TyphoonTW

Senior Member
Messages
1,484
Solutions
1
Reaction score
1,163
Location
Yilan, TW
c9fd478ac5a343998ce89a7ce864922b.jpg

f5a2438429444d79919ab76416734e55.jpg

bafc1039081d450189055313461950a0.jpg

4732768bc27c41b0840b3aa96ff532e7.jpg

9c17daa48c474d439b4fa5e340d37d8b.jpg

39c540b0fea44114b26b37c6fdd01941.jpg

e2347ad1a14a4101aa32964aee2f1d60.jpg

3ceff5d645274421bd194c3f6dade921.jpg

3536ed06f04145318bc0ba94bada2059.jpg

That's not a typo in the title, I really used the Canon 90-300mm. I got it for around 30$ from a local seller after trying it on my 6D, the Af was working fine and I thought that for 30$ I wasn't really going to worry about IQ.

This morning I had to go to Taipei for some business, and I carried with me that old zoom as well as a 50mm prime, but eventually I spent the whole time using just the zoom.

Optically speaking there's nothing that makes me think:"Oh wow, this lens is much better than expected!". It's soft wide open, soft stepped down. Using the words of a wise man, "it vignettes like a mofo" and "it distorts like a mofo", and I couldn't find a lens profile on DxO. Pretty much what I was expecting from an old zoom lens that has never had a great reputation to begin with.

But I enjoyed using it. It always gives me a warm feeling inside when I can give "new life" to something that other people are not using. Apparently this lens has been in a drybox for ages because it looks like new, and it well deserved a second chance.

5f47263f72ef4c9984421d2a7e1342d6.jpg

I was very surprised by the Af. I tested it on cars, motorcycles, bicycles, and even on flying plastic bags. We've had a very windy afternoon, so that plastic bag was flying around pretty quickly but the lens got it in focus almost immediately. The Af worked a bit like a diesel, so if it was very far from being correct it would feel very sluggish, but as it approached the correct focus it got much faster and always very precise.

A zoom with this range, decent Af and peanut-price is great for me. It's not a range that I use often, so being able to take the shot is more important than having good optics, and it later on I'll buy a good telephoto lens like a 70-300 L or a 100-400, the 90-300 could be a backup on which I spent next to nothing.

no idea why DP show all that artifacting at the bottom, it's pitch black on my pc.
no idea why DP show all that artifacting at the bottom, it's pitch black on my pc.

Apparently this lens also worked as a lucky charm, this was the first enjoyable sunset in ages.

If anyone is curious: yes, I went to "Camera street", but they mostly sell new products at regular prices, and if I want to order some grey market item imported from Hong Kong I can do it from the town where I live, so no deals to be had for me.

And nice try to the tagging system of this forum for trying to auto-tag 3 Sony lenses on this thread. Spot on!

--
This is where I write stuff: http://randomibis.wordpress.com/
This is where I upload stuff: http://www.flickr.com/photos/107755637@N06/
Canon 6D + 50mm f1.8 STM + 85mm f1.8 + Samyang 14mm F2.8 + 17-40mm F4
Canon SX 50
 
Last edited:
Nr 4 & 8
Great !
Reshoot with decent stuff ;-)
 
Nicely done!

Just shows that a good eye and technique matters as much or more than the lens. :-D

I think the EF 90-300 suffers from the reputation of the more widely available EF 75-300s of the same era. While the optical summary is the same (13 elements in 9 groups), the 90-300 was not just a 75-300 with truncated zoom but was a completely different lens.

EF 75-300 f/4-5.6 III

EF 75-300 f/4-5.6 III

EF 90-300 f/4.5-5.6

EF 90-300 f/4.5-5.6





--
Unapologetic Canon Apologist :-)
 
Maybe I should post an unedited raw, to show you the horror xD
 
Very nice shots, the composition and colours are particularly good; perfect example of "it's the photographer, not the gear".
 
Nice shots with your "senior citizen". I picked up an EF 50-200mm f3.5-4.5L lens on eBay several months ago. It focuses slowly and loudly, but accurately, and the front element rotates during focusing. But it takes really nice pictures on my 6D. Canon currently makes no lens like this for full frame and it only cost me $319. Sometimes the older equipment fills a nice gap in our lens lineups.
 
Sometimes the older equipment fills a nice gap in our lens lineups.
And the awesome part is that it's often very cheap!

I don't often need a "walk around zoom", but I'm looking for one of the older Canon kit lenses or 28-105/135 zooms because they can be had for really low prices. As a spare lens that I don't plan to use too often, those kinds of older zooms would be perfect. I got a Sigma 28-80 f2.8/4, but since it's a 3rd party lens it doesn't work well on modern cameras (err 01 on my 6D, which is very annoying because it would have been good enough for me as a walkaround lens), so I'll reverse it and use it as a 5$ macro lens.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top