Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Lens Question: Worth Paying More For Is?  
User currently offlineBREmer From Germany, joined May 2004, 551 posts, RR: 16
Posted (10 years 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 3921 times:

Hey guys, can you give me a little input on the Canon EF 75-300m USM in comparison to the Canon EF 75-300 USM IS?
The IS lens is twice as expensive as the 'normal' USM, but is it worth paying the difference???

If one of you has one of the above lenses, what are your experiences with it?

And yes, I know L lenses are a lot better, but they don't really work out with my budget right now.  Smile

Regards
Lukas

29 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDLKAPA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (10 years 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 3912 times:

Sup

I use this lens on a Digital Rebel without IS. Trust me, you don't need it don't waste the money.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Eric Daniel Smith
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Eric Daniel Smith




View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Eric Daniel Smith
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Eric Daniel Smith




View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Eric Daniel Smith
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Eric Daniel Smith




View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Eric Daniel Smith



User currently offlineGmonney From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 2159 posts, RR: 20
Reply 2, posted (10 years 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 3902 times:

I have a few friends with the non IS and the pics are great, get the non IS and save your money for some L glass with IS

Grant



Drive it like you stole it!
User currently offlineWietse From Netherlands, joined Oct 2001, 3809 posts, RR: 55
Reply 3, posted (10 years 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 3881 times:

I second everything that has been said here. The IS on this lens is just not worth the money. Get an L grade IS lens.


Wietse de Graaf
User currently offlineSiggi757 From Iceland, joined Oct 2001, 123 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (10 years 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3859 times:

DLKAPA has a point if you always shoot under sunny conditions but in my opinion IS really makes it possible to expand the envelope.

This picture was shot handheld with EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS on a Digital Rebel.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Sigurdur Benediktsson


ISO 200, shutter 1/125, f/2.8 at 200mm.

I had the opportunity to try the 75-300 USM IS and was not impressed. The sample I tried was an old and much used lens. Perhaps you should try to rent one before you buy it. In my opinion skip the IS on this lens.

You can read photographers reviews on Canon lenses and other brands on this fine website;

http://www.photographyreview.com

Cheers,
Siggi Ben  Smile



User currently offlineAirbus Lover From Malaysia, joined Apr 2000, 3248 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (10 years 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3835 times:

Siggi,

Like everyone is saying, if he wants IS, he should be getting L IS lenses which are the ones that really expands the limit while the IS on 75-300 I believe is the first generation IS from Canon and the extra money would be better spent on L lenses.

I used a 75-300 non-IS before and it was very good indeed, best value for money. If it was at the price of the IS version then perhaps it's nothing too great about it, as you would be better off with a non-IS 70-200L.


User currently offlineAndrewuber From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2528 posts, RR: 40
Reply 6, posted (10 years 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3798 times:

Lukas-

It looks like I'll be the only one on this thread who likes the lens, but here goes. I have the 75-300 IS, and I absolutely could not live without it. The IS feature expands the envelope significantly, allowing me to get shots in crummy weather, overcast conditions and dusk / dawn that I otherwise would have missed. Yes, it is a bit more money, but it's VERY well worth it. The jump to an L lens is two or three times as much as the 75-300 IS. Unless you have thousands of dollars to spend, I'd reccommend the 75-300 IS.

I live in Indiana, and we have lots of overcast days. By using IS, you can slow down the shutter to let in more light, WITHOUT sacrificing sharpness. Here are some shots that I took with my IS lens, and I doubt a non-IS could have done this well in these conditions:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Freight-Dawg
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Freight-Dawg



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Freight-Dawg
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Freight-Dawg


And don't let anyone tell you that you cannot pan with an IS lens!

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Freight-Dawg
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Freight-Dawg


I bought the IS lens when I bought my Digital Rebel, and I've never turned off the IS feature. If you live in Hawaii or someplace eternally sunny, or if you plan to shoot aircraft that are parked and not in motion - then go without IS. Otherwise go for the IS. Go try one for yourself. You'll see the difference.

Drew



I'd rather shoot BAD_MOTIVE
User currently offlineLHSebi From Germany, joined Jan 2004, 1049 posts, RR: 8
Reply 7, posted (10 years 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3772 times:

No Drew, you are not the only one! I also have the IS version, and have also never gone shooting with it turned off. Living in DUS, it is a necessity to have that thing turned on with all the overcast days. Especially, considering you should always be shooting at f8 to get a sharp shot with that lens, the IS helps incredibly to be able to get non-blurred shots.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Sebastian Vermehren
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Sebastian Vermehren



Those two were shot on a overcast day, without much light. If you just check out my other photos on the database, most of them (minus perhaps the oldest 15) were shot with that lens. To me, the IS is even useful with night shots!


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Sebastian Vermehren



That shot was taken on a very windy evening, with the camera on a tripod, and the IS ON. Most people say to turn it off, but it has only helped me! The small movements that the wind would normally do to the camera (especially with the long lens as attack surface), the IS "eats" up.

Good luck with your choice!

Sebastian



I guess that's what happens in the end, you start thinking about the beginning.
User currently offlineWork4bmi From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (10 years 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 3755 times:

I was a frim non believer in the IS, until I tried it! Wow! Thoug hI just got my 100-400 L IS lens, the feature is still the same and in my opinion, if you want to shoot for longer in more varied conditions which is good for the constant change in weather paterns, then my voice is, "go with IS".

Thanks,

Aaron Lupton - AirlinesOnPrint
(see my pics)


User currently offlineBREmer From Germany, joined May 2004, 551 posts, RR: 16
Reply 9, posted (10 years 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3730 times:

Thanks for all your input so far. Tough decision....  Smile

Do you think Sigma could be an alternative? They have some similar lenses in the 200€ range. Any comments on that?


User currently offlineWietse From Netherlands, joined Oct 2001, 3809 posts, RR: 55
Reply 10, posted (10 years 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3720 times:

My thought would be not to get a Sigma lens, unless it was an EX range lens. The consumer Sigma lenses are just not up to par with the Canon (or Nikkor for that matter) consumer lenses.


Wietse de Graaf
User currently offlineOD720 From Lebanon, joined Feb 2003, 1925 posts, RR: 32
Reply 11, posted (10 years 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3722 times:

I also have the IS version of the lens and it's great. But I don't use the IS function a lot since we have perfect sunny conditions here in Beirut. There will be thunderstorms soon too so I'm sure it will do it's job well.

Regards.


User currently offlineStaffan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (10 years 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3719 times:

"Living in DUS, it is a necessity to have that thing turned on with all the overcast days. Especially, considering you should always be shooting at f8 to get a sharp shot with that lens.."

In my opinion, if you spend the money on the IS version of this lens the 70-200/4 L is not far away in price. With the 70-200 you can shoot wide open and still get great results.

Staffan


User currently offlineMia777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2002, 1165 posts, RR: 6
Reply 13, posted (10 years 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 3694 times:

And don't let anyone tell you that you cannot pan with an IS lens!

Anyone who thinks that is just wrong anyway. There are normally two modes of IS and two allows for panning. I don't know about the 75-300 though. If it has two mode IS, if you have the money then I would suggest you buy it. Only one, don't buy.

Ryan Kaskel - MIA



MIA777
User currently offlineLHSebi From Germany, joined Jan 2004, 1049 posts, RR: 8
Reply 14, posted (10 years 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3674 times:

Ryan,
The 75-300 IS version has only one type of IS. Even so, as Drew already mentioned, it works just fine for panning.

Sebastian



I guess that's what happens in the end, you start thinking about the beginning.
User currently offlineChris78cpr From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 2822 posts, RR: 50
Reply 15, posted (10 years 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3660 times:

You dont need IS! I shoot with a 100-400 with the IS turned off now. My shots come out visibly sharper!

Chris



5D2/7D/1D2(soon to be a 1Dx) 17-40L/24-105L/70-200F2.8L/100-400L/24F1.4LII/50F1.2L/85F1.2LII
User currently offlineAndrewuber From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2528 posts, RR: 40
Reply 16, posted (10 years 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3630 times:

Chris -

He was asking whether to buy the 75-300 or the 75-300 IS. You have a 100-400 L, which is a far superior lens to either of these, and is at least three times the price. If the 100-400 was in the budget, of course he wouldn't need IS.



I'd rather shoot BAD_MOTIVE
User currently offlineJan Mogren From Sweden, joined Dec 2000, 2043 posts, RR: 50
Reply 17, posted (10 years 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 3617 times:

>If the 100-400 was in the budget, of course he wouldn't need IS.<

How is that?

/JM



AeroPresentation - Airline DVD's filmed in High Definition
User currently offlineWietse From Netherlands, joined Oct 2001, 3809 posts, RR: 55
Reply 18, posted (10 years 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 3614 times:

He was asking whether to buy the 75-300 or the 75-300 IS.

And in fact thus asking wether to get IS or not. Chris gave his experience on IS. Should be a usefull reply  Smile

Wietse



Wietse de Graaf
User currently offlineJRowson From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 359 posts, RR: 12
Reply 19, posted (10 years 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 3595 times:

I agree on Chris with the IS issue. I've got the 100-400 and the IS has been broken all summer, so i've used it without. I've not noticed any major difference in the results with or without it. I spent last weekend in AMS in overcast conditions shooting without it, and most of the results are fine.
Now, come winter time, it maybe a different issue.
The IS on the 75-300 is the older mode/type 1 is which doesn't assist greatly with panning shots. The newer IS lenses have a mode 2 which apparently assists panning shots, although i've got better panning shots by not using it at all.
My mate who shoots with me has my old 75-300 without IS, and he has plenty of photos on Anet using it.
IMO, if you're going to get the 75-300, don't bother with the IS. Save the money and put it towards an L glass savings fund.

Cheers, James.



James Rowson. Canonite and lover of all things L. JAR Photography.
User currently offlineBREmer From Germany, joined May 2004, 551 posts, RR: 16
Reply 20, posted (10 years 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3583 times:

Hey guys, thanks a bunch for all your answers so far.  Smile
I took a look at my budget, and since I'm gonna buy the lens and DSLR together it looks like I have two options:

1) Get a 20D with a 75-300mm USM (eventually the IS, but unhealthier for my wallet)
or
2) Get a 300D with an EF 70-200mm f/4 L lens (or 75-300mm IS but I think the L might be a better choice here)

Would love to get the 20D and the L lens but that would exceed my limit of €2000... It's really a tough decision - what do you think should I do? Do you 10D and 20D users use the additional functions on a regular basis or is it more intelligent to invest the money in a better lens?

Sorry for dragging this thread on so far.... I really didn't intend to, but it's such a friggin hard choice.  Smile

Lukas


User currently offlineLHSebi From Germany, joined Jan 2004, 1049 posts, RR: 8
Reply 21, posted (10 years 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 3582 times:

Lukas,
Now that you have a more definitive set of choices, most people (including myself) will tell you to go for the L glass! The 300D is a great camera (I find), and you should be happy with that. I can't personally comment on the 20D, but as far as I have experienced/heard, getting a good lens is almost more important than getting the top quality body, as many of the functions of the more advanced bodies you will never use, if you are just an amateur photographer. Anyhow, I'll let some of the more professional photographers here enlighten you! Good luck with it!

Sebastian



I guess that's what happens in the end, you start thinking about the beginning.
User currently offlineWietse From Netherlands, joined Oct 2001, 3809 posts, RR: 55
Reply 22, posted (10 years 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 3571 times:

Not me  Smile

Get the 20D and the 75-300 as an intermediate lens. Then save up for a 70-200 F4. In the meantime the 75-300 will serve you well, you will not be able to get the maximum out of the camera anyway since you are a beginning photographer. By the time your lens is beginning to limit your photography, you can upgrade to the L lens.

My opinion  Smile



Wietse de Graaf
User currently offlineCkw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 745 posts, RR: 16
Reply 23, posted (10 years 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 3557 times:

Tricky - the 20D is a significant improvement on the 300D (or 10D come to that) - you certainly won't outgrow it in a hurry. Conversly, as others have said, the glass is all important. It seems to me that the options you're suggesting mean another expenditure sooner rather than later, and resale value of the 75-300 is not good - 300D is likely to be even worse in this respect in 6 months or so.

My advice would be to wait a bit until you can get both the 20D and 70-200 - these will last you a good long while and produce great results. Perhaps you could look for a 2nd hand 70-200

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineRotor1 From Tajikistan, joined Mar 2003, 230 posts, RR: 3
Reply 24, posted (10 years 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 3537 times:

I'd say get a D30 and a 1-4 or 70-200 2.8L with converters. Glass is king.

-Mike



The best aviation photo I've ever taken was rejected by Airliners.net
25 Post contains images Jkw777 : I'd say get a D30 and a 1-4 or 70-200 2.8L with converters. Glass is king. I second that! Cheers, Justin Wood
26 Post contains links and images Woody001 : If you can afford the 20D then go for that, don't start out with old technology when you know you want to upgrade soon. I'd second the 70-200 f4 lens.
27 Andrewuber : Jan- Perhaps I should have phrased it that if he had the budget for the 100-400 L, Image Stabilization would not be as necessary as with the 75-300. T
28 Jan Mogren : Well, it's a matter of holding the stuff stable enough. Doesn't matter how sharp lens you have if you can't hold it. In that case IS is of course very
29 Post contains images Woody001 : Well, the 100-400L will, in a certain way, be self damping being that much heavier than the 75-300 lens. Don't get confused here with motion blur and
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Is Is Worth Paying That Much More For? posted Thu Mar 24 2005 00:05:01 by MartinairYYZ
Another Lens Question For The 20D posted Sat Oct 15 2005 03:02:05 by DavidYYC
Canon 75-300 4-5.6 USM Is Lens Question posted Mon Jul 11 2005 19:44:20 by Madjones
Lens Question - Canon 300mm Is ƒ4.0 L posted Mon Sep 17 2001 22:20:06 by Sonic99
Lens Question posted Sat Sep 9 2006 11:39:08 by AirbusA346
REbel XT Vs XTI Plus Lens Question posted Fri Sep 8 2006 07:38:12 by Flamedude707
Wide Angle Lens Question! posted Mon Jul 31 2006 11:48:18 by Halcyon
Very Stupid Lens Question posted Tue Jun 20 2006 17:57:57 by Aero145
A Lens Question. posted Tue Apr 12 2005 12:38:05 by LHRSIMON
Another Boring But Important Lens Question! posted Sun Dec 12 2004 14:35:20 by WorldspotterPL