20th July 2005, 10:28 PM
75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM lens
Hello experts out there, any feedback on the above lens? I am thinking of getting a lens in the range of 70mm to 300mm. Please advise.
20th July 2005, 11:05 PM
21st July 2005, 12:37 PM
HI, first and importanly - me no expert.
Originally Posted by lsr792000
there are 3 versipns of this ef lens
1- no IS, no USM ( cheapest )
2- no IS , got USM
3- got IS and USM
The differences is just the 'mechanical' side. Optically, they are the same....ok lah, IS one got floating elements inside...but i mean optical quality.
This is classified as 'cheapo' lens by some ppl. It is true if you compare with others EF lenses but the optical quality is very good if you can step down to f/11 or 16. However, the max aperture of 5.6 is limiting becasue it will be the limit where most AF sensors can work. However, if you use dslr, you at least can choose higer ISO anytime you like.
This is a great outdoor portrait lens....if you use tripod. The view using 200+mm is simply great to make your subject has that mysterious feel...this makes big aperutre 'useless' becasue the focal lenght itself already limit your dof by a lot.
Verdict: good to have the IS version . Makes the f/5.6 less of a problem.
It's the cheapest IS lens you can get.
Caution: this is not a ring USM design, so no FTM for it. Must always switch the AF/MF switch if you want to tweak focus after AF lock.
24th July 2005, 06:13 PM
Very true, and I second this opinion by Dreamtheatre. I have not used this lens before and cannot give detailed comments on this. But at f/5.6 towards the telephoto end, the lens is quite slow. If you had to work with such a lens under the cloudy conditions we had over the last few days, you will have many issues with camera shake.
Originally Posted by dreamtheatre
One of the lenses that will be of interest to you would be the Sigma APO MACRO SUPER II 70-300mm F4-5.6. It's been recommended by some folks here, and it's said to be a good performer at a low cost.
If you're going for quality, have a bigger budget and don't mind losing 100mm at the telephoto end, try the Canon 70-200mm f/4L. The constant f/4 aperture will make it easier to achieve the required shutter speed to avoid blur, and at all focal lengths. Sharpness and color rendition is also excellent.
The Canon 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM might fit the bill too, and the IS will be very useful on overcast days. But it also isn't cheap.
24th July 2005, 06:35 PM
24th July 2005, 08:15 PM
The IS is certainly expensive. Some have argued about the usefulness of this on a shorter focal length lens, such as the EF-S 17-85mm, but on telephoto zooms such as this one, it may be useful. I haven't had personal experience with an IS lens before, but I often wish my lens had it whenever I return home and glance through dozens of blurred images.
Originally Posted by Adam Goi
The first generation IS on this lens should offset up to two stops. The newer one such as that on the EF-S 17-85mm will compensate for up to 3 stops. The experiences of users vary. Some claim to be able to handhold an IS lens more than 3 stops slower.
25th July 2005, 10:23 PM
Thanks for all the comments. They do help in my decision when buying this lens.
Originally Posted by fWord