canon lenses

G

gboy

Messages
197
Name
geoff
Edit My Images
No
hi all, can you please tell me what you think of these 2 lenses. the first one is the canon ef 75-300mm /4-5,6/111usm. the price is £80. the second is the canon 70-200 f 4l the price is £375. i have a canon 450d and the 18-55mm lens. i am a complete novice. so i am looking for a few more lenses. hope you can help. kind regards. gboy.
 
the glaring difference is the reach.. if you can do without 300 then go for the 70-200 as thats an L class lens.. the best canon lens are L ...Also f4 is better than f4.5 and the 70-200 is fixed aperture throughout the zoom and wont change... the price differnce between 80 and 375 is big.. so is the lens difference
 
A bit more detailed differences, Kipax hit the main differences on the head.

The 70-200 f4L is probably the sharpest lens out there for the money, it's solidly built, doesn't have a front rotating focus element, constant aperture throughout the range, super fast auto focus, silent focus motor, but doesn't have the reach of the 75-300.

As for the 75-300, it'll be softer than the L glass (Not as 'well focussed pictures'), slow auto focus in comparison, non constant aperture through the focal range, but has the extra reach that the 70-200 doesn't have.

You get what you pay for really, and the 70-200 is THAT much better than the 75-300.

Here's a review of both.

Canon 75-300

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=18&sort=7&cat=27&page=3

Canon 70-200 F4L

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=14&sort=7&cat=27&page=3
 
hi kipax & ant, thank you both so much for the advice. much appreciated. kindest regards. gboy. (y)
 
Yeah, big difference between those two lenses.

Just to throw something in the middle, have you considered the Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 APO DG MACRO?

I own one and it`s pretty damn good considering the price of around 160 pounds. I checked reviews before buying it and it`s generally regarded as being a pretty sound choice.

Apparently the edges are a bit soft at 300mm, but you`ll only really notice this if you`re using a full-frame camera, which you`re not.
 
you can always add a 1.4x converter to the 70-200 as well in the future, taking it to 280mm f/5.6.
 
As others have said, the 70-200 is sharper and better built. The other option to throw into the mix is the 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS which is meant to be much better than the 75-300 and also throws in image stabilisation as well. It's about the same price as the 70-200 f/4 and lots of people rave about it. I don't have personal experience of it, but those that do seem very pleased.
 
i have palyed with both and my mate tha owns both of them uses the 75-300 as a door stop now! The sharpness of the 70-200F4 blows it out of the water.

honestly my list of preference would be as follows

canon 75-300mm III f/4-5.6 USM
sigma 70-300mm APO f/4-5.6 ( I have had this and it was not too bad but can get soft at the long end)
canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM (some say this is near L glass quality)
Canon 70-200mm f/4 L USM

That is the order i would work in for quality. if you can afford the 70-200 go for it!
 
or you could go middle of the road with the 55-250, still not as good as the 70-200, but it does have IS and is around half the cost. Just a thought.
 
Hi, gboy,
In brief, the 75-300 is rubbish. Steer clear.
Andy.
 
Android said:
Hi, gboy,
In brief, the 75-300 is rubbish. Steer clear.
Andy.
Click to expand...

Just to add.... The 70-300 is much better; people get them confused, I have the 70-300 IS USM which isn't L glass, but it's a pretty good lens.

If you can afford it, go for the 70-200 F4L (that L glass is a major upgrade)

Steve
 
hi, a big thank you. you have certainly given me plenty of food for thought. much appreciated for all your help. kindest regards. gboy. (y)
 
Craft said:
or you could go middle of the road with the 55-250, still not as good as the 70-200, but it does have IS and is around half the cost. Just a thought.
Click to expand...

Seconded.

I think I'm turning into a 'nifty-two-fifty' evangelist...:shake:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top