need some honest feedback

i have a 75-300 is lens i shoot on my 20d.

with all the variables accounted for i feel this is a pretty weak lens for the price.

i know it is not top of the line glass but it should not be as crappy as what i think it is.

i have compared the stuff i am taking to others with the same lens.

i have also taken about 3500 shots through it and am less than amazed with the quality.

it is not me cause with other lenses and even other cameras i have done much better.

i am blaming this on my ability at this time but have a queezy feeling that this lens is "just not right"

on occasion i have taken some spectacular shots but they are very few. most are soft and the focus often incorrect. i have used af as well as mf. is on and off. light great, blah, blah, blah.

it works the best when it is at 75-100 but why have a 300 mm lens if it can't make anywhere near that distance most of the time?

is it possible there may be some problem with the function? if so how could i tell and how could i prove it?

i have seeen stuff on other pages that said this lens is junk. others like theirs.

since i am gonna buy the 100-300 anyway i was thinking of selling this thing off. on the other hand it is good enough for an occasasional backup or even another when it shoots correctly.



what do y'all think.

thanx in advance

Which 100-300 are you getting might I ask?

Could be the AF of the body, not the lens. I have read about people having focusing issues with the 20D. You may want to send your body to Canon and have them take a look at it. It may need to be adjusted. I don't use this lens, or body, but I'm almost positive that other members here have had focusing issues with the 20D.

Here's a link to the user reviews for the Canon 75-300mm IS III: http://www.photographyreview.com/sf-...-100_mm_299_mm

They're very mixed and the lens is very inexpensive. In my opinion, that kind of reach is a lot to ask of a lens that chea - especially with IS. It's very likely you can improve your technique and get better results. But a better lens can't hurt, if you've got the money. I'm a big fan of buying shorter, better zooms and trading reach for quality. So I'd recommend buying a 70-200 - either the f/4L or the f/2.8L IS. Image quality will not be a concern with either of those lenses. On the downside, when you get a bad photo, you'll have only yourself to blame :rolleyes:

Please post a review for your lens. We can always use more - positive or negative.

Quote:

---

70-200 - either the f/4L or the f/2.8L IS. Image quality will not be a concern with either of those lenses. On the downside, when you get a bad photo, you'll have only yourself to blame

---

Ah, I found that when I bought mine :(
Should have it back from service this week ...

I also have the 75-300 IS and to begin with was my primary zoom lense, but to be honest i found i had the same problems as you are having, although as i improved so did the images, so can we always blame our tools? but i have moved on to the 70-200L f2.8 IS USM and there is no comparison for the quality and performance and i have found i rarely use my other lenses now, it cost me heaps, approx £1200 but i have had more than my moneys worth in satisfaction!.

I have said before and will say it again, the 75-300 f/4.5-5.6 IS lens is a dog of a lens, it hunts too much in any light, even well lite daylight on a field. Very disappointed with this lens and especially as it cost me $1,000Aus at the time which to me is a huge amount of money when on a pension.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter_AUS

I have said before and will say it again, the 75-300 f/4.5-5.6 IS lens is a dog of a lens, it hunts too much in any light, even well lite daylight on a field. Very disappointed with this lens and especially as it cost me $1,000Aus at the time which to me is a huge amount of money when on a pension.

---

On the other side, I also have the older 75-300 IS and have gotten excellent shots from it. It replaced a 100-400 L IS that was much too big and heavy to carry around. Is is the best lens around? No. But it's not as bad as you have experienced. Mine never hunted in even moderate-to-low light light. It is not an f/2.8 so it isn't going to do as well as some very expensive (and heavy) L lens.

Almost all the shots here are taken with the 75-300 IS lens. I really don't see anything wrong with them.

http://www.barchoc.com/AntarcticaPhotoMain.htm

Has anyone used the new 70-300 IS DO lens yet?
Amazingly small and I think from the MTF if may be worth a look as a lightweight kitbag lens.

I know a person who shoots the 70-300DO and can't edit to save his life. He sends me files that are cropped and/or resized from his 20D and they are great without editing. He also has the 100-400IS, but it's too heavy for his daily needs.

Paul,

I have the 70 - 300 DO IS lens that I have to admit has it;s strong points, not least of all, its size. I bought this lens to replace a Tamron 28 - 200 and it was certainly a step up and after using the 75 - 300 IS I was happy with my choice as the size and the image quality really do make it a better lens, also a lot more expensive.

I think that you get what you pay for, I am not using the DO IS lens so much these days but that is purely because of the types of photographs that I am currently concentrating on. There is no doubt that the 70-200L f2.8 IS is an excellent lens, again, it is in another price range.

DO IS, great given the size but the image quality is far from L seriies glass.

Herriot

Thanks for the feedback.
I've been spoiled with L glass :)
Maybe I'll take my 20D into a shop that actually has one in stock and try the lens.
After walking around le Mans for 21 hours (I did get some sleep) with two 1D bodies, 24-70, 70-200, 100-400, 2xTC and water - I need to carry less weight !!