No it's not especially if you take into account its intended users. If you use a Canon digital SLR and are satisfied with the kit lens (18-55) then buying this lens can be the perfect next step for you. Practically speaking, you will be able to increase your zoom reach to the point where you can A) photograph birds in moderately distant trees, B) be able to zoom in on the other side of a valley and frame something of your interest. Those are just two examples. One thing you will NOT be able to do effectively with this lens, however, is to take sport shots with it. How so? Consider some of the following weakness:
*At 300mm zoom range the highest aperture is limited to 5.6 (You will have to use very slow shutter speed to snap fast action shots; remember the inverse relation between aperture and shutter speed.)
*The lens size/weight combination makes it hard to hold steady when attached to a camera like the Rebel XT
*Slow and often inaccurate auto focus (I just don't understand why Canon makes a USM version of this lens for $20 more, but never includes it in the triple rebate program)
*Chromatic aberration is significant in high contrast lighting like in full sun (if you do not know what Chromatic aberration means search the term online or check out my review of the Canon 28mm 2.8 on Amazon, but to summarize, it would be a discoloration at the fringes of objects in your picture)
Those kinds of weakness will limit your ability to use this lens in all sorts of other situations/circumstances. As a practical rule to follow, if the lighting is less than ideal this lens will give you a hard time. Meaning, it will be possible to use it, but you may get too many blurry images because of shake from slow shutter speeds. As for what are ideal lighting conditions? That would be full sun with few or no clouds and with the light bathing your subject/object from the front or the side.
So is this lens that bad? Not really, as with many other lenses, when the lens is coupled with a good camera it still out performs most Point and Shoot cameras. Plus it provides results at par or slightly below the kit lens (18-55). So if you are satisfied with your kit lens, which provides you with a zoom range comparable to 3X zoom (55/18= 3), why not add another lens that will expand your zoom range by another 4X (300/75=4)? Nothing wrong with expanding your horizon!
PS. TWO MORE POINTS ABOUT USING THIS LENS: First, if you're confident you can handhold this lens at slow shutter speeds (I know I can't) then the low maximum aperture shouldn't be a major problem. Second, if you're fine shooting at high ISO (more like 400 or 800) then again the low maximum aperture shouldn't be a problem. The nice thing about photography is that you can do one thing in so many ways, so don't be afraid to explore with this lens! Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III Telephoto Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras
I have Canon's 75-300mm lens for almost a year and have examined it inside out. Unfortunately, I cannot admit that it's a good lens.First of all, it doesn't have USM (Ultra Sonic Motor) and though having built-in AF motor, it is anyway VERY slow. And since telephoto lenses in general are for capturing high-speed events (like sport, running animals etc), its low-speed focusing makes it no good.Secondly, its light-factor is quite low (4.0 for 75mm and only 5.6 for 300mm) what forces you to use either high-speed film (not lower than ISO400) or to shoot in the bright light (what's not possible everytime you shoot).And the last, but not less important thing. I'm not good in mechanics, but what I know for sure is that Canon's 75-300mm lens produce unsharp pictures. No matter if you use a tripod or not, the pictures still are very unsharp which is very bad for images, being zoomed by 300mm.Anyway, I'd recommend you to buy the lens of the same focal distance but in another configuration: Canon EF 75-300 F/4.5-5.6 IS USM. Although it's a bit expensive and as you see, the light factor is a bit lower, too, it has an USM and IS (Image Stabilizer) what makes focusing drastically super fast and the pictures become more sharper with the help of IS. This lens deserves a high attention. But not this one...
I'd just got into SLR photography and the first few months with the 35-90 lens that came with the Canon Rebel 2000 were outstanding. I never realised there was SO much difference between a point-and-shoot and an SLR. After reading p on some of the books about photography, I reaslied an important point was getting the right framing and getting close to the subject. So I set out to look for a cost effective zoom lens that would give me that flexibility. I tried the cheeper rip off lens in the loal camera store and found their mechanisms stiff and slow focussing. I stuck my neck out for a canon make lens, and this one jumped out at me. It's perfect, the shot are crystal clear, the zoom is smooth and the autofocus is just as good as with the smaller lens. How do they make these lenses so cheap when competing lenses are more that twice the price? highly recommended for a novice like myself whodoesn't want to sped too much for telephoto zoom capability. I'm now looking for a canon 2x teleconverter to add to my range. - 75-300mm - Canon - Zoom - Lens'
Detail Products
Detail Reviews
Click here for more information
