Categories
PriceSpy UK
Impartial price comparison

Canon EF 75-300/4.0-5.6 III

Canon EF 75-300/4.0-5.6 III

  • Lens mount system: Canon EF
  • Construction: Zoom
  • Format: Full-frame (35mm)
Save this product to a list
Notify me when the price drops
Price alert
Compare to other products
Compare

Canon EF 75-300/4.0-5.6 III

Save this product to a list
Notify me when the price drops
Compare to other products
3.1 / 5
(6 reviews)
5
(2)4
(2)3
(0)2
(1)1
(1)
Sorted by date
12 years ago*
I have owned such a lens for many years. My advice is to put the money on an EF-S 55-250 IS instead (if you have a crop sensor) or a used 70-200 / 4L, with or without IS. Of course you can take pictures without shaking blur, it's just about choosing a short enough shutter speed. The problem is that you can not use the greatest aperture due to the poor focus, but must be dazzle and you can only use the lens on sunny days or raise ISO masses. It is not possible to compensate for the ugly bokeh of the lens or distressed sharpness in the range 200-300 mm. Furthermore, there are great problems with backlit and chromatic abberation (purple fringing, purple overcoat). The autofocus engine is slow and loud. Read reviews and tests, this is a bad low-cost lens. Sure, it's cheap, but save money a month extra and choose something else! Do you think this is a good item, you simply do not have high demands. Tamron has really affordable alternatives, and it is easy to find very good lens in the used market.
*Edited 3 years

Google

6 years ago*
Owned this lens for two plus years. I get some great usable images from this with sharp detailing and ok Bokeh. If you want the zoom range but dont want to pay, this is a great choice. However I would recommend finding something with a larger aperture if you can afford it. This lens has lots of lens flare and chromatic abberation so treat it as a kit lens. It is slowish to focus, but if you know how to use your camera this is not an issue... I have had people ask for my prints and are willing to pay for photos from this lens.
*Edited 6 years

Google

10 years ago*
I have no problem with taking good pictures with this lens. Without stand in my case. However, they can be difficult to focus on are far away but they're pretty hard to get away. Good telephoto zoom for the price, I think. Picture stabililsator had every good, but quite difficult to get at that price. Do anyway you get what you pay for. But to say it's a crappy lens? Maybe in comparison to more expensive lens but in this price range so I think they may be hard to beat.
*Edited 10 years

Google

10 years ago*
Briefly: If you can not get nice pictures with this lens, it's guaranteed to be something wrong behind the camera and not the lens. Also, the lens 11yo on the neck .. What it costs to buy secondhand, it is anyway worth it! I mean, has not that much money to spend on a lens, and want to take pictures of things far away so it's actually good. You certainly can get nice and sharp pictures with it, however it is a bit more challenging because there is no IS. Plastigt, yes. But completely worthless, it is absolutely not. I've had great fun with my 75-300 anyway! Very easy to get to nice pictures which have the object in focus while everything in the background is blurred, that kind of pictures I like! The focus motor is quiet and relatively fast, USM version, however, is quieter / faster. However, one can not take and compare a place like this lens with one that has the IS because it's completely different kinds of lenses, nor against the newer and more expensive then this is a cheap telephoto zoom lens! And for what it is, it's canon! But of course, do not want to compare it to what it is, so one can cut any product .. One has to be subjective. Eg 55-250IS is still at least twice as expensive and 7years newer. The only drawbacks of this lens is that when you have extended the lens so it can feel a little loose and it has easy to hit the maximum level when the camera is hanging down.
*Edited 10 years

Google

12 years ago*
Really crappy lens. Without the stand, it is worthless.
*Edited 12 years

Google