The magic of the EF 75-300mm

Hi!

Back in 2006 I became obsessed with photography and subscribed to a digital photo magazine, and I did learn a lot from them, but an actual DSLR back then was out of my reach financial-wise so I had to put my dream down up until the point where 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.

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. 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.
I was foolish enough to give it to my cousin a year ago, and now looking back at my photos everything done with the other lenses seem ordinary, dull.........the images do have the perfect exposure, nice compositions and all of them are sharper than the 75-300, but all of them lack something that was worth experimenting with the T5. I feel stupid, but I can't just go back to my cousin and ask him if he could give me back his birthday gift. What if that particular 75-300 had the perfect focus that is not true for the majority of 75-300 owners? What made me love the images more than with the rest of my lens collection? Granted, the bokeh is one thing I noticed, but the majority of my shots were between 75-115 mm, and don't tell me the 55-250 couldn't match that bokeh all zoomed in with a subject.
Should I buy another EF zoom lens for my crop? What are the chances of getting a dud like I did with the nifty fifty? What are your experiences with this lense? Should I consider the IS version (think it's 70-300?) of this lense?
Thanks very much and apology for making this so long-winded!

I used to have a 75-300.  I found it to be a very mediocre lens, and would never buy another one.  It wasn't too bad if I had a ton of light, but after I used a EF 70-300 IS for the first time I never wanted to use the 75-300 again.

If you were anywhere near the Rockford/Chicago area I'd be willing to meet and let you try my 70-300.  It's for sale as well.

Having said all that, if you really love the 75-300, you should be able to find new and/or used ones at a good price.

karl mohr wrote:

I used to have a 75-300. I found it to be a very mediocre lens, and would never buy another one. It wasn't too bad if I had a ton of light, but after I used a EF 70-300 IS for the first time I never wanted to use the 75-300 again.

If you were anywhere near the Rockford/Chicago area I'd be willing to meet and let you try my 70-300. It's for sale as well.

Having said all that, if you really love the 75-300, you should be able to find new and/or used ones at a good price.

I'm going to get a focus calibration tool (something like this video), then test all my lenses as well as borrow my cousin's. It has to be the creamier bokeh that makes me love that lense so much, and it has to be the strong contrast that makes me dislike the 55-250 IS STM.
I could just move up to x0D series and have AFMA, then buy whichever lense I want. Decisions, decisions... problem is I'm not a fan of today's DSLR-s because of the huge emphasis on video recording, whereas I'm just a simple guy and want to take photos with my camera. Maybe I should get a 60D or a 70D instead of the 80D? I heard that the previous models have worse low pass filter, which would come in handy because I love shooting architecture and landscapes. (p.s. wish I could meet up and try that lens, but I live far away from you). [wrong video, sorry. Here it is: video

I've would never recommend this lens as a general rule, but if you really have your heart set on getting another one check the Canon refurb site.  $69.00

http://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/ef-75-300mm-f-4-56-iii-telephoto-zoom-refurbished

This looks like a deal hard to refuse, if this is the lens you really want.  I've bought off the refurb site recently and highly recommend it.  It would probably be a new lens that was separated out of a kit.

One caveat on the refurb, this is a sale, ending July 30.  If you want it at the $69 price, I'd order it today or tomorrow.

RAW, untouched >>> JPEG (EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 iii) Canon T5

Notice the smooth, dreamy background? Couldn't have achieved this with the 50-250 IS STM.
RAW, PP in PS, Camera Raw >>> JPEG (EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 iii) Canon T5

RAW, PP in PS, Camera Raw >>> JPEG (EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 iii) Canon T5

This is when I fell in love with this lens, and that's the magic I'm talking about. That creamy bokeh cannot be replicated with the nifty250.
RAW, PP in PS, Camera Raw >>> JPEG (EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 iii) Canon T5

Comparison F5.6, 50-250mm (~ 250mm) notice the dark, busy and unappealing background, but the subject is SHARP.
RAW, untouched >>> JPEG (EF-s 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM) Canon T5

Comparison F5.6, 75-300 (~250 mm) notice the creamy background where the background stays serene, light, but the 75-300 shows it's bad IQ without stopping down.
RAW, untouched >>> JPEG (EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 iii ) Canon T5

Notice how the foreground slowly sneaks up towards the center of the image, drawing attention on the subject. If I made this shot with the 50-250 IS STM, then the foreground would be contrasty, busy..... the whole pic would be sharp as can be, lacking charm.
RAW, untouched, Camera Raw >>> JPEG (EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 iii) Canon T5

Basically I can't find the terminology for what I'm looking for. Why is the bokeh so smooth and creamy? Does the e.g. 70-300 IS USM perform similarly? What are specific properties of a lens that I should look for to achieve this (electronics, blades, AF motor, coating? I'm completely clueless).
Hope this will clear things up and sorry about the mass confusion.

I've had both, and prefer the 55-250 STM, but you and I have different needs.  Just goes to show you there really isn't one "perfect" lens for everyone!

You can't really beat the price for the refurb 75-300 right now!

Nice pics, by the way!

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).

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!

kodakrome wrote:

If you think you want to take another shot at a 50 - you might be happy with the new STM version. Focus is improved and the bokeh isn't bad. One thing you don't like about the 55-250 is that it seems kind of lifeless to you. To me, the 50 STM doesn't suffer from that problem at all. The images seem to have a nice pop to them.

I love the nifty-fifty! Especially when it works, lol. I'll definetly order the STM version. It's even cheaper than the old version!

This is the best comparison I could find: link

I'm really confused... I remember the tones, the exposue, details and bokeh of the 75-300 iii, and it's just like that. It seems like the lens is producing some kind of CPL effect without any filter physically put on? Notice how the subject is nicely exposed, but the background is darkish. DO IS similarly exposed on subject, but background is much brighter. Just like with the 55-250. If only I knew the terminology, or the reason why this is happening, then maybe I could find a lens with similar bokeh as well as I wouldn't have to settle using a 75-300 lens between 75-150 due to the unaccaptable IQ past that FL. If all else fails, then I'll carry both 75-300 and 55-250 with myself and be a happy camper.

SteveHU89 wrote:

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!

Thank you.  Yup, there's a whole lot that goes into lens bokeh.  Truly, the best way I've found to predict/evaluate bokeh is to simply check pictures. 

Here's a great image-hosting site that can help with that...

500px

It's searchable by keyword!

R2

SteveHU89 wrote:

This is the best comparison I could find: link

I'm really confused... I remember the tones, the exposue, details and bokeh of the 75-300 iii, and it's just like that. It seems like the lens is producing some kind of CPL effect without any filter physically put on? Notice how the subject is nicely exposed, but the background is darkish. DO IS similarly exposed on subject, but background is much brighter.

Nope, no Voodoo going on with those test pictures. 

It's simply that the background lighting (exposure) is different.  Note that the author even makes mention of that. 

You're still sane,

R2

R2D2 wrote:

SteveHU89 wrote:

This is the best comparison I could find: link

I'm really confused... I remember the tones, the exposue, details and bokeh of the 75-300 iii, and it's just like that. It seems like the lens is producing some kind of CPL effect without any filter physically put on? Notice how the subject is nicely exposed, but the background is darkish. DO IS similarly exposed on subject, but background is much brighter.

Nope, no Voodoo going on with those test pictures.

It's simply that the background lighting (exposure) is different. Note that the author even makes mention of that.

You're still sane,

R2

Yes, I see that the non-IS shot underexposed a little bit. It seems the images with my 75-300 were either under- or over exposed, but still gave satisfactory results (for my taste). One thing keeps me wondering is the sample I posted above with the tree in the center; same aperture for both, (although I shot both in Program mode) but one key difference is the visible circle in the bokeh (due to the apperature blades?).

These are the last comparison shots I got. First one is the 55-250 IS STM, and the second one is the EF 75-300 III.
I tried to match the STM lens shot according to the 75-300. As usual, the STM was a bit underexposed, while the other lens wasn't. The EF lens shot had to be sharpened while the STM lens sample didn't. See the bokeh for yourself and tell me if I'm crazy and need glasses (because I'm starting to think I do!). 
- 55-250 mm IS STM: increased exposure, -15 saturation (this make a big difference in trying to replicate the EF lens images, all of them).
- EF 75-300 III: heavy sharpening around the edges of the subject. No other PP was done.

Finally managed to get a hold of my old 75-300. After using the STM lens for so long, the most obvious thing I noticed is the worse macro, thus I had to move way back and zoom in more to get a good shot.

But back to the topic. I'll try to explain this to the best of my knowledge, so here goes:

When I focus on a subject (let's say a toothbrush laying on top of a sink), then if we take 75mm FL for both with same settings, standing at the same distance, then the MK iii better isolates the subject. The STM lens will be sharp on subject, but other things will be sharp around it as well. However the Mk iii is sharp on the subject, but it isolates it much better. It's like what some people would refer to as "3D". Now before you yell at me saying IT'S APERTURE DUMMY! please note that I have a nifty fifty and used it for the sole purpose of isolation.

Anyways, I couldn't recreate the effect in PS no matter what. And yes I'm aware of the F4.0 vs F4.5, but still....... I tried to think maybe it has to do with the STM's superior macro capabilities or it's the IS (which turned out false as On and Off produced no difference at all in IQ) or the type of glasses the lens has..... so I'm starting to give up.

Go and take a picture (RAW) with a 350D at the lowest ISO settings, in daylight. Go into Photoshop and apply heavy sharpening. Now take a 750D and shoot the same subject with the same AP, ISO, daylight etc., but without touching Photoshop.

Now compare the end results side-by-side from a far distance. The 350D will have that WOW factor, and the 750D will seem a bit more soft. As you start to get closer you'll quickly realize that the tides have turned. The 350D is basically an oversharpened mess, while the 750D brings in more and more detail with each step. So the MK iii feels higher MP to me.

I guess that's the way I could best describe these two lenses. This wasn't intended to be an STM zoom lens bash, so I apologize if it looks like it. The 55-250 IS STM is brutal sharp, but the 75-300 seems to appear higher resolution, more detailed, and better isolates a subject, but it's quite soft an unusable over 200-250 mm. Let's not even mention the lack of IS. Does that make sense?

SteveHU89 wrote:

Now compare the end results side-by-side from a far distance. The 350D will have that WOW factor, and the 750D will seem a bit more soft. As you start to get closer you'll quickly realize that the tides have turned. The 350D is basically an oversharpened mess, while the 750D brings in more and more detail with each step.

I'm with you.  I'm a pragmatist, so it's the end results (images) that count.  I've shot all manner of equipment over the years, from cheap to very expensive, and I believe if a piece of equipment suits your purposes, then that's the one to go with!  (It's also pretty darn satisfying when your camera likes to over-achieve  )...

She was leaning on me looking up into my eyes.  My camera at arm's length, shooting blind.  Ancient 1.3 MP P&S!

Happy shooting!

R2

I will end this debate with the following observations:

1. The 75-300 has almost non-existent vignetting compared to the STM.

2. The 75-300's out of focus area (bokeh) is much more pleasing to my eyes.

3. Sounds weird, but the pictures seem to have better dynamic range with the 75-300 (or it's just a better optimized lens for my T5? doesn't make sense).

4. I find that the closest I can get to match the STM lens overall IQ is by turning down the highlights in ACR.

5. The 75-300 produces much finer noise. I'd call it film grain. After shooting outdoors and using ISO 1600 the images are pleasing. With the STM lens if I'd shoot the same thing with lower ISO (e.g. 400 where you can start to notice some noise), then I'd be fussing. I just realized that the way noise is presented on an image is much more important to me, than the amount of noise. For me the MK iii seems to shine in this area the most, out of all the other points.

6. CA looks worse on the 75-300.

7. Yes, the STM lens is sharper. Although there are 1-2 samples with the mk iii where the opposite is true, but most of the time that isn't the case.

8. The 75-300 has no IS. Zoomed in to 250+ with a shutter speed of 1/500 I had images that were blurry. I'm used to the STM lens and this feels much heavier. I would never buy a tele lens the size of the MK iii without IS!

The magic definetly lies in the vignetting (both produce vignetting, but the MK iii produces a more old-skool, more natural and pleasing one), bokeh and the (lack of) corner sharpness.

I'm giving this old girl back to her new owner, and saving up for the image stabilized Sigma 70-200 as well as a better camera. Until then I'll keep using the STM lens which is still better overall than the MK iii. Hey, I use it more often than the nifty fifty and the kit 18-55, so that should tell you something; the IQ is superior.

Thanks for reading!

Nevermind. The greatest difference between them that I cannot match in camera raw is the color noise. Seems the STM suffers with severe color noise in a very destructive way. If it wouldn't, the old MK iii would not stand a chance. I'm starting to wonder if I have a got a bad copy of the STM lens...