Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Super-zoom lens to go for: EF75-300mm Type III, USM or with IS & USM??

  1. #1

    Talking Zoom lens to go for: EF75-300mm Type III, USM or with IS & USM?? (Amended)

    Hello DSLR users

    Which lens to go for that is value for money and what are the advantages???

    Canon EF 75-300mm III ...SGD 350
    Canon EF 75-300mm III USM ...SGD430
    Canon EF 75-300mm III USM IS ...SGD900

    Thanx!
    Last edited by birefringence; 4th January 2004 at 11:19 PM.

  2. #2

    Default

    r u keen on buying my 75-300mm III? in very good condition. i am selling for $250.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    In the void.
    Posts
    1,323

    Default

    Hmm.. I dun really think 75-300s count as superzooms yet.
    Usually, superzooms are lenses like 28-135, 28-200, 28-300, 35-350 and 50-500.

    Anyway, dun bother about the 75-300 IS,personally, I think it's an overpriced lens with no significant improvement in image quality over the non-IS version.

  4. #4

    Wink

    Quote Originally Posted by Prismatic
    Usually, superzooms are lenses like 28-135, 28-200, 28-300, 35-350 and 50-500.
    They are not superzooms.....


    The Nikon 1200-1700 is a SUPERZOOM

  5. #5

    Default

    Thanks!

    Prismatic, is there any significant difference for versions with or without USM at 75-300mm?

    Thanks!

  6. #6

    Default

    actually, the 75-300 lenses from canon all have rather poor image quality, especially at the 300 end; AF is slow and contrast is poor; but it's still quite acceptable, only the 70-200 lenses typically give better optical quality--better sharpness, contrast--especially the f4L and f2.8L ones if you have the $$$ haha. or you can always try those from sigma, tamron, etc.

  7. #7

    Default

    75-300 IS for the IS

    can also bring along for travelling. very lightweight n inconspicuous lens

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    In the void.
    Posts
    1,323

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by james m
    They are not superzooms.....


    The Nikon 1200-1700 is a SUPERZOOM
    Actually, the term superzoom is used generally for lenses with extreme zoom factors. For example, the Sigma 50-500 is a 10x zoom.

    Your big bazooka is barely a 1.4x zoom... :P
    But haha, it's a behemoth lens in any case.

  9. #9

    Default

    Is the Sigma 70-300 f/4-5.6 APO Macro Super II a good investment? It has macro too. How is this compared to the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM?

    Thanx!!!

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    新加坡
    Posts
    1,811

    Cool

    errrr i'm using a 28-200 sigma marco lens.. bought for $440. this lens is very gd to "me" and she produce nice photos in both landscaping, events and marco love this lens. but in future will plan to get canon L lens. maybe this thread will not be helpful to u but juz share it with you.

    so i think sigma70-300mm wun be a problem
    "I want to have the best camera in the world and shoot XMMs."

  11. #11

    Default

    found the lens both the III usm and non-usm to be plasticky and extend wayyyyy too much... for a 300mm it is light... found the optics to give less saturation than other lenses? anywae... if u getting it wld be for the IS

    super zoom range try a 50 500 =)






  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by birefringence
    Is the Sigma 70-300 f/4-5.6 APO Macro Super II a good investment? It has macro too. How is this compared to the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM?

    Thanx!!!
    If you're not too particular about the optics the Sigma 70-300mm is a good working lens for BRIGHT SUNLIGHT only...the aperature range limits its use only for outdoor use. Ahh...then again, for the lenses you've mentioned their aperture leaves much to be desired in low-light.

    For the macro function, I've haven't tried it out, but for macro only at 200-300mm range, you'll need to put quite a bit of distance between you and your subject (the lens sticks out like Pinocchio's nose). BTW, the magnification's only till 1:2 and minimum focusing distance is 0.95m.
    Last edited by Ah Pao; 9th January 2004 at 10:16 PM.

  13. #13

    Default

    With IS, U can compose with greater ease. The shakes are less visible while composing yuor image. Thus, less likely to go wrong at long focal lengths. For sports too... More easy to see the action thru the viewfinder. Just imagine the old type of video cams, those without the anti-shake system... u'll know wat I mean...

    IS also gives u extra 2 more stops. can go as low as 1/60s at 300mm, handheld.

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Woodlands
    Posts
    137

    Default

    I bought my IS len after i tested the non-IS at TCW. The normal ones were too shaky for handheld at 200-300mm range. The IS can be handy when you dont have time to setup or lazy to use a tripod.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •