Canon Telephoto Lens?

[Hugh Dannatt]

I was hoping for some advice as to which telephoto zoom lens I should buy for my rebel. I definitely want it to go up to 300mm, no more as it gets way too expensive. I am concerned because I had a go with a Sigma 70-300mm (a really cheap model) and was unable to get a single sharp picture at 300mm. Admittedly, the shutter speeds were rediculously slow, but I had the camera mounted to a tripod. I was wondering if this is the result of a cheap lens or bad technique? If it is because of the cheap lens, I was hoping for some buying advice!

I am looking at the Canon 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 USM, both IS and non-IS models. I don't think I really need the Image Stabiliser, however if it is going to sharpen my pictures up I am willing to pay £400 for it. I updated to the Rebel simply for better image quality, so I am prepared to pay extra to maintain it.

Thanks

 

[Fliparagon]

If you can find one, take a look at the Canon 100-300 5.6L. IT's an old Canon 'L' lens that is no longer in production and can be a real treausre if you can find one. I'm suggesting this one since this used lens falls into the price category you're mentioning. They're a bargain if you can find one. Optically, very sharp. Only draw back is no USM so it can be pretty slow to focus.

You can try KEH.com, B&H, or Adorama for used lenses.

I am looking at the Canon 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 USM, both IS and
non-IS models. I don't think I really need the Image Stabiliser,
however if it is going to sharpen my pictures up I am willing to
pay £400 for it. I updated to the Rebel simply for better image
quality, so I am prepared to pay extra to maintain it.

Thanks

--
Andre L. Aragon

 

[FrankieF21]

You can try KEH.com, B&H, or Adorama for used lenses.

I am looking at the Canon 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 USM, both IS and
non-IS models. I don't think I really need the Image Stabiliser,
however if it is going to sharpen my pictures up I am willing to
pay £400 for it. I updated to the Rebel simply for better image
quality, so I am prepared to pay extra to maintain it.

Thanks

--
Andre L. Aragon

I have the 75-300mm usm and it works fine but if you plane to use the full telephoto without a tripod go with the IS version. Even for general purposes i would go for the IS version if you can afford it. Hope that helped
--
Imagination is more important than knowledge...
Einstein

 

[Mark Marshall]

I'm assuming you meant the DL version. Even though Dwight upgraded his APO to a Canon IS, he as well as I and others have gotten sharp photos with our APOs @ 300mm. ~ m²

http://rhodeymark.instantlogic.com/PhotoGallery_Detail.ilx?idAlbum=%7b78F85B7B-9D4D-4205-A773-E47936EA32C3%7d&Page=10

I am concerned because I had a go with a Sigma 70-300mm (a really
cheap model) and was unable to get a single sharp picture at 300mm.

--

'Brothers and sisters, we've learned that there's some bad bokeh going around out there. So like, just be careful man, alright?' (If Wavy Gravy emceed PMA) http://rhodeymark.instantlogic.com

 

[CraigW48]

If you are interested here is a link to some direct from DR 75-300 IS photos. The original size was uploaded with no post processing.

http://www.pbase.com/craigw48/direct_from_rebel

Craig

 

[billybob_jcv]

I would make sure you get out in the sunshine on a good tripod and try some more tests. Give the lens another chance - I find it difficult to eliminate shake at 300mm, other folks have no problems, but it's hard for me. Use the shutter timer to further reduce shake and make sure the problem isn't DOF or focus point. If you can't get sharp photos like that, then look for another lens. If you can get sharp photos in the controlled environment, then you may want to use the cheap lens for a while to improve your techniques before spending more money.

I was hoping for some advice as to which telephoto zoom lens I
should buy for my rebel. I definitely want it to go up to 300mm, no
more as it gets way too expensive. I am concerned because I had a
go with a Sigma 70-300mm (a really cheap model) and was unable to
get a single sharp picture at 300mm. Admittedly, the shutter speeds
were rediculously slow, but I had the camera mounted to a tripod. I
was wondering if this is the result of a cheap lens or bad
technique? If it is because of the cheap lens, I was hoping for
some buying advice!

I am looking at the Canon 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 USM, both IS and
non-IS models. I don't think I really need the Image Stabiliser,
however if it is going to sharpen my pictures up I am willing to
pay £400 for it. I updated to the Rebel simply for better image
quality, so I am prepared to pay extra to maintain it.

Thanks

 

[Stan R.]

Craig,

Do you have any recollection of what time of day you took the photo of the deer? It looks like it was taken near sunrise or sunset . . . any idea how close in time (before or after) it was?

I'm considering buying this lens, but keep hearing that it is worthless at outdoor low-light shots. This picture appears to contradict that.

Thanks,
Stan

If you are interested here is a link to some direct from DR 75-300
IS photos. The original size was uploaded with no post processing.

http://www.pbase.com/craigw48/direct_from_rebel

Craig

 

[Dave Lewis]

I am looking at the Canon 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 USM, both IS and
non-IS models. I don't think I really need the Image Stabiliser,
however if it is going to sharpen my pictures up I am willing to
pay £400 for it. I updated to the Rebel simply for better image
quality, so I am prepared to pay extra to maintain it.

Thanks

I"ve had the cheap Sigma and the APO one that is a little more expensive and I even have another older cheap one coming from someone on ebay. I'll give it a try, Chances are it will be the fourth Sigma lens that I've found unsatisfactory.

I was able to get a few sharp pictures with the APO model, though the focus was so inconsistent it was a matter of luck most of the time. That and a zoom ring that was so tight toward to top end that I feared damaging the camera long term, made it a no go.

I have the Canon 75-300 IS model and can tell you there is a world of difference as far as consistent focus and image quality is concerned. It is not an L lens and is probably disappointing in comparison to my 70-200 f4 L lens, but it cost a little more than half as much and has that extra 100mm and IS. Now IS will get you the picture when you will miss it with a standard lens. Images at full open and a 30th of a second are possible, especially with a monopod. If you can justify the extra money the Canon lens is an obvious choice.

I've seen some good images from the various Sigma 70-300 lenses on here but they surely haven't come from my camera with those lenses. As I said above, I have a DL lens coming, probably by the end of this coming week. It might well be a good one. If it is, great. If it isn't, it will go back on ebay where it came from.
--
Dave Lewis

 

[CraigW48]

Going back to the EXIF data that I have on the Deer it was taken Nov 19 2003 at 15:24. The deer was in the tree line of a wooded area so was in the shadows, It was taken looking west. This was along the Missouri river about 30 miles north of Omaha. In general it was a nice sunny day. All the other photos, except airplane, were taken the same day at the zoo in Omaha. As you can see some were with flash, built in on DR, some indoors and some out.

I do like the lens, it is a lot smaller and lighter than the 70-200 IS or 100-400 IS as well as costing less so am more willing to carry it. My biggest concern with it is speed of and hunting for focus in low or poor light or tracking a bird in flight (poor contrast small target). But then the auto focus speed of the L zooms tends to spoil me.
I am also still new the the DR and have a lot to learn yet.
Hope this helps

Craig

Do you have any recollection of what time of day you took the photo
of the deer? It looks like it was taken near sunrise or sunset . .
. any idea how close in time (before or after) it was?

I'm considering buying this lens, but keep hearing that it is
worthless at outdoor low-light shots. This picture appears to
contradict that.

Thanks,
Stan

If you are interested here is a link to some direct from DR 75-300
IS photos. The original size was uploaded with no post processing.

http://www.pbase.com/craigw48/direct_from_rebel

Craig

 

[Stan R.]

Craig,

Thanks for providing that information; it is very helpful in enabling me to narrow down my choices. I guess the bottom line is, you always get what you pay for!

• Stan

Craig

Do you have any recollection of what time of day you took the photo
of the deer? It looks like it was taken near sunrise or sunset . .
. any idea how close in time (before or after) it was?

I'm considering buying this lens, but keep hearing that it is
worthless at outdoor low-light shots. This picture appears to
contradict that.

Thanks,
Stan

If you are interested here is a link to some direct from DR 75-300
IS photos. The original size was uploaded with no post processing.

http://www.pbase.com/craigw48/direct_from_rebel

Craig

 

[[email protected]]

I agree. You can get some sharp pics from Sigma 75-300APO but the percentage is very low due to the inconsistency. AF is slow. L lens is only way to go after you have taste of it. 70-200L/f4 is a good value lens.

I am looking at the Canon 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 USM, both IS and
non-IS models. I don't think I really need the Image Stabiliser,
however if it is going to sharpen my pictures up I am willing to
pay £400 for it. I updated to the Rebel simply for better image
quality, so I am prepared to pay extra to maintain it.

Thanks

I"ve had the cheap Sigma and the APO one that is a little more
expensive and I even have another older cheap one coming from
someone on ebay. I'll give it a try, Chances are it will be the
fourth Sigma lens that I've found unsatisfactory.

I was able to get a few sharp pictures with the APO model, though
the focus was so inconsistent it was a matter of luck most of the
time. That and a zoom ring that was so tight toward to top end that
I feared damaging the camera long term, made it a no go.

I have the Canon 75-300 IS model and can tell you there is a world
of difference as far as consistent focus and image quality is
concerned. It is not an L lens and is probably disappointing in
comparison to my 70-200 f4 L lens, but it cost a little more than
half as much and has that extra 100mm and IS. Now IS will get you
the picture when you will miss it with a standard lens. Images at
full open and a 30th of a second are possible, especially with a
monopod. If you can justify the extra money the Canon lens is an
obvious choice.

I've seen some good images from the various Sigma 70-300 lenses on
here but they surely haven't come from my camera with those lenses.
As I said above, I have a DL lens coming, probably by the end of
this coming week. It might well be a good one. If it is, great. If
it isn't, it will go back on ebay where it came from.
--
Dave Lewis