The magic of the EF 75-300mm

R2D2 wrote:

SteveHU89 wrote:

Hi!

Hi Steve,

Welcome to the Forum! It's great fun to be around other folks who share the same passions as you do. Awfully glad you posted.

my wife surprised me with a I grey market Canon T5 with all the bells and whistles, 18-55 mm kit lens (that I barely used) and an EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 iii.

I bet she felt even more pleased than you! Nothing like gifting (photography) to another person.

Later on I purchased a 55-250mm IS STM, then a nifty fifty. The prime lens came with the usual front focusing issues making 1 or 2 shots worthy out of 10, but when I nail the focus it really is pleasing to the eye.

I had 2 copies of the 50mm f/1.8 II. One was definitely better than the other, but both were hard to trust. I highly recommend replacing yours with the new 50 STM, as the autofocus is vastly improved. I trust it implicitly. Very nice lens.

The 55-250 takes stunning images with all the sharpness needed to cut your eyeball out, focuses faster than the rest of my lenses, focuses accurately and does this quietly. It is the lens I use most often, BUT and this is a huge but, it lacks life. I don't know how to put it, it just seems lifeless just like the rest of my lenses. It doesn't have that magic that the EF 75-300mm has.

The phenomenon of the "Magic Lens" is certainly not new to the world of photography. Over the decades there have been quite a few lenses that have earned this moniker, many of which wouldn't stand a chance spec-wise against today's astronomical MTF curves.

One past Canon zoom telephoto in this category was the "Magic Drainpipe" (the venerable Canon 80-200 f/2.8). Just a great lens in its day, but easily surpassed in capabilities by modern telephoto zooms. Note: it was replaced by the 70-200 f/2.8 L (non-IS) which is a great lens in its own right.

Most of the "magic" lenses tend(ed) to be primes though, and one of the primary reasons was for their outstanding Bokeh characteristics. A trait you've been seeing in the 75-300. To be honest, I've shot with the 75-300 IS USM (mostly birds and birds in flight), and it was not very well suited to that. Quite poor actually (and for all the reasons that others have mentioned above).

But your uses have been different, which can account for a lot. Mostly it looks like you've been using it in its mid focal lengths on mid-range subjects, where it is strongest (IQ-wise). Your images are testament to that (thanks for posting these BTW). Without your samples, I would have remained very skeptical myself.

One of the reasons that prime lenses are often sought out is for their bokeh. Sure, not all primes are great in this regard, but I think that the smaller number of lens elements plays a significant part in determining the nature of the bokeh. For instance one of the lenses I just adore is the very simple Canon 400mm f/5.6L, and its smooth bokeh is one of its best attributes (IMHO)...

400 f/5.6L

One reason I think is that it only has 7 elements (which incidentally also cuts down on flare and veiling glare). 10 fewer elements than the very popular 100-400, and a whopping 18 fewer than the new 200-400 zoom (even without the 200-400's built-in TC thrown in). I was lucky enough to take the 200-400 for a test drive when it first came out, and even though the ($11,000) lens was clearly superior to the 400 in many ways, I still preferred the little 400's bokeh. Nice and smooth instead of full of little donut rings (personal preference of course). The 400's bokeh is also superior (again IMHO) to the 100-400's bokeh (both versions).

So I think that you are onto something here with your 75-300. If it is producing the images you prefer, I say go for it. See if you can get another great copy of it. I owned the much maligned 18-55 IS II kit lens a while back, but my copy turned out being way way above average. I missed it when I sold it with my 30D...

18-55 kit lens sample. Click on "original size"

What if that particular 75-300 had the perfect focus that is not true for the majority of 75-300 owners?

So maybe you'll get lucky again and find another excellent copy. From the wonderful photos you've posted, I think it would be well worth it.

One last note: If you have been using a filter on your lens, then I'd advise removing it, as they've been known to make the bokeh busier, especially with zoom telephotos!

Best of luck to you, and happy shooting!

R2

ps. More samples from many lenses, bodies, and cameras in my galleries (link in my sig).

Hi R2D2! Thanks for the encouraging words. So, I've read about the new STM version of the 50 prime and planned to buy one in the future. You are not alone with the spectacular 18-55mm kit lens. From the specs and user reviews I've came to the conclusion that mine is visibly "outperforming" the average kit lens. However I rarely use it. It wasn't long ago when I was all about sharpness, sharpness, sharpness...pixelpeeping lens samples (that's why I decided to get myself the 55-250 IS STM and it lives up to the hype), but photography is not only about sharpness, but a story to tell. I'm a firm believer that the EF 75-300mm III was and is a "story teller" lens LOL.

I think you are onto something. Found a thread here "I understand that Bokeh is also related to the MTF performance. If the sagittal and meridonial lines are close together the out of focus areas are "better". I am not sure how this relates to number of aperture blades."

Also I found lots and lots of (dubious?) stuff regarding bokeh and the number/quality of the blades. The number of blades may or may not matter. As a general rule they say the more the merrier, but both the 75-300 and 55-250 STM have 7 blades.
Anyways, see if you can open this and click the specifications tab. It's a comparison between the zooms we talked about. Note that the IS USM model was set to FF.
By the way I mostly used the sweet spot on the EF 75-300. Whenever I went over 170 mm the lack of IS was bothersome. Over 250 mm non-hand held, and the IQ resembled of a 15 years old point and shoot.
Great shot with the 400 L by the way!