Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Which Canon 75-300 Lens Should I Get?  
User currently offlineDlx737200 From United States of America, joined May 2001, 1980 posts, RR: 18
Posted (11 years 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 5809 times:

Hey everyone. I need feedback on the following two lenses:




Both are Canon and both are 75-300mm.

However, the second has IS which I don't think I need when I'm shooting in the direction of the sunlight at 1/1000 to 1/2000 of a second shutter speed. I have a Sigma 70-300 and am I'm tired of it. Do you think either of these would be better strictly because they're Canon and not Sigma. Please let me hear your thoughts. I could save over $200 by buying the first. I've even heard rumor the first is better in quality over the second. Is there anything else I'd be losing/gaining by getting the first over the second cause I really wanna save that money if it's not too big of a difference.

15 replies: All unread, jump to last
User currently offlineJderden777 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 1763 posts, RR: 25
Reply 1, posted (11 years 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 5761 times:

i would say go for the IS....its a real good lens but it is at its best when you stop it down to f8 or so...so in doing that you'll get a relatively slower shutter speed so the IS is very handy...

don't know about a difference in quality between the non-IS and IS versions....

"my soul is in the sky" - shakespeare
User currently offlineXiphias From Netherlands, joined Aug 2004, 75 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (11 years 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 5732 times:

Yes, IS definitely. Have the same lens and it's great. And it's not always going to be sunny. Or if you want to make slower shutter pics you still can. Also nice that it stays stable at the end of the day when your arms are sore.

Good luck in your desicion.


Xiph"i*as, n. [L., a swordfish, a sword-shaped comet, fr. Gr. xifi`as, fr. xi`fos a sword.]
User currently offlineSulman From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 2040 posts, RR: 29
Reply 3, posted (11 years 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 5731 times:

Is there really going to be much difference in quality between your Sigma 70-300 and EF 75-300? I'm not convinced there would be.

If you can afford the IS version of the 75-300 (which admittedly is a cracking lens - Check out Gary Watt and Justin Wood's shots) you can also afford the 70-200 F4 L. It's a wonderful, wonderful lens. What you lose in IS you gain in the fact that image quality is terrific, even wide open. That means you can shoot in poor conditions and still achieve a perfectly usable shutter speed.

I've been using one for six months, and I wouldn't change it for the world.



It takes a big man to admit they are wrong, and I am not a big man.
User currently offlineChris78cpr From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 2825 posts, RR: 48
Reply 4, posted (11 years 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 5719 times:

Mr James Sulman speaks the truth yet again! Follow his advice and go for the 70-200F4L. I own both and put it this way. One gets taken out most times i go shooting, one of them hasnt been touched for 6 months.

Get the 70-200F4L! L glass is infectious though, i warn you now!


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 offlineCkw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 813 posts, RR: 14
Reply 5, posted (11 years 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 5715 times:

Perhaps it would help if you told us what you don't like about the Sigma - with the others, I wouldn't consider the Canon 75-300 a significant improvement in terms of image quality.



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineMaiznblu_757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5112 posts, RR: 45
Reply 6, posted (11 years 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 5714 times:

I also use the Canon 70-200mm F/4 L.

Its excellent glass!

User currently offlineOD720 From Lebanon, joined Feb 2003, 1928 posts, RR: 30
Reply 7, posted (11 years 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 5712 times:

I have the IS version and I'm very happy with it. Never had any problems with quality. I usually use it up to 200mm and not lower than f/7.1. But is it any different than the non-IS? I don't know.

User currently offlineDlx737200 From United States of America, joined May 2001, 1980 posts, RR: 18
Reply 8, posted (11 years 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 5696 times:

Well I was more or less looking for someone to compare the quality of these two lenses. I would like the Canon 70-200L but most of my spots I shoot from require 300mm and I'd really miss that 100mm that I'd lose with that lens. What about getting a converter for the 70-200L. Would that screw up the quality of the L glass?

I just figured a Canon lens would more or less be better quality than a Sigma lens. My sigma lens needs repair right now but other than that, the only problem I'd say it gives me is it gets a little soft at 300mm but I think thats standard anyway.

User currently offlineDlx737200 From United States of America, joined May 2001, 1980 posts, RR: 18
Reply 9, posted (11 years 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 5694 times:

Scratch that. Canon 70-200L is even out of my price range at the moment. I can't go any higher than $400. Thanks anyway. PLEEEEEEEASE, I need for feedback on these two lenses, perferably the first if anyone's used it. Whichever lens I get, I'll use it until I can afford the 100-400L a couple years down the road.

User currently offlineCkw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 813 posts, RR: 14
Reply 10, posted (11 years 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 5690 times:

I'd get the Sigma fixed and save your money for a good replacement. In the consumer range of lenses, overall there is little difference between Sigma and Canon (though there are particularly good and bad items in both ranges). At this level, Sigma probably offers better value for money than Canon.



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineKlgaviation From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 243 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (11 years 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 5645 times:


I'm actually considering those two as well!

I think I may go with the cheap-y first and eventually go to the gold. Big grin


There is a fine line between a picture and a photo. The latter seems to be disappearing.
User currently offlineAndrewuber From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2528 posts, RR: 34
Reply 12, posted (11 years 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 5615 times:

Get IS - you won't regret it. I take it everywhere with me. Once you can afford L - upgrade. That's what I plan to do!


I'd rather shoot BAD_MOTIVE
User currently offlineAdamWright From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (11 years 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 5589 times:

I own the IS version of the 75-300. And IS is a dream come true. I won't ever go back to a lens without it.. currently in the process of upgrading to the 100-400 IS L  Smile


User currently offlineBREmer From Germany, joined May 2004, 551 posts, RR: 15
Reply 14, posted (11 years 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 5575 times:

I made up my mind about the very same thing just a couple of weeks ago as well. I finally decided to go for a used 75-300 III USM without the IS. The money I saved goes into my funding for an L lens.  Smile

For now I'm pretty satisfied with the lens. Of course the IS performs a bit better especially in low light conditions, so if you are looking for a lens to guide you along for many years, go with the IS. If you just want a lens to get you started take the one without IS, and save the money since you're likely gonna upgrade to an L lens anyways sooner or later.


User currently offlineWagz From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 520 posts, RR: 13
Reply 15, posted (11 years 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 5549 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I just got a 300D and a 75-300 USM to go with it (non-IS). I'm on a budget, and as much as I'd like to have the IS capability, I don't think the extra $200 or more is worth it. In bright daylight conditions you'll be shooting with high enough shutter speeds where it won't matter. It might be very handy at dawn/dusk though. I recently tried some sunset shots and some are blurry, but others are just fine (2 of which were recently accepted here). If you have a steady hand you shouldn't have too many problems. It should at least make those good dusk shots even sweeter knowing it was such a challenge to get them.

I think Big Foot is blurry, Its not the photographers fault. Theres a large out of focus monster roaming the countryside
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...
Got My 1st DSLR....Which Lens Should I Get posted Sun Apr 23 2006 01:22:07 by BradWray
Canon 75-300 4-5.6 USM Is Lens Question posted Mon Jul 11 2005 19:44:20 by Madjones
Anyone Using The Canon 75-300 Is USM Lens? posted Sun Feb 22 2004 12:02:30 by Soren-a
Canon EF 75 300 Lens posted Wed Feb 11 2004 05:28:01 by Ryan h
Canon 75-300, USM Or No? posted Mon Apr 24 2006 03:10:16 by Cadet57
Any Known Recurring Canon 75-300 Is Problems posted Fri Jul 29 2005 13:01:58 by Cwaterwo
Canon 75-300 F/4.0-5.6 III - Any Hope? posted Sun Jul 24 2005 16:32:16 by ManuCH
People Using The Canon 75-300 USM posted Sun Jul 3 2005 16:19:16 by FlyingZacko
Canon 75-300 Image Stabilizer Question. posted Tue May 24 2005 09:00:27 by Cwaterwo
Canon 75-300 Is V. Canon 75-300 Non-IS posted Fri Apr 22 2005 22:50:48 by MartinairYYZ