Canon Ef 75-300mm F/4-56 Is Usm Telephoto Zoom Lens Review
| 75-300mm | $153 average price |
|---|---|
| | |
(From Canon lens literature) The optical organization, construction, and outside of this lens are the same as the EF 75-300 mm f/4-5.half-dozen III USM. The deviation is that it uses a DC motor instead of ultrasonic motor to bulldoze the autofocus.
Canon EF 75-300mm f/four-v.half dozen 3
Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 3 User Reviews
-
5 out of ten points and recommended by transiently (26 reviews)
Capable of solidly expert sharpness on full frame between 75 and about 200 mm.
Poor sharpness and dissimilarity at 300mm, particularly when shot at distance, exacerbated by purple fringing and, on some samples, big AF inaccuracies . Big sample variation. Lots of flare. Don't purchase for 1.6 crop cameras.
reviewed January 22nd, 2021Proficient sharpness beyond the frame when used every bit a 75-200mm with but modest stopping down, but the long end, where most people volition probably desire to utilise information technology more often than not, performs poorly. 1 of my samples worked well at 300mm for subjects 1.5-ii meters away, where it was precipitous when stopped downwards well to F10. Enormous sample variation at 300mm where one sample needed more than than twenty AF microadjustment and withal didn't perform adequately.
Flares easily into the light, but sometimes in quite an attractive style. A much amend lens than Canon's 80-200 4.v-5.half-dozen (poor sides and and edges with that 1, at above about 80mm), but simply useful for high quality photography if you lot take tested your sample and know what you are doing.
I preferred it to the similar lxx-300 offerings from Tamron and Sigma for its faster AF and reasonably solid performance as a 75-200. Information technology really beats Canon'due south venerable but good stopped-downwardly seventy-210/4 used broad open at these focal lengths.
It'due south difficult to know whether to recommend this or non. If y'all understand what information technology tin can and can't exercise well and don't over-pay, it makes quite a skillful budget 75-200 for your 6D or 5D. It's less expert on 1.six crop, but still very usable at shorter focal lengths. Withal the EF-Due south 55-250 IS is definitely superior, and makes more sense if you don't expect to buy a full-frame body.
-
10 out of x points and recommended by Colo43 (1 reviews)
Slap-up for wild fauna
take found none
I love this lens. its on my Canon5 mk11 --eighty% of the time.
reviewed December 17th, 2011 -
vii out of x points and recommended by luke (2 reviews)
inexpensive, light, long
soft and CA at wide apertures
reviewed June 9th, 2011 (purchased for $75)I picked this lens up for its range. I utilise information technology on a T2i. I'm more of a wide-angle guy and so I but wanted this lens for when the urge struck me to take pictures of birds and far away things. More and more I've become interested in telephoto work and accept considered trying to pick up gigs that would crave a telephoto zoom. I paid 75 dollars used from KEH, and I got the first generation, but I believe it'south basically the same as the second and third and the USM in terms of image quality and build, for the most part.
Every bit others have already said, from 75-200mm the lens produces good images. Stopping down helps, simply it never gets as sharp equally say my 50mm f1.8.
From 200-300mm in that location is significant CA in loftier contrast situations, peculiarly someday you're photographing something white. When I get-go realized the terrible CA with this lens I was pretty disappointed. Stopping down helps only doesn't remove the CA.
*I wanted owners and potential owners of this lens to know that there is a homemade solution to the CA problem with this lens. I've found that if you lot manufacture a 58mm disk from black textile and so brand a three/iv inch pigsty in the middle of it and place it on the front of the lens, this acts as a style of manually stopping down the lens to an equivalent of near f/10 (while it is really broad open at f5.6), and it totally removes the CA! I've also found information technology to improve sharpness. I'grand talking primarily about 300mm here, but it can work at shorter lengths too. Obviously the wider the hole you have in your disk the larger the aperture and potentially more CA you lot'll have, and the smaller the pigsty the darker and more hard it will be to have pictures of anything moving, so you lot have to find a median, and a 3/4inch pigsty works well I've found.
Here is a link to the a crop showing the royal fringing: http://www.flickr.com/photos/lukes_shots/5821111714/in/photostream/
And here is a link to a crop showing a shot with the homemade diaphragm: http://world wide web.flickr.com/photos/lukes_shots/5820551691/in/photostream/Aside from that, the AF is only skilful in skillful lite, and fifty-fifty and so it isn't perfect and it's loud and slow, but it tin can work pretty well if you set your middle focus point simply. Transmission focus works well when you need critical focus.
The build quality is ok, but I've had better. I'll eventually probably invest in a 70-200mm 2.8 of some make, hopefully canon but perhaps tokina, to replace this guy, but if you're on a budget and can piece of work around its limitations, it'due south non an unusable lens.
In fact, I've taken pictures of wildlife and cropped in on the photos and they withal wait pretty darn good. I also took pictures at a horse jumping event and compared them with a pro who uses a f2.viii biggy of some sort and mine looked just as skilful if not better...i ready my color and dissimilarity really high in-camera, making bright photos and hers were all neutral and more boilerplate looking. -
half dozen out of 10 points and not recommended by cmm895 (6 reviews)
price, not much else
need to utilise manual focus to get abrupt images, no IS, needing to use f11 to get sharp images.
I purchased this lens a number of years ago to employ on a picture show SLR camera and also used it for a brusk time on my 450D DSLR. If sufficient light is available and your subject field is staying relative still you can get some sharp shots through using manual focus and f11. If it is dark and you dont have time to manually focus this lens is rubbish. I have since upgraded to a Canon seventy-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM and this lens is far improve.
reviewed July 4th, 2010 (purchased for $250) -
8 out of 10 points and recommended by Wojtek (8 reviews)
Small, lite, cheap and sharp at low focal lengths
Depression dissimilarity at wide open up apertures
Actually, I've tested Canon Zoom Lens EF 75-300 mm f/4-5.6 II USM, that has exactly the same eyes as this one, just the USM lens is not listed hither at all. It's a perfect companion to Canon EF 24-85mm f/3.v-iv.5 USM (price and quality - wise). At f/11 it is very sharp, but the sharpness seems to be lower due to depression contrast, especially wide-open. The tests are described on http://pikespeakphoto.com/tests/canonlens75-300.htm, so you can see for yourself how it compares to similar lenses. At 300mm it is significantly softer than beneath 200mm ranges. Every bit others noted, it's a smashing lens for the budget savvy DSLR owners.
reviewed February 17th, 2009 -
6 out of x points and recommended past Badmono (15 reviews)
Cheap - The only Catechism Zoom I'd utilize, good focal range
At the price - None whatsoever
I'one thousand not a Zoom lens fan Just appreciate that a good zoom is worth having in the bag - Nevertheless having had to sell both the 70-200 F2.eight IS 50 and the 100-400 IS L because of their poor IQ.
reviewed Baronial 22nd, 2008 (purchased for $75)
I bought my 75-300EF off a friend who had owned it for a few years and so I had seen photo's taken with this lens before it's purchase. IQ is acceptable for a zoom. In fact I use this lens for Holidays and hiking. It's light weight and long focal range are it'southward plus points. Compared to my Primes this lens is deadening, but hey it's usable at full aperture and I'chiliad more than happy to use it.
For all of import shoot'due south I use 'L' seies primes 135 F2, 200 F2.eight and 400 F2.8 IS which are head and shoulders higher up all zoom lenses fifty-fifty Canon 'Hell' serial zooms.
This 75-300 is a great lens provided y'all don't await acme IQ. and a bargain if y'all can buy ane at £40UK pounds the cost I paid.
Well worth checking one out !! -
half dozen out of ten points and recommended by tempest68 (two reviews)
good zoom range, inexspensive
very susceptible to camera milkshake
reviewed March 7th, 2008 (purchased for $199)For someone starting out in photography on a budget, this is not a bad lens. Merely it is not exceptional either.
I purchased this lens the same time I picked up my Rebel XT due west/eighteen-55 mm "kit" lens. I thought the 75-300mm range might exist fun to "play" with, and information technology was. I took some decent shots of birds and butterflies, and liked the results. And given that the eighteen-55 merely seems to brusque for my needs, this lens was fun to play with when the opportunity presented itself.
The biggest challenge for me with this lens was the length/width/weight of this lens seemed to make it susceptible to camera milkshake. And not having IS, there is non much you can do about it. Being quite long and heavy (when on an XT body), I found information technology difficult to agree it steady. Most of my shooting does not lend itself to using a tripod. My complaint about the width of this lens is that information technology is likewise narrow. If the lens had a larger bore, it might be easier to shoot mitt held with lesser camera shake.
As I said at the start, I would recommend this lens to someone new to photography on a budget. But if you are similar me and lugging a tripod effectually does not seem optimal for your type of shooting, I would strongly recommend looking for a lens with IS even if it toll a fiddling more. It would be money well spent.
I sold my copy, but only considering I needed money to fund the purchase of some other lens. I wanted to give up on the eighteen-55mm kit lens and get something a little ameliorate for my walk-effectually lens. So I sold my 75-300 to become the 17-85mm IS USM. I felt like I could practice without the 86-300 range for now, and having a good walk-around was more important than having a long telephoto that I only use occassionally.
-
seven out of 10 points and recommended by twmagoo (4 reviews)
zoom, price,low-cal
soft at the long terminate
This lens is okay for the price. I don't see how most people attempt to compare low terminate lens to the L series and them requite them a bad review because of that. This lens does okay at 75mm betwixt F/9 to F/11 and at 200mm at F/ 10 to F/xi. Around 300mm, its a mix bag...I shot alot of pictures when I'm at 300mm, and hope one comes out actually good, so far I do end up with one thats pretty sharp and clear with out a tripod. For the cost its an okay lens, if y'all can afford it, and then I would recommend you get a better lens. If you lot can't, this will do okay for its price range.
reviewed December 4th, 2007 (purchased for $236) -
5 out of ten points and recommended past thf (8 reviews)
good zoom range, cheap
soft over 200mm, slow AF, lack of dissimilarity
reviewed January 14th, 2007 (purchased for $160)If you are on tight budget or (like me when I bought this lens) desire to find out if y'all like these focal lengths, get it. Optical quality is not so bad at wide end but the lens gets rather soft and with CA over 200mm, specially broad open. Terminate it down! Image contrast is rather low. You'll have to spend some time working on the images on the computer only it's possible to become decent photos from this lens if you are fix to spent some time on them later.
My copy had some zoom pitter-patter and made strange noises but otherwise worked.
Lens hood is sold separately, not a surprise really at this price range.
I can recommend this lens only because it's really cheap.. However if y'all can afford it, get the new seventy-300 IS USM, which is excellent for its price.
-
vii out of x points and recommended by AlainD (viii reviews)
cheap - good for figuring out what range yous use. Decent stoped to F8-10. Light weight
cheap! very soft wide open
reviewed January 12th, 2007 (purchased for $75)This lens is actually pretty decent stopped to F8-x then it works well in skilful lite. Wide open it very soft compare to say a Sigma 135-400, btu so much lighter and meaty (fit into small over the sholder bag, while the sigma is big).
I bought this lens for not much (with rebate on XT) to effigy out what range I needed, and got some very decent shots out of it. It is actually better than people make it sound.
I now know I need a 400-500+ range.
Not a bad entry level lens -
viii out of 10 points and recommended by crmorse (11 reviews)
Improve quality than most 3rd party near the same toll
Not up to 50 standards (or cost)
reviewed Jan fifth, 2007A very usable lens when stopped down and has much improved contrast and colors over the lower-end third party lenses in this aforementioned range.
While information technology'south not top-quality glass it doesn't toll or weight the same either.
Overall, for a buyer looking for a compromise, this is a good choice.
-
vi out of 10 points and non recommended by mxwphoto (12 reviews)
Long zoom range
Image quality & build
I got this lens before long after I first started into DSLR. 300mm zoom... wow, I can get a lot of far off objects/wildlife with this, or so I idea. I soon constitute out that without USM, it focuses quite a bit slower than other USM lenses and hunts for focus if lighting conditions aren't optimal. Also, you have to stop down quite a bit for decent image quality, particularly on the long stop. Colors seem a fleck done out and since at that place is no IS, the lens either has to be placed on a monopod or tripod (severely limiting its bird tracking abilities) or the ISO has to exist cranked up till it'south fast enough (degrading the image farther). This lens is the tele equivalent of the kit lens, simply the reason I don't recommend this while I practice recommend the kit is that at wider angles, image sharpness and milk shake aren't as apparent nor every bit of import as the overall composition while at long tele ends, i would often desire to come across more particular than just a blurry shape.
reviewed Dec 11th, 2006 (purchased for $150)
Source: https://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/canon/ef-75-300mm-f4-5.6-iii/review/
0 Response to "Canon Ef 75-300mm F/4-56 Is Usm Telephoto Zoom Lens Review"
Post a Comment