah, I caught the 55-250 and bought it. If I had known this one was on sale for even cheaper I would have been all over that. Dang it! Thanks for the feedback about the price though. Now I have a better baseline to judge the price of this by =)

The 55-250 has IS.
You got the more practical/usable lens.
The extra 50mm reach means nothing if you can't hold the lens steady enough.

 

[Original katomi]

Ac 12 like you I come from pre stabilised lens and you do learn some tricks for keeping stable,
I have lost count the number of times people has watched me do something and then ask where did I learn that

 

[Derrel]

Responding to an almost eight year-old thread! The 75-300 used to be one of very few lenses with Canon's IS technology. Over the near-decade since this was posted, IS/VR/OIS/IBIS depending on maker, has become quite popular. I am surprised at the negative, dismissive attitudes some people display toward stabilized lenses or cameras. I am a fan of stabilization, and have used the Nikkor 80-400 AFD and the 70-200/2.8 VR-II, and the Sigma 80-400 , and the 200/2 VR, version1. Over 15 years, I discovered some situations where a VR lens was a BIG advantage. I have use the 70-300 AFs-G VR-Nikkor f/4~5.6 since 2012, and it is really nice to have the stabilzation!

 

[ac12]

Responding to an almost eight year-old thread! The 75-300 used to be one of very few lenses with Canon's IS technology. Over the near-decade since this was posted, IS/VR/OIS/IBIS depending on maker, has become quite popular. I am surprised at the negative, dismissive attitudes some people display toward stabilized lenses or cameras. I am a fan of stabilization, and have used the Nikkor 80-400 AFD and the 70-200/2.8 VR-II, and the Sigma 80-400 , and the 200/2 VR, version1. Over 15 years, I discovered some situations where a VR lens was a BIG advantage. I have use the 70-300 AFs-G VR-Nikkor f/4~5.6 since 2012, and it is really nice to have the stabilzation!

ooops I need to look at the OP post date