Canon 70-300

[Dave Throgmartin]

This is the best picture I ever took with the 75-300 USM III, wide open at 300mm @ f/5.6 of all things:


20080830_0998 by dthrog00, on Flickr

Overall, it can be an aggravating lens some of the time. Much like the 55-250 the focus motor feels like it takes forever to get there. Some pictures you take and they end up being dull for no apparent reason. There's one instance in particular I'm thinking about where I was trying to photograph a light house from across the park and they all came out soft.

This was the first lens I bought and all I had was the 18-55 original, the 75-300, and an XT that I bought from Sears as a $340 close out in 2008. Given it was all I had and I didn't go to these forums to see awesome images like what Joel does with birds, it was quite honestly a revelation. I could go to a baseball or football game or something and actually get close ups of the players. Those images probably don't hold up really well to close inspection now, but I liked them then and had a lot of fun taking them.

That said if you have the money I'd suggest getting the 70-200 f/4 L. I haven't used it, but given it is L quality with a USM motor I think it'd be a big jump in quality over the 55-250, 70-300 IS non-L, and all of the 75-300s

Dave

[Dave Throgmartin]

I looked through some of my archives and here are a couple that are typical:


20090508_1984 by dthrog00, on Flickr


20090508_1969 by dthrog00, on Flickr

They're ok pictures, but really good memories of a fun trip to Bloomington / Minneapolis! Mauer vs Ichiro! This was a really tough application for that lens because the pics are both at 1/160 shutter and wide open. That's tough sledding for a non-stabilized $200 lens.

Dave