BREmer
Topic Author
Posts: 498
Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 7:50 pm

Lens Question: Worth Paying More For Is?

Thu Sep 30, 2004 3:56 am

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
 
DLKAPA
Posts: 7962
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2003 10:37 am

RE: Lens Question: Worth Paying More For Is?

Thu Sep 30, 2004 4:02 am

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

And all at once the crowd begins to sing: Sometimes the hardest thing and the right thing are the same
 
gmonney
Posts: 2076
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2001 2:59 pm

RE: Lens Question: Worth Paying More For Is?

Thu Sep 30, 2004 4:09 am

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!
 
wietse
Posts: 3630
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2001 12:49 am

RE: Lens Question: Worth Paying More For Is?

Thu Sep 30, 2004 4:53 am

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
 
siggi757
Posts: 120
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2001 9:19 pm

RE: Lens Question: Worth Paying More For Is?

Thu Sep 30, 2004 6:25 am

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

 
Airbus Lover
Posts: 3163
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2000 10:29 pm

RE: Lens Question: Worth Paying More For Is?

Thu Sep 30, 2004 7:02 am

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.
 
andrewuber
Posts: 2142
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 10:45 am

RE: Lens Question: Worth Paying More For Is?

Thu Sep 30, 2004 1:33 pm

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
 
LHSebi
Posts: 1007
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 4:24 am

RE: Lens Question: Worth Paying More For Is?

Thu Sep 30, 2004 5:47 pm

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.
 
work4bmi
Posts: 328
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2002 9:51 am

RE: Lens Question: Worth Paying More For Is?

Thu Sep 30, 2004 9:05 pm

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)
Fly Around The World : Above & Beyond
 
BREmer
Topic Author
Posts: 498
Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 7:50 pm

RE: Lens Question: Worth Paying More For Is?

Thu Sep 30, 2004 10:24 pm

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?
 
wietse
Posts: 3630
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2001 12:49 am

RE: Lens Question: Worth Paying More For Is?

Thu Sep 30, 2004 10:48 pm

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
 
OD720
Posts: 1856
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2003 6:46 am

RE: Lens Question: Worth Paying More For Is?

Thu Sep 30, 2004 10:51 pm

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.
 
Staffan
Posts: 3879
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 9:21 am

RE: Lens Question: Worth Paying More For Is?

Thu Sep 30, 2004 10:58 pm

"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
 
MIA777
Posts: 1110
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2002 10:47 am

RE: Lens Question: Worth Paying More For Is?

Fri Oct 01, 2004 3:58 am

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
 
LHSebi
Posts: 1007
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 4:24 am

RE: Lens Question: Worth Paying More For Is?

Fri Oct 01, 2004 4:48 am

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.
 
chris78cpr
Posts: 2733
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2004 7:44 am

RE: Lens Question: Worth Paying More For Is?

Fri Oct 01, 2004 6:47 am

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
 
andrewuber
Posts: 2142
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 10:45 am

RE: Lens Question: Worth Paying More For Is?

Fri Oct 01, 2004 5:08 pm

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
 
Jan Mogren
Posts: 2014
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2000 2:47 am

RE: Lens Question: Worth Paying More For Is?

Fri Oct 01, 2004 6:25 pm

>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
 
wietse
Posts: 3630
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2001 12:49 am

RE: Lens Question: Worth Paying More For Is?

Fri Oct 01, 2004 6:27 pm

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
 
jrowson
Posts: 324
Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 7:18 am

RE: Lens Question: Worth Paying More For Is?

Fri Oct 01, 2004 10:05 pm

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
 
BREmer
Topic Author
Posts: 498
Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 7:50 pm

RE: Lens Question: Worth Paying More For Is?

Fri Oct 01, 2004 11:04 pm

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
 
LHSebi
Posts: 1007
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 4:24 am

RE: Lens Question: Worth Paying More For Is?

Fri Oct 01, 2004 11:17 pm

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.
 
wietse
Posts: 3630
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2001 12:49 am

RE: Lens Question: Worth Paying More For Is?

Fri Oct 01, 2004 11:57 pm

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
 
ckw
Posts: 4586
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 12:26 am

RE: Lens Question: Worth Paying More For Is?

Sat Oct 02, 2004 12:13 am

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
 
rotor1
Posts: 222
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2003 8:57 am

RE: Lens Question: Worth Paying More For Is?

Sat Oct 02, 2004 1:31 am

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
 
Jkw777
Posts: 4427
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 11:15 pm

RE: Lens Question: Worth Paying More For Is?

Sat Oct 02, 2004 3:45 am

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  Big thumbs up
jkw6210@btopenworld.com or +447751242989
 
Woody001
Posts: 508
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 7:39 am

RE: Lens Question: Worth Paying More For Is?

Sat Oct 02, 2004 4:53 am

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.
I've used the 75-300 IS lens when I first started, but it all depends on what you want to shoot?
It gives good results so long as you keep it above f8, the IS isn't suitable for panning, as it's a two axis IS rather than single axis system, although I have had limited success at shutter speed down to 1/30th.


View Large View Medium

Photo © Ian Woodcock



My mate used it this last weekend at Oceana on a 300D, IS off for flying shots IS on for the late evening shots, he was very happy with it. If you get one second-hand at a good price then try it and see how you get on.

Like most things in life, unless you try it out yourself you'll never know  Smile

Good luck for future purchases.

Ian.



[Edited 2004-10-01 21:55:43]
If I could just get the afterburner working...
 
andrewuber
Posts: 2142
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 10:45 am

RE: Lens Question: Worth Paying More For Is?

Sat Oct 02, 2004 5:09 am

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. That L glass can get much better shots without IS than the 75-300 without IS. Wouldn't you agree?

Drew

I'd rather shoot BAD_MOTIVE
 
Jan Mogren
Posts: 2014
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2000 2:47 am

RE: Lens Question: Worth Paying More For Is?

Sat Oct 02, 2004 6:37 am

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 useful.
But, if steady hands is a given, I do see what you mean.
/JM
AeroPresentation - Airline DVD's filmed in High Definition
 
Woody001
Posts: 508
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 7:39 am

RE: Lens Question: Worth Paying More For Is?

Sat Oct 02, 2004 6:58 am

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 unsharp images..  Smile

Ian.

If I could just get the afterburner working...

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests