RailRoadFan.com

Hi guys okay I just got a new rebel T3 and am looking into buying the canon 75-300 lens the one thats 199.99. I do not have the money for the high end one that haves the IS so I wanted to ask if the canon 75-300 lens is worth the money? The rebel did come with the 18mm-55mm lens. I got it last week the canon rebel kit Iam not palnning to use it till this spring. Just trying to get some info one this lens and this is my first dslr camara so I do have a lot to learn yet. Thanks for any info.

I have a Canon Rebel xs. I use a Canon 55-250mm, and a Tamron 70-300mm. They both work like champs.

Good Luck.

I think the Canon 55-250mm might be a better choice because it has image stabalization (IS).
I've never owned either of them, but I did have a Sigma 70-300mm and it was very hard to hand-hold without IS.

Save your cash until you can afford the better lens. Even if it puts you off a few months, you're going to have the camera and lens for many years. In the long run, you'll be glad you waited.
IS is great in low light. If you want to shoot those wonderful sunset or sunrise shots, in addition to getting a tripod, you'll like the extra stops the IS gives you.

MP73point4 wrote:Save your cash until you can afford the better lens.

That non-IS 75-300 is $200 you'd wish you saved & spent on a better lens if you get it. You'll likely only get good results at the long end if you put it on a tripod and I generally haven't heard good things about that one. I have a Canon 70-300 IS that was only $400 or so when I bought it that's been an excellent lens. To save money you could try looking at used lenses at KEH.com. Generally though it's better to save & buy a good lens than buy cheap junk that will result in crappy pictures & disappointment. However I don't necessarily subscribe to the "save & buy "L" glass" club - they may be a little better but you can get perfectly good results with mid-range Canon or even good Sigma lenses. I've had quite a few published pictures that I shot with my Sigma 17-70 (or even my Canon G9 for that matter).

I can't agree more with MDH. I bought the 75-300 and instantly regretted it... I scored a 70-200mm F/4 L glass lens for $450 at a local store, and haven't looked back since. Keep your money and get the better glass. I wish I had.

MDH wrote:However I don't necessarily subscribe to the "save & buy "L" glass" club - they may be a little better but you can get perfectly good results with mid-range Canon or even good Sigma lenses.

Why not? What's that, three or four more months of saving $10-20 a week to be able to afford a VERY good L-lens? I suppose if someone doesn't care about high quality, then go for the cheaper stuff. That's probably the first question to be asked.

If you can easily spend $300-400 on a lens, you can certainly exercise a little patience and save that extra $200-300 for a better quality lens.

J T wrote:Why not? What's that, three or four more months of saving $10-20 a week to be able to afford a VERY good L-lens? I suppose if someone doesn't care about high quality, then go for the cheaper stuff. That's probably the first question to be asked.

If you can easily spend $300-400 on a lens, you can certainly exercise a little patience and save that extra $200-300 for a better quality lens.

Why not?

Priorities, priorities...

I have a kid in school and a house I need to take care of and this is a hobby. I'd love to have a 5d MK II with the 24-105L but I simply can't justify to myself spending that much on this hobby after considering competing needs & uses of cash. To keep it just about lenses and more apples to apples:

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM $1,091.00 at B&H:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/3 ... S_USM.html

Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS $349.00 at B&H:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/6 ... _6_IS.html

On my crop sensor body (T3i) I get nice sharp shots pretty much across the range with the 18-135 and it even gives me a little more range than the L. The f/4 would give me more flexibility - I mostly shoot at f/8 because that seems to be where the 18-135 does best but that hasn't been much of a hinderance for typical railfan photo work. I've had quite a few pictures shot with that cheaper lens published in the last year and I'm pretty satisfied with the quality overall.

I'm not arguing at all that it's "just as good" - I'm sure the L's better (based on reputation - not experience) but to me it's not worth paying three times as much when that $742 could pay for a good camera body or I could put it to the new windows my house needs or on & on.

For me, my perception is that the 18-135 for my use puts me high enough up the diminishing returns curve that it's not worth the huge price differential for a marginal increase in quality. That, however is a personal decision and I understand people who value that increase in quality enough to get it because that's a personal value judgement.

Regards,
Michael

MDH wrote:

J T wrote:Why not? What's that, three or four more months of saving $10-20 a week to be able to afford a VERY good L-lens? I suppose if someone doesn't care about high quality, then go for the cheaper stuff. That's probably the first question to be asked.

If you can easily spend $300-400 on a lens, you can certainly exercise a little patience and save that extra $200-300 for a better quality lens.

Why not?

Priorities, priorities...

A few months of being patient to save another $400 is really going to kill someone? If you can afford a $200 zoom lens (75-300), you can afford a $600 zoom lens (70-200 f4L). It just takes patience and discipline to save the money, and in the end, that 70-200 is going to be a much better investment, both in image quality and resale value (not to mention durability due to a higher build quality).

That's how I purchased my 24-105. I saved $200 a month for 6 months. That money probably would have gone to other random crap throughout each month had I not been disciplined to save it for something I really wanted.

I guess what it comes down to is whether you care enough about image quality to be patient and save that money.

J T wrote:A few months of being patient to save another $400 is really going to kill someone? If you can afford a $200 zoom lens (75-300), you can afford a $600 zoom lens (70-200 f4L).

Where are you buying a 70-200 f4L for $600?

B&H which usually has the best (legitimate) prices around has it on sale for $1,131:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/4 ... 4L_IS.html

Even used at KEH cheapest is about $960:

http://www.keh.com/camera/Canon-EOS-Zoo ... 9813J?r=FE

And I'm going to call "BS" on the caring about quality thing. I care enough to have a body & lens good enough to consistently take images of high enough "quality" to be published in "Trains" or "R&R" or "Railpace" or whatever but don't care about having the highest possible quality (i.e. top end "L" lenses) because it's not worth the cost to me. So I suppose in that sense I "don't care about quality" but it's that I don't care about a level of quality that I don't need. To me it's like saying I could go buy a Cadillac SRX crossover for $40K as a premium"luxury version" small SUV but my Honda CRV at $25K accomplishes everything I need it to for almost half the cost of the high end crossover. It's actually better than the SRX at what I want because it has significantly better fuel economy (they're both AWD which was a key criteria - the SRX has a V6 which sucks more gas). Too many other things I either need to or would rather spend the money on.

Michael

MDH, it's the same lens that I have, the Canon 70-200 f/4L that does NOT have Image Stabilization: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1 ... L_USM.html
$599.

Paid $605 for mine 4 years ago, so it's rather nice they don't go down in value much at all.

I can definitely tell a difference between shots with my 28-105 USM III f/3.5-4.5 compared to my L. Money wise though, to each his own. When I was single, or when it was just the girlfriend and I on dual incomes, sure, was easy to save up for the lens and had plenty of extra to spend on. Now with one income supporting a family of 4, any tiny bit of extra cash is used for unexpected house/car/medical bills. If my camera breaks, I highly doubt i'll be purchasing a replacement for a few years. My PC monitor broke, and I'm using free hand-me-down old monitors now. When the cash isn't there, a high end lens is just not in the budget to save for.

~Z~ wrote:MDH, it's the same lens that I have, the Canon 70-200 f/4L that does NOT have Image Stabilization: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1 ... L_USM.html
$599.

Paid $605 for mine 4 years ago, so it's rather nice they don't go down in value much at all.

Ahhh OK - figured I must be missing something. That makes sense. Although wouldn't it be the same for me to say "why not save more to get the IS version 'cause it's better"?

I think you get my point though about priorities - sure I could save enough money to buy it - but is it what I should be buying?

MDH wrote: Ahhh OK - figured I must be missing something. That makes sense. Although wouldn't it be the same for me to say "why not save more to get the IS version 'cause it's better"?

Not really. Just build quality and image quality comparisons is what I'm getting after here. Of course, the IS is a nice feature, but not really necessary.

I think you get my point though about priorities - sure I could save enough money to buy it - but is it what I should be buying?

The reason I brought the 70-200 f4 into the discussion here is because of the 70-300 lens was mentioned at the start. Those are the two I'm primarily comparing here, and the price difference isn't enough on the low end to warrant NOT taking the time to save for the better lens, IMO. And I'm in no way implying anyone should save their money to go with an f2.8 IS lens instead of the 70-300 non-L. Now THAT is a huge price difference.

Thanks guys for the help. I did buy the 75-300mm got it on slae for 170.00. I am going to save up now for a Canon 55-250mm lens. I'am now thinking that I should had got the 55-250mm in the first place. Oh well at least Ill have 2 telephoto lens after I get the money for the 55-250mm.

CSX Q109 wrote:Thanks guys for the help. I did buy the 75-300mm got it on slae for 170.00. I am going to save up now for a Canon 55-250mm lens. I'am now thinking that I should had got the 55-250mm in the first place. Oh well at least Ill have 2 telephoto lens after I get the money for the 55-250mm.

I've got the 55-250 IS, great lens, takes pretty sharp pictures for a non L.

SD80MAC wrote:

CSX Q109 wrote:Thanks guys for the help. I did buy the 75-300mm got it on slae for 170.00. I am going to save up now for a Canon 55-250mm lens. I'am now thinking that I should had got the 55-250mm in the first place. Oh well at least Ill have 2 telephoto lens after I get the money for the 55-250mm.

I've got the 55-250 IS, great lens, takes pretty sharp pictures for a non L.

Good to know thanks for that info. Yeah I think I should had skiped the 75-300mm and just went for the 55-250mm lens. Oh well I ll have to save up the money again for the 55-250 one. But at least Ill have both.

Psht...Primes are the way to go!

B-Town wrote: Psht...Primes are the way to go!

It's a personal preference and depends on what you shoot.

Try shooting a wedding with primes only...

MagnumForce wrote:Try shooting a wedding with primes only...

It's not for me, but there are lots of pros out there that do just that....personally I think they're crazy, but to each their own