Canon EF 75-300mm lens - Yea or Nay?

helloyo53

Hello.

Haven't posted here in a while. Sorry about that (probably don't even know who I am, so it's all good then :wink).

Anyway, I'm almost certain that I'm getting a new camera for Christmas, likely the Canon EOS 500D. Especially since we went to Future Shop, and my mom was talking to a sales rep in the camera section about cameras, and she shooed me away when I went near them. Gotta mean something. And I've been dropping obvious hints.

Anyway (again), I've been looking at lenses for Canon too. I'd likely get the 500D with the EF 18-55mm AND 50mm f/1.8, or just the 500D with the 18-55mm. Regardless, I'm looking around for some other possible lenses. I came across the EF 75-300mm lens by Canon. It seemed like it would be a good idea to have it. I'm really in to bird watching and taking pictures of birds, so the zoom from the 300mm would probably be good, right?

But I looked at the price, and to me, it seems pretty inexpensive. At Future Shop, the 75-300mm is $280, but you go to the 18-200mm, and it's $780. Is it how it is made? Is the 75-300mm made with a lot less materials or something? And how about quality of it? I've heard, and I've probably got my facts wrong again, that the linger the focal length, the less quality pictures you'll get. So if I had it all the way to 300mm to take a photo, would it just not turn out as a good picture?

Sorry for all the noob questions. Just want to do my research before jumping into anything (though I should probably wait to see if I actually get the 500D for Christmas in the first place :P).

Thanks,
Brandon

ThatCanonGuy

To answer your question, nay.

OK, first of all, I looked at your site and you have some really GREAT photos on there. You obviously know the basics. The DSLR world is very great and I'm sure you'll love it.
If you don't get the 500D, are you gonna buy one, or buy a cheaper body?
About the 75-300: it's not good quality. It's made of cheap materials. You don't want it, it's a waste of money. And so is the 18-200. It's not worth half of that $780.
You think the longer the lens is, the worse quality. Well, that is true sometimes, and sometimes not. On a zoom, it usually is true. However, to illustrate, the Canon EF 1200mm (yes, 1200mm) f/5.6L ($100,000; not a typo) has better image quality than the 75-300. Yes, it's a lot more expensive, but I just showed you this to illustrate my point. On a prime, no. The Canon 24mm 1.4 and the 300mm 2.8 both have great IQ (image quality, in case you didn't know).

About the 75-300. It's a low-end lens, like the 18-55. Yes, if I were you I would not get the 18-55. Or, don't ask for that 18-55 kit either. It's a low-end lens too. The 50 1.8 you mentioned is GREAT, esp. considering the price. You can't get a better lens for twice the price (credit:Bryan Carnathan, the-digital-picture.com, great site for reviews, BTW). Get that one for sure. Don't get the 75-300, and probably not the 18-55. They're made of cheap plastic, cheap glass, and little (if any) metal.

I can give you a whole lot more advice if you can say what your lens budget is.

P.S. About birding. With the 75-300, forget about it. You need a rock solid tripod (not cheap) and unless the birds are relatively close to you (like in a park?) the 300mm is probably not enough. The 75-300 might get a shot or two, but the birding use would be very, very limited.

ziggy53

I am also not a fan of the Canon EF 75-300mm, f4-5.6 III. It's just not a very high quality lens from any perspective. I would rather recommend a Canon EF-S 55-250mm, f4-5.6 IS or a Tamron 70-300mm, f4.0-5.6 Di LD Macro.

Yes, they are both very cheap lenses, but the Canon 55-250mm is pretty good quality through its range, even wide open, and it has a usable IS. The Tamron 70-300mm is cheaper still and pretty good from 70-200mm if you remember to stop down at least one stop through the range, so consider it a 70-200mm, f5.6-f8 and it does pretty well.

The Canon EF-S 18-55mm, f3.5-5.6 IS is another cheap lens but it works pretty well wide open on the short end and if you stop down one stop at the long end it's not too bad either. Again, the IS helps to compensate for the slower apertures unless the subject matter is in motion. None of these lenses is very competent with sports, for instance.

All of these lenses are cheap construction so don't bang them around or get them out in wet conditions.

Mostly these are good snapshot lenses but if you use them on simpler subjects and stop down as I've indicated you can make good images with them.

Whatever you get, remember that an interesting subject, properly composed and exposed is most important. After that, lighting is next most important, and then lens and camera, in that order. Gorgeous images can be created with very simple cameras that have awesome subjects, in a careful composition, with appropriate lighting and good lenses.

chrisjohnson

Perhaps you should look at the Canon EF 70-300 IS USM lens which is more recent than the 75-300 and supposedly a lot better..

I have the 70-300, and while I sometimes regret not having bought an L series zoom (70-200), the 70-300 was much less expensive and I think you will need the 300 for birding. It does a good job for me.

The 70-300 would irritate the real pro dgrinners. It tends to hunt around for focus - I often use it on manual - and is relatively slow (f4/5.6). Good value for money though.

helloyo53

Thanks for the advice. I'm glad that something I had a hunch about that was related to photography was actually right. Normally I would jump at something that "good" for that cheap, but I figured if it was a lens that would go 300mm and was that cheap, there had to be some sort of catch.

@ThatCanonGuy Definitely if I don't get the 500D for Christmas, I will be going out to buy it, or even the 550D. From what I could tell by reading and watching reviews, it looks like a perfect entry level DSLR, which is what I need. I'm definitely still learning, and this would be my first actual DSLR (not sure if you would count my current camera as DSLR, probably more DSLR-like).

Thanks everyone!

ThatCanonGuy

The 70-200 is nice, if you can afford it. The 70-300 IS almost as good. Definitely the 50 1.8 and maybe the 85 1.8? It's a very good lens, again, if you can afford it. Personally, I have had the Tamron 70-300 before and, while it is better than the Canon 75-300, it's not that good... but if you need something that goes to 300, it might not be a bad idea. The Canon 55-250 IS pretty good too.

paddler4

Just another vote for nixing the 75-300 and considering the 55-250. The 55-250 is dirt cheap,and it feels like a cheap lens, but it does pretty well, and remarkably well for the price. Top-notch zooms in that range are VERY expensive, and not worth it when you are starting out. I used a 55-250 for a couple of years, and when I decided it was time to upgrade, I read a lot of reviews and decided that the 70-300 it was not enough better than the 55-250 to make it worth the difference in price. If you outgrow the 55-250, you can sell it on eBay or CL for a minor loss.

Concerning your comments about the 500D and 550D: they are very capable cameras. If you look on the macro page of this site, you will find some truly superb images taken with Rebels, mostly older, less capable versions than the ones you are considering.

ThatCanonGuy

Well, the 55-250 is good, but I say if you can afford it go with the 70-200 f4, or, if you want 300mm, the 70-300. There is a reason to get these when you are just starting out; you chould always buy the best lenses you can afford. Why buy a 55-250, outgrow it, sell it for a minor loss, and then get a 70-300? That means you're actually paying more in the long run to get that 70-300 you should've gotten all along.

Grainbelt

I don't have any specific advice on either of the lenses mentioned, but want to add that buying used is a fairly low-risk way to try out gear, particularly lenses. If you don't like them, you can generally sell them for about what you paid, minus shipping. To that point, there are two 55-250 IS lenses in the Dgrin flea market for $150 right now.

rpcrowe

Some unrelated thoughts on tele zooms...
1. Please stay away from the 75-300mm because that is not a very good lens.

2. Some of the best image quality will be from "L" class lenses but, you will pay a premium price.

3. The 55-250mm lens is a good glass for the relatively low price, especially if you can get a used one from a reputable source. It just might be a way to break into reasonable quality telephoto work without selling the farm to do it.

4. IMO 200mm to 300mm is fairly short for birds but, anything longer will command a premium price.

5. Some lenses can take a 1.4x TC and others either lose auto-focus (Canon 1.6x cameras only autofocus at f/5.6 or wider and the 1.4x TC will cost you a stop) or their image quality is really degraded with the use of the TC. Both my 300mm f/4L IS and to a lesser degree, my 70-200mm f/4L IS will provide pretty good performance when wearing my Mark-I 1.4x Canon TC.

6. "Most" lenses will not function well at all when used with a 2x TC. However, there are reports that the new 70-200mm f/2.8L IS lens will provide pretty good image quality when used with the newest model Canon 2x TC.

7. My personal favorite telephoto zoom lens is the 70-200mm f/4L IS which I carry everywhere along with a second camera wearing a 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens. This combination is the most useful and versatile combo with which I have ever worked. However, as mentioned earlier, the 200mm is rather short for birding and when used with a 1.4x TC is still only barely long enough

ThatCanonGuy

You can only use TCs on Ls. Period. And only on some Ls. TCs are compatible with primes 70mm or more, and with zooms starting at 70mm or more. So you couldn't use a TC on a 50mm, or a 24-105, or anything like that.

Canon bodies can AF only below f/8. Canon 1-series bodies can AF at f/8.

TCs do degrade IQ. Think of it this way: a 1.4x TC multiplies everything by 1.4x: focal length, vibrations, imperfections, etc. A 2x TC multiplies everything by 2x.

What lenses do you think you'll be able to afford?