Massively mediocre and cheap zoom with wildlife reach ruined by chromatic aberration

[jerclarke]

This lens has many problems that make it frustrating to use. It is probably the cheapest access to 480mm equivalent reach, but much better options are available from Canon for only slightly more money.

It has terrible chromatic aberrations giving thick, vibrant green and purple fringing on high contrast areas. I am into birds and hoped this lens would give me good closeups, but any time the sky has sticks in front of it the aberrations get grazy. These aberrations are corrected via optics and coatings and all the new tech of higher quality lenses, this lens is not up to Canon's usual standards.




Demo of the insane chromatic aberrations this lens gives when you mix branches and sky.



I was given this lens by my brother who got an 18-135mm and didn't think he'd need his long zoom any more. He says he got the 75-300mm as part of a Rebel kit where the lens was basically thrown in for free. I can imagine why they were trying to get rid of these and/or needed a super-cheaply-produced zoom to promote kit sales. Either way this is a lens with a lot of compromises.

The "USM" (ultra-sonic motor) designation on this lens is misleading, as USM usually implies high-quality focusing mechanisms that are quiet and fast. The focusing on this lens feels worse than the 18-55mm kit lens from the same era and I often have to use manual focus because aiming with the focus points just won't latch onto things below them. On my Rebel 450D the "50mm f/1.8 II" lens has much better success using focus points than this lens. The focusing motor on this lens is not silent, it makes plastic whirring and clunking sounds that are fairly loud.

In this lens's favor the manual focus ring is decent and allows precise focussing (though it still has a bit too much play). I find it better than the famously awful focus rings on the 18-55mm kit lenses and 50mm f/1.8 II. Given that modern DSLRs are not well equipped for manual focussing in general I don't think having a decent focus ring is enough of a solution to the AF problems in this lens.

The lack of image stabilization (IS) on a lens this long is another big problem. Every single other Telephoto Zoom made by Canon has IS and it's not a coincidence. IS is needed to avoid camera shake at the long end of zooms because they are inherently shaky. Ancient wisdom tells us that shutter speed should always be at least as high as the focal length to get a stable shot, so at 300mm you are unable to get crisp shots at 1/100s that would have been fine at 55mm . IS is always worth it on long zooms, this lens should have it but doesn't.

Canon's lineup on their Canada website:

http://www.canon.ca/inetCA/subCategoryHome?msegid=2&catid=17&scatid=72

If you're like me and this is your only lens with the long reach then make the most of it! I get some great images off it and currently it's my only way to even hope for good bird shots. Chromatic aberrations degrade image quality in some cases, but most people won't notice them. Try your hand at manual focus with it!

If you are considering buying this lens then you probably should find something else. The Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4.0-5.6 IS seems like the logical choice if you are using an APS-C camera and is only 50$ more expensive. It has slightly less reach at the long end but 55mm at the short end makes the lens more useful for mixing in portraits or other general photography. The IS will help your photography immensely unless you always use a tripod. There are various versions of the 55-250mm at different prices, but even the first one, released in 2007, has positive reviews on this site.

If you have a full frame camera then it's hard to imagine you are even considering this lens

Here are some heavily post-processed (and cropped) photos taken with this lens and my 450D:

 

[rrccad]

This lens has many problems that make it frustrating to use. It is probably the cheapest access to 480mm equivalent reach, but much better options are available from Canon for only slightly more money.

it's .. 220 bucks for a full frame telephoto zoom, brand new from BH. what would you expect?

i'd like to know the much better options for slightly more money that is full frame. the next lens for canon is the $650 70-300mm

you get what you pay for

 

[Wayne Larmon]

This lens has many problems that make it frustrating to use. It is probably the cheapest access to 480mm equivalent reach, but much better options are available from Canon for only slightly more money.

it's .. 220 bucks for a full frame telephoto zoom, brand new from BH. what would you expect?

i'd like to know the much better options for slightly more money that is full frame. the next lens for canon is the $650 70-300mm

you get what you pay for

"480mm equivalent reach" does not imply full frame. For crop, there is the Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS II Lens ($299.00) and the STM version: Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM Lens ($349.00) These are both better.

It is worth warning others. A lot of people with crop cameras buy the 75-300mm lens. On purpose.

Friends don't let friends buy the 75-300mm lens.

Wayne

 

[gatorowl]

This lens has many problems that make it frustrating to use. It is probably the cheapest access to 480mm equivalent reach, but much better options are available from Canon for only slightly more money.

it's .. 220 bucks for a full frame telephoto zoom, brand new from BH. what would you expect?

i'd like to know the much better options for slightly more money that is full frame. the next lens for canon is the $650 70-300mm

you get what you pay for

Tamron 70-300mm VC for $391 on Amazon.com. Many argue that it's better than either the Cano or Nikon version, which means that it's in that class rather than the low-rent 75-300mm class.

 

[diness]

That may be true, but it doesn't mean it should get a good review just because it's cheap. It's not a great lens, and people should know that and know that saving up for something else is worth it. I thought it was a well written review with some great examples!

 

[rrccad]

That may be true, but it doesn't mean it should get a good review just because it's cheap. It's not a great lens, and people should know that and know that saving up for something else is worth it. I thought it was a well written review with some great examples!

it shouldn't get such a bad review because a) it doesn't have IS . guess what.. it's cheap .. b) because it has CA (which is in camera correctable in alot of canon cameras .. and certainly in post)

it's certainly a buyer beware lens, however, your expectations were slightly flawed if you can pick up the cheapest telephoto that canon issues and expect miracles.

 

[AOKH]

That may be true, but it doesn't mean it should get a good review just because it's cheap. It's not a great lens, and people should know that and know that saving up for something else is worth it. I thought it was a well written review with some great examples!

it shouldn't get such a bad review because a) it doesn't have IS . guess what.. it's cheap .. b) because it has CA (which is in camera correctable in alot of canon cameras .. and certainly in post)

it's certainly a buyer beware lens, however, your expectations were slightly flawed if you can pick up the cheapest telephoto that canon issues and expect miracles.

I'm with diness on this one. Best to call it what it is. One can add qualifiers such as low price, but ultimately a lens (or any other product) must be reviewed on its own merits (or lack thereof!).

 

[lumigraphics]

I use this lens on my 6D. Stopped down, it's actually pretty sharp. I have no interest in birding and don't need longer focal lengths. For landscapes I'm more likely to use my Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 which has terrific IQ and is much faster, although I don't do a lot of telephoto images outdoors. For my work with models using studio flash, I can stop down to f/11 and get great results with the Canon, and the handling is much better because it's much smaller and lighter.

I got my copy used from a camera store for $125. At some point I'd like to replace it with the DO lens to get IS but I'm saving for a 16-35 first.

 

[sixtiesphotographer]

Heh heh heh - I think I'm the only person that likes this lens; I gave it three stars.

I've used it on film bodies with moderate enlargements. It's ok, not great, but I guess I enjoy the challenge of getting good images with it.
--
"Anything more than 500 yards from the car just isn't photogenic." - Edward Weston

 

[lumigraphics]

The CA was easily fixable in Aperture. This is sharp enough for my use, certainly. I consider the lens to be a pretty good bargain, all things considered. Shot handheld with studio flash, BTW.

--
David M. Converse
Lumigraphics

Lumigraphics

http://lumigraphics.tumblr.com 18+
http://www.modelmayhem.com/328211 18+

 

[jerclarke]

it's .. 220 bucks for a full frame telephoto zoom, brand new from BH. what would you expect?

i'd like to know the much better options for slightly more money that is full frame. the next lens for canon is the $650 70-300mm

An interesting reply no doubt. While considering this lens I just assumed that no one who paid over $2k for an ultra-powerful camera would debase it with this lens, but you make an excellent point.

For someone who spent all their money on a 5DIII and just needs a long zoom occasionally this is the only affordable option because of Canon's selective/manipulative pricing differences between EF and EF-S.

FWIW though here's the 70-300 IS USM for $468: http://www.amazon.com/Canon-EF-70-3...8&qid=1393252477&sr=8-1&keywords=canon+70-300

 

[jerclarke]

The CA was easily fixable in Aperture. This is sharp enough for my use, certainly. I consider the lens to be a pretty good bargain, all things considered. Shot handheld with studio flash, BTW.

Okay well your photo does look good. I guess some of the big issues with this lens aren't as rampant if you are in a studio situation rather than involving the sky. Also your point about weight is a good one. This is my only long telephoto lens so I have no real comparison, but overall it's up there with the 50mm f/1.8 in terms of lightness-to-volume.

FWIW though, maybe it's my lack of experience with studio shooting, but why not use the 50mm f/1.8 for such studio shots? In my experience it's sharp as hell and the 85mm-equivalent view is plenty zoomed in to not be in your model's face (as well as being on the right side of wide angle to get a flattering lack of distortion). It's also the lightest lens Canon makes if that was your concern

I'd assume almost everyone would buy the 50mm f/1.8 first to get low-light shooting, so why buy the 75-300mm unless you need the 75+ range? The 50mm is cheaper and is excellent for a lot of other uses.

Either way I'm glad that like me many of you are finding good uses for this lens. I hope my review conveyed the fact that it's not useless, just flawed and undesirable as a purchase.

On the subject of the color fringing corrections: Yes you can "fix" it in Aperture/Lightroom, but fix isn't the right word for it! Really what you're doing is "compensating" for it by altering your image to hide the problem, but in the process you're losing tons of data that would have been saved by a better lens. Go back to the demo I assembled and look at the branches after correction: They are all hazy and vague because they've had half their color (which was in the wrong place) removed. When the problem gets bad it hurts your image in ways that can't be fully repaired.

 

[lumigraphics]

I actually have a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 which has MUCH better IQ than the 75-300, almost no CA or purple haze, etc. But, its three times the weight (at least) and much more fatiguing to use. Part of working with your gear is knowing how to get the best from it. I also have a 24-105 f/4L that I use for wider shots obviously.

Outdoors, I would use the Sigma for anything telephoto and probably a monopod or tripod. I shot medium format film for years so I'm not that sensitive to weight.

 

[Endrick Man]

To the OP, don't think anybody else has raised this but when you have the CA problem with this lens are you using a filter as a filter can add to the CA problem? Among other lenses I use the Canon 17-85 and that gives me some CA problems in the circumstances you have shown but I always try to remember to remove the UV filter before shooting into the light and when I do the CA is much less severe.

 

[bigfatron]

To the OP, don't think anybody else has raised this but when you have the CA problem with this lens are you using a filter as a filter can add to the CA problem? Among other lenses I use the Canon 17-85 and that gives me some CA problems in the circumstances you have shown but I always try to remember to remove the UV filter before shooting into the light and when I do the CA is much less severe.

I was given this lens as a freebie when I first started out. Its only redeeming feature was I got pretty much the UK street price for it when I ebayed it, despite it being a few years old. The CA the OP refers to is entirely consistent with what I found with this lens, and mine never had a filter near it.

One other observation i'd make about it is it's so light that it was actually hard to keep stable at 300mm.