canon lens quality

Printable View

  • 05-24-2004, 01:35 AM
    sifurat
    canon lens quality
    Im new to the photography scene but i have a "Canon EF 75-300mm 1:4-5.6 ll" and i have had this lens for awhile and i noticed that they had a similar lens on the canon website that was listed as "Canon EF 75-300mm 1:4-5.6 III" and the only difference appears to be the II to III?? ... and both are ultrasonic...

    are there any real big differences between the two.... im planning on shooting some sports photography ( sport bike racing ) and i wanted to make sure i was going out there with some good hardware.

    thanks for any info !!
  • 05-24-2004, 03:19 AM
    Douglas
    Hello, Sifurat,
    You will find the information you need at www.Photodo.com. That will tell you (sorry to break this to you) that none of the Canon 75-300mm consumer zooms are good - in fact, they are worse than average. There is no substantive difference within the 75-300mm 'family' as even the more expensive IS version lacks sharpness and contrast. I sold mine for that very reason after viewing the results of 6 rolls of film taken in the bright sunshine of Crete a few years back.
    My advice to you is to get the Canon 70-200mm f4 L zoom - which IS very good and has come down in price to just over £500 mail order new. When you can afford it, then buy the 1.4x Canon telecoverter and you will have excellent but affordable kit for sports photography... Trust me in this... I have owned and used many Canon lenses from the consumer and L ranges (as well as Leica SLRs etc.) over many years!
    Douglas
  • 05-24-2004, 04:45 AM
    sifurat
    cool thanks for the info
  • 05-24-2004, 03:12 PM
    pinoy53169
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Douglas
    Hello, Sifurat,
    You will find the information you need at www.Photodo.com. That will tell you (sorry to break this to you) that none of the Canon 75-300mm consumer zooms are good - in fact, they are worse than average. There is no substantive difference within the 75-300mm 'family' as even the more expensive IS version lacks sharpness and contrast. I sold mine for that very reason after viewing the results of 6 rolls of film taken in the bright sunshine of Crete a few years back.
    My advice to you is to get the Canon 70-200mm f4 L zoom - which IS very good and has come down in price to just over £500 mail order new. When you can afford it, then buy the 1.4x Canon telecoverter and you will have excellent but affordable kit for sports photography... Trust me in this... I have owned and used many Canon lenses from the consumer and L ranges (as well as Leica SLRs etc.) over many years!
    Douglas

    What is the significance of L lenses? And what will that exactly do with combined with the teleconverter? I have a vague Idea but never formally learned
  • 05-24-2004, 03:50 PM
    Sean Dempsey
    L is for "lucious" because that is what they are.


    It also stands for "Lotus Glass" which is canons pro glass. L lenses are Canon's best are are considered professional. They range from 1000 to about 9000 dollars.

    The 70-200 2.8L image stabilized is about 1700 bucks... the 100-400 is about 1300. B&H or Adorama have them all with prices.