Canon 70-300

[Squidy]

Dave: If I didn't want to try it out before Christmas I'd literally take you up on that offer

ND: That's why I didn't understand... Here is a sales rep talking himself out of a large sale. Getting that money was pushing it, but when he turned around and said to buy a $200 lens instead I was like "huh??" I'm not sure if he was trying to get me to trust him more or what... but it was weird.

[Squidy]

Well, I'd just like the zoom to be there if I need it to be honest. At first I wanted it for portraits etc but it seems my 24-105L is actually doing well for it so I'm just looking for a lens for holidays for distant objects (ships, lighthouses, wildlife) etc. The extender is something I didn't actually think of, and you do make a very good point in regards to extending the reach etc, might have to give that one a look in

[ahab1372]

if it is only very occasional use, consider renting.
Or, buy one of the low-cost lenses used or refurbished (for crop I'd recommend the EF-S 55-250), and buy a lens more suited to what you shoot most (fast prime, UWA, ...). That way you don't loose money if you decide to upgrade later to a better tele. It also gives you more time to figure out what you really want next

[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

[Black_Dog]

I was recently looking into the 70-200 and was talking out of it by the sales rep as he said it didn't have enough zoom if I wanted it. The last lens was the 70-200 L f4. Now, the one he's recommended instead is http://www.georges.com.au/index.php/...4-5-6-iii.html

A few years ago I test drove a 2009 Chrysler Sebring for a car review I was writing for The Truth About Cars. The salesman who accompanied me kept comparing this crap Chrysler with the excellent Acura TSX. The lie was so outlandish that all I could do was laugh inside. Anyway...

I own the discontinued Canon EF 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM, which is built a little better than Canon's various 75-300mm zooms but is optically pretty similar. It is a fine lens for well lighted subjects and if you keep it zoomed between 100mm and about 250mm. After about 250mm, the sharpness drops off quite dramatically. Within those constraints it has been a pretty good lens and I've taken many outstanding images with it, although I don't use it much anymore because I now have better glass.