Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 12, 2004, 10:00 AM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 7
Default Canon 75-300mm lens??

:?: Please educate me regarding the Canon 75-300 IS lens. I see that lens advertised in a variety of versions. 1. Canon 75-300mm DO USM IS and 2. Canon 75-300mm USM IS. I also see it advertised as "III'

Is this lens offered in several versions. Is the "DO" version the best choice.

Interested in you comments.
dbirds is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Feb 12, 2004, 2:52 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

The "DO" version will be smaller and lighter. It uses a special material for the front lens that is very new (only 1 other DO lens is being made.) I didn't realize that this was for sale yet, I don't see it listed at B&H. It will probably be very expensive.

There have been 3 iterations of that lens, which is why the "III" is there. The first two have been replaced.

I know nothing about the DO version, but the non-DO is not very good. The AF is slow, the optics are only passable and it suffers from lens flare.

I don't recommend the lens in general, especially if you can afford something better. Its only benefit is that it's cheap.


Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 12, 2004, 3:16 PM   #3
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 7
Default 75-300mm

I apologize, the lens I meant was the 70-300mm DO, not the 75-300.
dbirds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 12, 2004, 3:19 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 577
Default

Hang on a moment!

The 75-300 comes in a IS and non-IS version. It is a consumer lens, and not rated very well. Plenty of discussion on this lens can be found on this board. The non-IS version is about $200, the IS about $450.

The new 70-300 DO IS lens (note 70 not 75) is a whole different story. From the description this sounds like a pretty decent lens. It is priced accordingly; around $1300. Its IS is the latest generation IS with up to 3 stops correction, has a mode 1 and mode 2 switch and works on a tripod. See the full press release here:

http://www.steves-digicams.com/pr/ca...-zooms_pr.html

A few worthwile quotes:

"... this lensí new three-layer diffractive element is far better suited to zoom lenses and actually improves on the two-layer DO element used in the EF400mm f/4 DO IS USM lens that inaugurated the technology."

"It also provides substantially superior image quality and chromatic aberration correction compared to previous conventional 75-300mm designs."

Barthold
barthold is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 12, 2004, 10:13 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

Quote:
"It also provides substantially superior image quality and chromatic aberration correction compared to previous conventional 75-300mm designs."
That shouldn't be hard. I think the barbie camera offers better optics than the 75-300. It is supposed to be really rather bad.

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 12, 2004, 10:42 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 577
Default

Right :-)

But a DO element does mean good glass. I would expect good stuff from the 70-300 DO. If you're into technical detail:

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/t...06/report.html

Barthold
barthold is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 13, 2004, 8:39 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

I did not intend to say that the DO version will be optically bad. Sorry if that is what it sounded like.

I actually think it will be much better (not that that would be hard!) But is it 3 times the cost better? I don't know.

Early version of the 400 DO f4 were only as good as the 100-400 @400. Not exactly steller, but not "bad" (ignoring the cost. OUCH!) I've heard rumors that they have gotten better. It would be such a nice lens on a kayak.

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 13, 2004, 9:52 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 227
Default

There are actually three versions of the 75-300 lens

really cheap - non-USM, non-IS
cheap - USM (but not with full manual focus)
semi-cheap - with USM and IS

None of them are the best optically. I have the really cheap version which I carry as a spare for my 70-210f2.8 lens or when I don't want to lug around the big lens' weight.

I can't comment on the DO lens - but the price tag seems to be on the high end. I'd think you could do better with a f2.8 70-200 lens and a 1.4xTC. You'd get one extra stop at 300mm, two stops faster over most of the zoom range. The downside is weight and size, the 70-200 lenses are heavy and bulky - I had to buy a new bag just to carry the silly thing.

Consider too the 70-200f4 lens & 1.4xTC - it's getting good comments as well.
ursa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 13, 2004, 11:09 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,748
Default

I have a Canon 70-200 F4 L lens and I also have a 75-300 USM

My 75-300 layed in my bag for a month until I decided to bring it out and test it against my "L" lens. Yes, it was an informal test, but those are the sorts of tests that I personally listen to because in the field is where I will be using this piece of glass and not in some ridiculous lab where it would never be used.

Some say that quality control makes a difference with the cheaper lenses, so I don't really know exactly what to say to you all excepting this: my 75-300 USM performed at extreme zoom excellently.

I was quite happy with the little subjective experiment to the point that I "ain't" gonna sell my 300 because it gives me 100 more mm's for a price that I would never disagree with.

The question is this, quality control...did I just happen to get a great grind aoto those who didn't?

Work it out guys, I know I'm very happy with my 75-300 USM.


http://www.brrd.ab.ca/nnorway/2004_P...IALS/boys1.htm
http://www.brrd.ab.ca/nnorway/2004_P...ALS/girls1.htm

I've seen some pro work in this forum that shows me I have a whole long way to go. I thank them for humiliating me.

And, here's where you can find photographs that can truly be called professional, as far as I'm concerned: http://www.stevesforums.com/phpBB2/v...ic.php?t=20294

URSA, the bottom line is this...it's both luck and skill that provides result with the 75-300. I had the luck to get a good ground lens, so now I guess I need to fucus, er, focus, on the skill
I also sympathy with you guys who have the lens that wasn't ground properly

I think that photographers have two things to consider with this lens:
1. were you lucky enough to get a good grind?
2. do you know how to use it?

I'm looking forward to part 2, because I've already tested part 1, according to my specifications/MTF is poor but I honestly believe that quality control could be a factor with this lens.
Normcar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 14, 2004, 5:20 AM   #10
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Normcar
2. If you were, do you know how to use it?

I'm looking forward to part 2, because I've already tested part 1, according to my specifications (which I'm sure will not even begin to rate with some of you techies), and it's rating fine indeed, tov meod
It's all in the lighting... Photography is all about mastering it!

Theses are the multiblitz that Dipicture used, which are available at B&H... The Canon's Speedlites are too puny for this kind lighting! It looks like he used two units (may be 1 frontal as well) to control the shadows... and most shots were around f/5.0 - f/6.7 with a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8. 8)

... The other thing is most of Dipicture's shots were @ 1/500s, if you use the same setting on FP or High-Speed sync mode, your guide number is cut by more than 1/2 with the Speedlites!
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:09 PM.