F
Francis
Guest
They sale for rather cheap on EBay... I wonder why ?
Any comments ?
Francis
Any comments ?
Francis
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Jeffrey Lazo
Veteran Member
http://search.dpreview.com/forums/search.asp?query=75-300mm&forum=1019&fields=all
--
--
Jeffrey Lazo
-Check out my D60 Galleries-
http://homepage.mac.com/lazoj
-Newbie Lens Information
http://homepage.mac.com/lazoj/lenses/lenses.html
Please don't use your local shops as 'Internet show-rooms'
http://www.photo101.com
--
--
Jeffrey Lazo
-Check out my D60 Galleries-
http://homepage.mac.com/lazoj
-Newbie Lens Information
http://homepage.mac.com/lazoj/lenses/lenses.html
Please don't use your local shops as 'Internet show-rooms'
http://www.photo101.com
about this lens and many other things.
It's a lens that has its good and bad points. Rather than rehash them in gory detail yet again, run a search on the lens and see what the various folks have had to say.
With that thought though, I'd be VERY cautious about buying a lens on eBay. Not that you necessarily would get scammed, but it can be difficult to evaluate and it's possible the person is getting rid of it because it's a "bad copy" -- i.e. one which is on the lower end of quality but still within the range considered "acceptable" by the manufacturer.
-- Lew
Any DSLR beats unexposed film.
It's a lens that has its good and bad points. Rather than rehash them in gory detail yet again, run a search on the lens and see what the various folks have had to say.
With that thought though, I'd be VERY cautious about buying a lens on eBay. Not that you necessarily would get scammed, but it can be difficult to evaluate and it's possible the person is getting rid of it because it's a "bad copy" -- i.e. one which is on the lower end of quality but still within the range considered "acceptable" by the manufacturer.
-- Lew
--
Any DSLR beats unexposed film.
Joe Wilson
Veteran Member
I wouldn't bother with this lens if you can wait. Save up some and get the 70-200 f4.
I had it and did just that and am much happier with the results now.
I had it and did just that and am much happier with the results now.
F
Francis
Guest
Need more comments !
Paul Grupp
Veteran Member
Hi Francis,
There's no doubt -- the 70-200mm L is a better optical performer -- the question is, what do you need? I've taken a LOT of pictures with the 75-300 IS, and while I am aware of its optical limitations, I'm happy with the results I've obtained. And because I find myself often using it at maximum zoom, I realize that a 70-200mm, while a superior lens technically, would ultimately frustrate me because it lacks the reach of the 75-300.
The sharpest 200mm in the world is of no use if what you really need to get the shot is a 300mm. If your photography gives you the luxury of simply moving closer, than maybe you don't need a 300mm.
http://www.pbase.com/image/5314945
With my interest in concert photography, I'm inevitably going to end up with a 300mm f/2.8. When I finally get the funds in one place to get that lens, PLUS something shorter and faster like the 135mm f2, and god knows, probably the 70-200 f/2.8L as well, I'll gladly put the 75-300 up on EBAY. But until that day, for 10% of the cost of the 300mm f/2.8, I'm getting some good pictures and learning my craft.
Regards,
Paul
There's no doubt -- the 70-200mm L is a better optical performer -- the question is, what do you need? I've taken a LOT of pictures with the 75-300 IS, and while I am aware of its optical limitations, I'm happy with the results I've obtained. And because I find myself often using it at maximum zoom, I realize that a 70-200mm, while a superior lens technically, would ultimately frustrate me because it lacks the reach of the 75-300.
The sharpest 200mm in the world is of no use if what you really need to get the shot is a 300mm. If your photography gives you the luxury of simply moving closer, than maybe you don't need a 300mm.
http://www.pbase.com/image/5314945
With my interest in concert photography, I'm inevitably going to end up with a 300mm f/2.8. When I finally get the funds in one place to get that lens, PLUS something shorter and faster like the 135mm f2, and god knows, probably the 70-200 f/2.8L as well, I'll gladly put the 75-300 up on EBAY. But until that day, for 10% of the cost of the 300mm f/2.8, I'm getting some good pictures and learning my craft.
Regards,
Paul
That_One_Guy
Forum Enthusiast
You get what you pay for.... And from what I have seen, it is a bad lens.......this in the opinion from a guy who shoots with L's and Primes.....who makes money with his equipment......and never wastes film or CF space on shooting his pets.....so take it or leave it...
--
http://www.onemodelplace.com/photographer_list.cfm?P_ID=6108
drip
Veteran Member
I just return this lens to B&H and exchange for the IS version. You'll find camera shake is severe at full zoom because you'll need
Image quality is not as bad as some pros say. Good enough for beginner like myself.
--
Brian
D60 and no L lenses
http://www.pbase.com/drip
Ben Taylor
Active member
Interesting and frank post John_Paul. I have this lens and most of my shots with it were never right on. Same shots with my 50-500 Sigma leave me breathless. I'm going to sell it cheap. It hits now and then but not often enough to--as you say--waste film or CF card space.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum