Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
234 of 236 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Could be better, but works well within its price range, December 19, 2005
After reading several online reviews of the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM lens, I had nearly talked myself out of even looking at one. However, thanks to a local Canon demonstration, I was able to play with several lenses, the 75-300mm f/4-5.6 among them. I got to try it out alongside the IS version (which costs just under 3x as much), the non-USM version, and some of their L-series professional lenses.
That said, I found there to be less difference among the directly-comparable lenses (the non-USM, USM, and IS versions) than I'd have thought. On the test shots I took using a Canon Digital Rebel XT, I didn't find full-zoom telephoto shots to be appreciably softer in the non-IS version reviewed herein, nor were the images overly soft for my liking period.
The USM focusing didn't seem to make as much of a difference as I'd expected over the non-USM model, either. Focusing was still relatively slow (as other reviewers have pointed out), although once an initial focus has been made, adjustments aren't too slow unless changing to a subject substantially nearer or farther away. HOWEVER, the AF engine did make a number of "mistakes" when using this lens that it did not using the IS lens (or, of course, the L-series glass); more than once I had to either switch to manual focus or try multiple times to get the right focus "lock." Furthermore, the USM model doesn't get you internal focus, either, like with higher-end lenses, so the end still rotates during focusing, which can be problematic with a circular polarizer or other filters.
Overall, I'd say that you "get what you pay for"; this is a very inexpensive lens, and it shows in some areas. But it's not nearly as bad as some would make it out to be. I tried it out both on several indoors shots under less-than-ideal lighting conditions and was pleased in most respects, and outdoors, I got very good results on even moving subjects.
Pros:
-- Cost; at under $200, you would be hard-pressed to find a lens with the same reach with even half-decent optics.
Cons:
-- Slow focus
-- Autofocus seems to confuse somewhat easily over the IS model
-- The USM version is still not an internally-focusing model, and thus the end of the lens will still rotate (and can affect filters, etc.)
I'd recommend the IS version if you have the extra funds, but if you are on a budget and just can't wait, I saw less of a difference than others have between the two. Of course, the real step up would be to a comparable piece of glass in the L series, but with it comes a real step up in price, too.
|
|
|
506 of 531 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Buy the "IS" version instead, August 30, 2001
If you're looking at this lens, you're more demanding than the average Joe who takes photos and have high expectations. This lens is not blazingly fast (f/5.6 at 300mm), and to reliably freeze camera shake, you're going to need a 1/500 sec shutter speed, which means that with ISO 100 film, you only can lose one stop of illumination under "Sunny 16" conditions before you have to decide comprimise somewhere to get your shot.
Consequently, shots into the shade, or conducted under the warmer and softer lighting conditions of the morning/evening will inevitably drive you to the comprimise of a high ISO grainy film or the bulk of a tripod to make up for this lens's lack of optical speed. If you always shoot in full noon sunshine, you'll be okay.
Even though its a great tool, most people don't like to carry a tripod, so the solution is to either accept grain in enlargements, not take certain photos, spend more money to go to a faster lens, or some combination of the above. I'll say it again: the most cost-effective alternative is to use a tripod. The next cost-effective alternative is Canon's "IS" (Image Stabilization) lens technology. There are two contenders in this focal length, the 75-300mm IS and the 100-400mm IS. The former is nearly a duplicate of this lens.... The latter is a 3 lb pro lens.... Of these two, the 75-300mm IS is the bargain.
I started with this lens and after just a few test rolls, returned it and got the 75-300mm IS. The IS technology reliably affords an additional effective two stops of speed, although it cannot be used to freeze subject motion as the shutter will normally also do. But it makes the use of high quality films, such as Fuji Velvia (ISO 50), Kodachrome 64 and even Ekta (Kodak Royal Gold) ISO 25 feasible. -hh
|
|
|
70 of 71 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Great for amatuers and novices., January 28, 2002
This lens has been a helpful addition to my camera setup. I purchased this lens and a tripod at the same time. I have found that using this lens at max zoom really does require the use of a tripod, or other stabilization method (such as resting it on a table or railing). There is no way to handhold this lens at 300 mm and still get razor sharp pics. I use this lens to attach to my Canon Rebel 2000. As a beginning photographer I use 400 speed film for nearly all my shots, and have been pleased with the results. I generally do not make enlargements from my prints -- they just go in my photo album -- so the relative graininess of 400 speed is not noticable in 4x6 prints. Coupling this lens with a polarizing filter dramtically improved the contrast and sharpness of distant objects in bright daylight -- particularly distant mountains and scenery. As far as zoom goes, this lens picks up where the standard Rebel lens leaves off and really pulls in the distant objects well. I have not tried to use this lens to shoot fast moving objects at a great distance (such as sports) but for landscapes or distant objects -- perched birds, mountains, bridges, sunsets, I have found this lens to be an absolutely indispensable part of my kit. It attaches and detaches from the camera with ease. The autofocus system focuses within a second -- I've never needed to switch to manual. I knocked a star off because I wish it came with a carrying case. The lens has some heft to it -- it weighs as much as the standard Rebel Body - if not more. It definetly feels solid and well-made, but at the price (which is expensive for me) I feel like I have to treat it with kid gloves, and I can't find a carrying case for it. When I pack this lens in a carryon I stick it inside a few socks to make due.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
Saving...
