# tell me about  the canon 75-300mm



## JonathanNYC (May 20, 2012)

looking at the older model 75-300mm, is it worth the coinage (price to me $50.00) it does not have IS... or should I just save my pennies for something nicer?! my kit lens is only up to 135mm so in the interim it would be nice to have a higher power zoom, but obviously without the IS i'd need to use my tripod.

suggestions? comments?


----------



## jrizal (May 21, 2012)

The 70-250mm perhaps? A bit more expensive though but still far cheaper than the 70-300 USM plus it has IS too.


----------



## hukim0531 (May 21, 2012)

55-250mm


----------



## JSER (May 21, 2012)

JonathanNYC said:


> looking at the older model 75-300mm, is it worth the coinage (price to me $50.00) it does not have IS... or should I just save my pennies for something nicer?! my kit lens is only up to 135mm so in the interim it would be nice to have a higher power zoom, but obviously without the IS i'd need to use my tripod.
> 
> suggestions? comments?



Why would you need a tripod just because a zoom has no Is makes you wonder what we did 30 years ago !


----------



## JonathanNYC (May 22, 2012)

JSER said:


> JonathanNYC said:
> 
> 
> > looking at the older model 75-300mm, is it worth the coinage (price to me $50.00) it does not have IS... or should I just save my pennies for something nicer?! my kit lens is only up to 135mm so in the interim it would be nice to have a higher power zoom, but obviously without the IS i'd need to use my tripod.
> ...



for low light or low shutter speed without IS you get image blur... or am i wrong? :er:


----------



## jrizal (May 22, 2012)

If what you are saying is that you can get one for $50, why not? Like what JSER implied, this technology did not exist before, but great photos were still taken. With regard image blur, it depends on what you are shooting and how creative you are. In a way, it may be good for you so that you can go "old school" and when you have the budget for a better lens you would be very comfortable with that type of lens. And maybe you can still sell that lens for a small profit too.


----------



## jaomul (May 22, 2012)

For 50 its grand. It is relatively slow so that rule of a shutter speed as fast as your length may help, that is at 300mm you want to be shooting about 1/300th second. Some people have better technique than others here. I had this lens and it is not very sharp but it has plenty reach, I would think its good value. Below is an examle shot taken with a 50d to give you an idea



Gull in cuskinny by jaomul, on Flickr


----------



## Mot (May 22, 2012)

For $50 your might as well. I got mine for a similar price and, while I never use the thing, I couldn't argue with the price even for very occasional use.

Fortunately I have access to some L lenses so my 75-300 sees limited use, the problem is I am always disappointed by the results of the lens. It's really soft, I have to push the limits of my camera's ISO capabilities and it's very cheap feeling. I have some shots I could post, to me they could have been okay had they not been ruined by the softness of the lens wide open.


----------



## hukim0531 (May 22, 2012)

Does rule of thumb apply the same for both FF and crop?  For instance should the rule change to 1/480 for a crop camera?


----------



## TCampbell (May 22, 2012)

hukim0531 said:


> Does rule of thumb apply the same for both FF and crop?  For instance should the rule change to 1/480 for a crop camera?



First... the rule of thumb is a "guideline"... because it can vary from person to person.  It depends on how steady you are, and it does of course assume that you are trying to be steady.

The guideline says that the minimum shutter speed should be 1 / (focal length) x (crop factor).  The crop factor of a "full frame" camera is 1.  The crop factor on a Canon DSLR with an APS-C sensor is 1.6.  The crop factor on a Nikon DSLR with an APS-C sensor is usually 1.5.


----------



## fokker (May 22, 2012)

This was the first additional lens I purchased on my first DSLR, which was a 350d (rebel XT). I was sorely disappointed with the quality of photos it produced, even back when I hardly had any idea of what a good photo was. It also feels like a cheap piece of junk, has zoom creep, poor autofocus, soft, slow aperture, etc. Basically one of the worst canon EF lenses as far as I'm aware.... Still, $50, you get what you pay for.


----------



## jaomul (May 23, 2012)

I read the rule of thumb as you stated above, using the crop factor as a multiple, but in a crop camera you are just using a smaller sensor, not increasing the actual focal length, so I don't know if it is accurate, someone else may have input, but to me it doesn't make sense


----------



## fokker (May 23, 2012)

The only relevance the rule has is how much the frame of view moves for a given amount of shake, in a crop camera the frame is view is smaller therefore vibrations or shake are magnified by the same percentage.


----------



## jaomul (May 23, 2012)

Thanks. That makes sense


----------



## belial (May 23, 2012)

jaomul said:
			
		

> I read the rule of thumb as you stated above, using the crop factor as a multiple, but in a crop camera you are just using a smaller sensor, not increasing the actual focal length, so I don't know if it is accurate, someone else may have input, but to me it doesn't make sense



It's just a guideline for how much shake will be visible at that magnification. And if you want to crop you should try to get shutter speeds appropriate to the crop.


----------



## JonathanNYC (May 23, 2012)

i think i'll bite, for $50 you can't go wrong as many of you have said! thanks for the advice!


----------

