| 75-300mm |
$237 average price |
|---|---|
|
|
Your purchases support this site
Buy the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM
(From Canon lens literature) Compact and lightweight 4x telephoto zoom lens ideal for shooting sports, portraits, and wildlife. The newly developed Micro USM makes autofocusing quicker and quieter. The improved zoom mechanism also makes zooming smoother. The front part of the zoom ring now sports a silver ring for a luxury touch.
Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM
Your purchases support this site
Canon EF - Black
Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM User Reviews
-
auto focusnot Smooth Zoom , soft
I am surprised Canon would even release this product.
reviewed August 22nd, 2012 (purchased for $165)
I have been using SRL cameras since 70s NEVER seen or own a lens so rough. The auto focus works great but the zoom utterly sucks. I would never buy this lens.
Perhaps one starting out in photography that really does not plan to use it beyond the family pinic? otherwise wasted money.
rather surprised at canon.
PS all my other cameras were Minolta, Nikon and Sony so this does not create good faith in Canon. -
...this lens is great!!
reviewed September 17th, 2011 -
Cheap, light, simpleCheap, light, simple, slow, aperture
I've been using SLR's since the late 80's (started with tho good ol' Petax K1000 with a 50mm, 70-300, and 500). This is possibly the cheapest lens, price and quality, I have ever used. If it hadn't been included in my kit I would not have spent the money on it. Too slow and limited aperture. With a good, solid tripod you can work some great pics, but otherwise, expect soft and/or poor focus, esp. at the long range...
reviewed November 14th, 2008 (purchased for $150) -
Very cheapEverything except cheap !!!
It was my fault to hope this budget len gonna give some good thing.
reviewed June 1st, 2008 (purchased for $120)
Soft picture, not even longest focus, Low contrast, Silly AF and disappointed construction.
It's good to someone who want a cheap telephoto zoom len, but if you have more patient, keep your money to buy a little more expensive len, you will get something better for your DSLR.
I sold it in 2 weeks after I bought it as a second hand len from my friend. -
Good for starters.Soft.
Save money and buy better lens.
reviewed January 19th, 2008
Check IQ here…
http://www.hitendrasinkar.com/photoblog/index.php?x=browse&category=31&pagenum=1 -
CheapNot sharp
I simply can't get sharp pictures with this lens. Even shooting at brigth daylight, my pictures are not sharp, especially at 300mm
reviewed December 7th, 2007 -
It's not such a bad lens as it was quoted in some of the reviews.Soft
reviewed October 14th, 2007 (purchased for $290)
-
Cheap, 300mm, USM, Lightweight, Good (decent) image quality & relatively fast AFLow build quality, zoom creep, non-IF, no IS
I'd only recommend this lens if you don't want to spend 3.5x the price for the Canon 70-300mm IS USM.
reviewed June 13th, 2007 (purchased for $208)
A decent beginner lens, but lack of IS (at this price) makes a tripod mandatory at 300mm.
Build quality is below avg, plastic-feel all-round, zoom'ing not smooth.
However image quality is surprising good and the AF quick enough (provided there is sufficient light). -
Inexpensive. 300mmCheap build and poor quality
This lens is inexpensive, but you get what you pay for. The focus system is a little slow and the images are not very sharp and do not have much contrast.
reviewed January 14th, 2007 (purchased for $225)
However, it is a good, cheap, beginner lens. At 300mm, you will need a tripod (as with most any 300mm); if you want a 300mm without using a tripod, look for one that has Image Stabilization.
Overall, I wouldn't recommend this lens unless you need a very cheap lens for "just in case". -
cheappractically unuseable - especially in the long end, poor colors and contrast
Don't let this lens' cheap and long zoom price tempt you - it's too slow to use on the long end in anything but the brightest sunlight and if you plan to print 8x10 or larger, you may be disappointed with the results.
reviewed December 30th, 2006 -
cheap, good rangeimage quality, wobbly
Well, if you have no other choice, it makes pictures, but it will be hard to get a sharp picture at 200+mm out of it.
reviewed December 28th, 2006 (purchased for $100) -
good basic telephoto rangeslow apature, and needs to be stopped down
A good second lens for beginners - light, lets you experiance the range and decide if you need a better zoom - other lenses are better/sharper (thinking of most 70-200mm lenses). lens is fine for most users but if you do shoot primarily in the telephoto range there are better ways to go. Ok as a travel lens but again - it's always better to save up alittle and get one good lens rather than getting cheap ones to fill out your lens range.
reviewed November 17th, 2006 -
cheapvery poor image quality
I purchased this lens hoping to get away with good image quality without breaking the bank. Needless to say, my experiment failed. In order to get good image quality with this lens, you'll need TONS of light and go ahead and forget about the 200-300mm range. Maybe I just got a lemon...but I think not. Like the saying goes, 'You get what you pay for'.
reviewed August 28th, 2006 (purchased for $200) -
+ quick zoom + sharp focus
I am an amateur, but very enthusiastic and a fast learner. (I may not be aware of certain things while writing this review)
reviewed May 23rd, 2006 (purchased for $285)
I found some "play" in the zoom ring. I am not sure if it is a defect in this specific unit, or it is normal.
Sometimes, the AF also cannot focus correctly. Specially when the light is not very bright
