Do I buy this 300mm canon lens?

It's not fake, bit it really isn't a very good lens.

You would be better looking at the Canon 55-250mm IS. It may not be 300mm but it is much sharper and benefits from IS - and the difference from 250-300mm isn't that great in the scheme of things.
 
RichardtheSane said:
It's not fake, bit it really isn't a very good lens.

You would be better looking at the Canon 55-250mm IS. It may not be 300mm but it is much sharper and benefits from IS - and the difference from 250-300mm isn't that great in the scheme of things.
Click to expand...

Oh I didn't know, thanks! Are you sure? Cause I will get whatevers best
 
As Richard has said, the 55-250 is much better... I too was steered away from the 75-300 when I was first looking. But I ended up getting the 70-300 IS, which I must say was an excellent lens for the money... it went with me on Safari and I had no complaints about the quality whatsoever.

Next question is whats your budget? I mean your real budget :lol: because "as cheap as possible" is not a budget :D
the 55-250 will probably sit between the 100-150 mark, and the 70-300 IS around the 250 mark.

And what do you want to take photos of (primarily)? Landscapes probably won't need the extra reach of the 300, where as for birds/wildlife you'll find it useful.
 
the 75-300 might not be the best but it's not too bad :) I borrowed a friend's back when I only had my kit lens and got some reasonable results at an airshow

the 55-250 is supposed to be better though!
 
I got a 75-300 MkIII when I first started with a 550D kit. TBH I never managed 1 worthwhile keeper out of the lens at all. The photos looked like I had vaseline smeared over the lens even though it was clean. I only kept this as a reminder of how bad it was. Needless to say I didn't keep it too long. I got a Tamron 28-300 VC to replace it as I wanted a long for aviation shots, but I replaceed the Tamron with a 100-400 when I could afford it.

Here's a comparison from the 75-300 and the 100-400 of the same subject, the 100-400 was taken closer to the subject though, to show the quality difference. They are both jpegs, the 75-300 has no PP (it wasn't worth any) and the 100-400 has had the contrast turned up 1 notch in PSE 11.

75-300 @ 300mm
8491344723_00c14bba3d_b.jpg
[/url][/IMG]

100-400 @ 235mm
8491344681_3b4ffe7314_b.jpg
[/url][/IMG]
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top