What's your opinion on this lens?

For the money, its a good lens.

People will argue to the death between this and the Sigma equivalent. What I will say is this:

The Sigma 70-300 APO IS a better lens - IF you get a good copy of it. From everything I have seen, a good copy is exceptionally hard to come by. AF is noisy and the slowest I have ever used. Hunts in anything but bright light and the macro switch bit takes some getting used to if you want to work it smoothly.

The Canon is on average a better lens (from the available copies) but outright best for best isnt as good as the Sigma. AF is USM so vastly quieter and marginally quicker. Doesnt hunt as much either. The zoom ring is also considerably smoother than the Sigma.
 
I had the 75-300 IS lens, which I believe is basically the same thing, but with IS.

I have been told that it is 'soft', but I disagree. If you take steady shots, and ensure correct focus, it seems to be pretty sharp (especially at 300mm), even when the aperture is wide open.

Here's two examples:

Image 1

Image 2

They have been sharpened in Photoshop AFTER reduction in size.
 
See here for people's experience with this lens.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=18&sort=7&cat=27&page=2

I had the MKII version and I was glad to get shot of it in the end. Bought because of cash restrictions and it was better than nothing. The one I had was extremely soft at the 300 end. The girl I sold it to is already realising the limitations of this lens only after a few months with it. The MKIII doesn't seem much of an improvement by the looks of it.
 
I had a Mk3, bought it for under £100 off Ebay a few years ago, it was my first telephoto zoom. I found it very soft at 300mm, it was usable stepped down to about f8-10 and as I used it mainly at 300mm, I replaced it with a 100-400.

Everything in my Silverstone F1 2004 Gallery was taken using it on a 300D.
 
I've had the 75-300 Mk III for a while now and plan to replace it when I can afford to, but for now it's managed well considering its price.

The photo's at the link below were taken with the lens on a 30D earlier this year, they've been sharpened and resized in photoshop.

http://stuartd.smugmug.com/photos/83243473-O.jpg

http://stuartd.smugmug.com/photos/83243483-O.jpg

http://stuartd.smugmug.com/photos/83243474-O.jpg

http://stuartd.smugmug.com/photos/83243898-O.jpg

These ones were taken with it on a 300D just under a year ago, again they've been sharpened and resized in photoshop.

http://stuartd.smugmug.com/photos/38034789-O.jpg

http://stuartd.smugmug.com/photos/38034791-O.jpg

http://stuartd.smugmug.com/photos/38034761-O.jpg
 
Last edited:
Vertigo1 said:
"Forbidden - You don't have permission to access the page at..."

Plus, what's the point in posting images to demonstrate the sharpness of a lens if the images have been sharpened in photoshop afterward?
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but it's the only images I had quick access to. They were only slightly sharpened to counter the anti-aliasing (averaging of colours for details which are less than 1 pixel in width/height) applied by the resizing method. I will find a full-size straight from camera photo later if I get the time.
 
Vertigo1 said:
"Forbidden - You don't have permission to access the page at..."

Plus, what's the point in posting images to demonstrate the sharpness of a lens if the images have been sharpened in photoshop afterward?
Click to expand...

Most photo's that are taken with a DSLR are improved by being sharpened and adjusted in photoshop, in fact most review sites state that regarding DSLRs. Considering the cost of photoshop elements these days, most people that are buying a DSLR should realise that they can make definite improvements to their photo's in the 'digital darkroom' afterwards.

The photo's I've linked to have been sharpened in PS and then resized because that is the real world situation and what I, and most others, do.

If the OP is unhappy with the links I provided due to them being processed slightly then I apologise, but only to them.
 
stu.artd said:
If the OP is unhappy with the links I provided due to them being processed slightly then I apologise, but only to them.
Click to expand...
Not at all, your images were really good.

People shouldn't be so fast to slate others for their contribution, when all they bring to the table is criticism.

Thanks for all the opinions and links guys :)
 
rich_g85 said:
Not at all, your images were really good.

People shouldn't be so fast to slate others for their contribution, when all they bring to the table is criticism.
Click to expand...
My comment wasn't supposed to be a rhetorical criticism, I was honestly puzzled as posting images which had been sharpened in PS as a demonstration of the sharpness of a lens made no sense to me but as I'm a n00b at all this there may have been something I was missing :) No offence was intended.
 
Anyway, moving on!

Tonight I've managed to bag the exact same model, from a popular auction site for £120 (second hand).

Hoping now that I can take some sharper pictures than I could through the 18-55mm so-called "lens" :)
 
Vertigo1 said:
My comment wasn't supposed to be a rhetorical criticism, I was honestly puzzled as posting images which had been sharpened in PS as a demonstration of the sharpness of a lens made no sense to me but as I'm a n00b at all this there may have been something I was missing :) No offence was intended.
Click to expand...

If you can extract finer detail from the image using sharpening (even though it is apparrent sharpness, but thats getting a bit too technical) then it has to have been there in the first place in order to sharpen it. In that respect, its a level playing surface in as much as everyone gets the opportunity to sharpen so it is a reasonably fair representation of results you could get from the lens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom