I think this lens is definitely meant for outdoor shooting with good lighting, I picked one up yesterday and from just messing around with it (And being a car photographer) it seems to fit my needs beautifully. I think a lot of people are missing the fact that they compare $1000+ lenses against this $200 lens, for the price it is VERY good, definitely aimed towards beginners, I'd love to see lenses with similar capabilities for the same price point compared against this lens
I've used this lens for almost a year for aviation photography and planespotting. Panning and tracking without image stabilization is hard, but frankly, I think it's made me a better, more stable photographer. Overall, though, it's been perfect. I don't have many other complaints other than, as you said, image sharpness. I almost always shoot during the day, and even on the most stable, in-focus shots, the edges of the planes and the numbers are still pretty soft. I will say that night photography with this lens is almost impossible. Even with high ISO NR, shots are still so grainy after editing. I also agree with the slow autofocus. Snappy autofocus is essential when shooting planes Landing or flying overhead on departure, and I've missed shots because the DC motor AF couldn't keep up. I'm upgrading to a 70-300 soon here, but for someone starting, I definitely can recommend the 75!
I have a Quantaray EF mount 75-300mm lens (f/4-f/5.6) that I found new life for with a viltrox speed booster on a Canon EOS-M camera. The autofocus is bad but getting an extra full stop of light with distance makes for some cool photos.
Thanks for this video. I just bought this lens. Yup its not sharp and there are extra efforts to make to get better results. Its worth it for me and its what fits my budget.
Yeah, I bought this lens used for $60 too. But the thing is that I didn't even have a Canon DSLR or any other DSLR. So I bought it because I was thinking about getting a Canon. So I did a little research and decided to go with an SL3/250D. So I got a used one for $500. Now I have found out how bad the Autofocus is on this lens. And it doesn't have Stability. The SL3 does have sensor based Stability so it isn't as shaky but it does work better when paired with an EF-S lens.
I have the Cannon EOS T5 and have a Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III Lens whcih I think it's the smae one you are advertising. Is this a good lens? I'm still trying to use it; or should I get a better one. I want to shoot flying birds, trail lights (shooting lights at night) moving subjects basically.
I'm a beginner photographer and I have this lens on a Canon m6 mark ii. Im going to master this equipment and definitely upgrade! I got it new for 40$ on marketplace.
If you're starting out you shouldn't start with such an advanced camera, mate. Try using simpler gear to dominate the basics and then upgrade if you need so :)
@@luzbiensuave I started with 80D I learned a lot from there. It's a matter of how we learn maybe. I was even able to learn the basics and advanced stuff, and I am continuing to learn!🎉
@@MowFlats Not trying to gatekeep photography haha. Anyone can learn with any gear, but people shouldn't feel pressured to use the latest gear in order to 'take good photos'. The thing with advanced gear is that it can get tricky if you're starting out :D Whatever you can use it's capable enough as long as you have the patience and know what to do. Good luck in your journey and don't fall for those Instagram ads haha
Thanks for the interesting video. It is fair to mention pros of this lens, it is not the best one in the world, but also no crap. I have one piece of it, I exchanged it for two vintage 50mm lenses (maybe they would be better for me now). When I was newbie photographer, this lens made a great service for me alongside kit18-55mm lens. I have made some nice photos with it, and I also plan to have some fun this year with it. There are no bad lenses or bad cameras, only bad photographers. For me it is much more funny to get as much as possible from my low budget lenses. This is true challenge. But agree, this is not a lens for professionals at all.
I picked one up about 7 years ago. Canon had it on sale for about $50 then. That is probably about how much it is worth. I found that I got better images using my 70-200 F4 and cropping than I got using this lens at 300mm without cropping.
Agree. I shot one of these for many years, and disappointment with the results from it was one of the reasons I largely put my first dSLR away for about five-six years out of the 13 years I owned it. I got back into photography over the last 3 years and bought some "new" lenses (300mm f/4L and a 70-200 f2.8L II) and then a new-to-me upgraded body, still a dSLR. The best compliment I can give the 75-300 is that it taught me how to handhold a long lens without stabilization. Shooting the new lenses with stabilization is a dream to me now, even on lenses that the gear chasers have given up on!
Does lens works well with an EF adapter on the R6? Specifically the animal / people AF for outdoor action shots (sports and dogs running). I already have this and am in the process of upgrading from my DSLR to the R6 or R5 and IF this one would work (in good lighting), I might change my new lens wishlist-lineup a bit :)
Bump up iso to 12800 for low light, Lightroom denoise will fix it, so will Topaz and several other denoise programs. I have had this lens since 2008 and it still works fine. Using it mostly on the 2007 rebel but also the 6d mkii.
The specific version of this lens you showed in this video I think is the 3rd version of this (III). So the 2nd and 1st version probably are lower quality in most ways. So be aware of that. But I probably found a better alternative for this lens. A better alternative would be the Canon EF 70-300mm with Image stabilisation and USM autofocus. That one is probably not a huge difference in optical quality but the image stabilisation is really good to have for low light and fast moving things and USM autofocus is much better and faster. And that lens will also not be that different in price I would expect. Especially second hand what you might want when you need something cheap
I just pulled one of these out of a bargain bin in Kyoto for 550 yen (about four bucks). Not that bad in bright light, and it certainly weighs a lot less than my 80-200 2.8L!
My wife has this lens and it broke when she dropped it. Can you recommend an upgrade to for it that allows for more distance but won't break the bank? She like shooting birds and sometimes in low light. Thanks
I am relatively new to photography and have been using this lens for a little under a year. I shoot almost exclusively aviation and for the most part, this lens is acceptable but the lack of IS and the frankly terrible chromatic aberration make this lens frustrating to use. I currently looking to upgrade to the Tamron 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 Di VC USD.
Tamron or any ''jobber'' brand won't give you the same results as a Canon or Nikon if your Camera is a Canon or a Nikon. Like riding in a Cadillac with cheap tires, wiper blades...
@@HullarsRedDust You NUTS! The Tamron lens you are talking cost 900 canadian dollars plus taxes versus 200 for the Canon! Don't compare apples with oranges!!! Entry level lenses versus pro ones. Buy a Canon at the same price (1,000) and your Tamron goes in the garbage bin...
As an old pro in the 80's and 90's with film cameras, a digital camera is a gift from God! But we are not in the pro range here. Pro range are expensive, useless for you and me and they don't suggest zooms but single lens like a 50, a 100, a 200 or 300mm for sports, etc. When it comes to zooms, the lens quality is less present and forget for an aperture in the 1:4 or 1:8. Aperture is 4 or 5.6 which is ok IF IF IF you use the lens outdoors in day light. And you can still use the camera at 100 or 200 ISO. At concerts you have to boost at 1000-2000 or more ISO. In my time we would boost black & white films at 1400 ISO for concerts or hockey games. To have at least a speed of 60 or 125!!! But to shoot a horse away from the fence in day light, you will be satisfied. Or sports in day light or your daughter away in the marching band... Just think day light and you won't see the difference with a more expensive lens. As for the auto focus, if you are not in a hurry to shoot, won't be any problems. And with Canon brand (or Nikon) you are safe. I stopped doing photography in early 2000's when digital cameras were on the market and tired of paying for films and processing plus losing time. I bought a Canon 2000D in 2020 with the 18-55mm plus that 75-300mm and it makes me happy. Plus we have a zillion softwares to help us after but i don't like to change the pictures i've took. I will only use the crop option to remove a telehone polst in the corner i didn't notice when i took the shot. I recommend that lens for the reason i said. Have fun!
Comparing this to a 70-200 2.8 is dumb to start with. The 75-300 obviously isn’t meant for low light and is nowhere as crisp. But that’s fine for me. Sometimes there’s something as too sharp to the point of clinical. I liked it when I had one but I had very realistic expectations of its capabilities. So I wasn’t disappointed when it didn’t perform well in low light. IT’S NOT MEANT TO. This is a lens that you need to either be shooting in situations where the light is decent to great. And I enjoyed shooting it when using flash. Call me crazy but I’d get back one again the first chance I get (and I own a few Primes). I liked the look it gave the pictures. Is it a superb lens? Not by any means but I liked it a lot for what I shot with it and would own one again.
@@jamiewearmouth2735 I can't speak for OP, but as a long-term owner of this lens (since ~2010, which is the year I bought my first dSLR, a T1i), I think I know what he means. The purple fringing is absolutely horrifying. Images are soft even when in focus. Autofocus speed is absolutely horrible - I'm exaggerating, but you could brew a coffee while you wait for it to rack in and out, and it hunts a lot. The best thing I can say about it is that it taught me good long lens hand-holding technique.
By ur reviews this lense seem pretty good but for outdoors activity n not for a night events. Also pls stop comparing 2000 dollars lenses to this one. You sound so ignorant. One last thing i want to mention. A great guitar player can make sound any guitar cheap or expensive like gold . My point is that u have to work with what u have and get the beat out of. U can have your music gear such ,expensive microphones, top speaker brands, expensive guitar and 5000 drums set Up . If u dont k ow how to use it then you will sound like crap. Same for this lense get the best and dont over do it. U dont necessary need to zoom in all the way in to get a shot. If is unstable checl shutter speed and adjust for the shot. 200 dollars lence it is not a cheap lence also. A cheap lence is 50 dollars
I think this lens is definitely meant for outdoor shooting with good lighting, I picked one up yesterday and from just messing around with it (And being a car photographer) it seems to fit my needs beautifully. I think a lot of people are missing the fact that they compare $1000+ lenses against this $200 lens, for the price it is VERY good, definitely aimed towards beginners, I'd love to see lenses with similar capabilities for the same price point compared against this lens
The 400mm prime that canon offer is supposed to be quite good and cheap, but tbh nothing compares to this price point
does this lens have good image stabilization? i seen reviews on amazon saying it doesnt
@@_shotsbyjay nope. It only has Auto Focus. No Image Stablization
I've used this lens for almost a year for aviation photography and planespotting. Panning and tracking without image stabilization is hard, but frankly, I think it's made me a better, more stable photographer. Overall, though, it's been perfect. I don't have many other complaints other than, as you said, image sharpness. I almost always shoot during the day, and even on the most stable, in-focus shots, the edges of the planes and the numbers are still pretty soft. I will say that night photography with this lens is almost impossible. Even with high ISO NR, shots are still so grainy after editing. I also agree with the slow autofocus. Snappy autofocus is essential when shooting planes Landing or flying overhead on departure, and I've missed shots because the DC motor AF couldn't keep up. I'm upgrading to a 70-300 soon here, but for someone starting, I definitely can recommend the 75!
Excellent summary, answering all of my questions. Thanks!
I have a Quantaray EF mount 75-300mm lens (f/4-f/5.6) that I found new life for with a viltrox speed booster on a Canon EOS-M camera. The autofocus is bad but getting an extra full stop of light with distance makes for some cool photos.
Great , creative photos- thanks fo the video!
Very honest advice! Much appreciated, subscribed ✌🏽
Thanks for this video. I just bought this lens. Yup its not sharp and there are extra efforts to make to get better results. Its worth it for me and its what fits my budget.
Yeah, I bought this lens used for $60 too. But the thing is that I didn't even have a Canon DSLR or any other DSLR. So I bought it because I was thinking about getting a Canon. So I did a little research and decided to go with an SL3/250D. So I got a used one for $500. Now I have found out how bad the Autofocus is on this lens. And it doesn't have Stability.
The SL3 does have sensor based Stability so it isn't as shaky but it does work better when paired with an EF-S lens.
Thanks for the heads up
What other zoom budget friendly lenses are better for my canon RP? I looking for something for sports photography.
Thanks, nice explanation
It is a 75-300 open field lens. Lenses with 1.4 - 1.8 - 2.0 aperture are used in closed areas...
Hello Mate,
What is a good alternative for a Canon M50 that is around $200-$300 range?
I have the Cannon EOS T5 and have a Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III Lens whcih I think it's the smae one you are advertising. Is this a good lens? I'm still trying to use it; or should I get a better one. I want to shoot flying birds, trail lights (shooting lights at night) moving subjects basically.
I'm a beginner photographer and I have this lens on a Canon m6 mark ii. Im going to master this equipment and definitely upgrade! I got it new for 40$ on marketplace.
It’s definitely capable and a great place to start!
If you're starting out you shouldn't start with such an advanced camera, mate. Try using simpler gear to dominate the basics and then upgrade if you need so :)
@@luzbiensuave I started with 80D I learned a lot from there. It's a matter of how we learn maybe. I was even able to learn the basics and advanced stuff, and I am continuing to learn!🎉
@@MowFlats Not trying to gatekeep photography haha. Anyone can learn with any gear, but people shouldn't feel pressured to use the latest gear in order to 'take good photos'. The thing with advanced gear is that it can get tricky if you're starting out :D Whatever you can use it's capable enough as long as you have the patience and know what to do. Good luck in your journey and don't fall for those Instagram ads haha
@@luzbiensuavebro shut up
Thanks for the interesting video. It is fair to mention pros of this lens, it is not the best one in the world, but also no crap. I have one piece of it, I exchanged it for two vintage 50mm lenses (maybe they would be better for me now). When I was newbie photographer, this lens made a great service for me alongside kit18-55mm lens. I have made some nice photos with it, and I also plan to have some fun this year with it. There are no bad lenses or bad cameras, only bad photographers. For me it is much more funny to get as much as possible from my low budget lenses. This is true challenge. But agree, this is not a lens for professionals at all.
Thank you!
As a wedding videographer, would a good use case for this be a far back static shot on a tripod during the ceremony?
WHICH LENSE are you using to shot this video?
So would this lens have affect with the crop factor? so for a aps-c sensor camera it would be 120-480?
Yes. All EF lenses do that.
I picked one up about 7 years ago. Canon had it on sale for about $50 then. That is probably about how much it is worth. I found that I got better images using my 70-200 F4 and cropping than I got using this lens at 300mm without cropping.
Agree. I shot one of these for many years, and disappointment with the results from it was one of the reasons I largely put my first dSLR away for about five-six years out of the 13 years I owned it. I got back into photography over the last 3 years and bought some "new" lenses (300mm f/4L and a 70-200 f2.8L II) and then a new-to-me upgraded body, still a dSLR. The best compliment I can give the 75-300 is that it taught me how to handhold a long lens without stabilization. Shooting the new lenses with stabilization is a dream to me now, even on lenses that the gear chasers have given up on!
Does lens works well with an EF adapter on the R6? Specifically the animal / people AF for outdoor action shots (sports and dogs running). I already have this and am in the process of upgrading from my DSLR to the R6 or R5 and IF this one would work (in good lighting), I might change my new lens wishlist-lineup a bit :)
Yes, in fact In fact all those photos in the video are from a canon RP. Can only imagine it working even better on the R6/R5
@@MirthFilms Great, thanks so much!
Bump up iso to 12800 for low light, Lightroom denoise will fix it, so will Topaz and several other denoise programs. I have had this lens since 2008 and it still works fine. Using it mostly on the 2007 rebel but also the 6d mkii.
The specific version of this lens you showed in this video I think is the 3rd version of this (III). So the 2nd and 1st version probably are lower quality in most ways. So be aware of that. But I probably found a better alternative for this lens. A better alternative would be the Canon EF 70-300mm with Image stabilisation and USM autofocus. That one is probably not a huge difference in optical quality but the image stabilisation is really good to have for low light and fast moving things and USM autofocus is much better and faster. And that lens will also not be that different in price I would expect. Especially second hand what you might want when you need something cheap
Great vid mate, have a quick question looking at one for 50 euros but I Wana know if it goes on a canon 700d?? Thanx in advance
Yes! And you don’t even need an adapter
@jonathanflores3256 would it fit onto a Canon EOS 1200D?
Hello, what's a good alternative to this lens for a canon t7?
Canon EF-S 55-250 IS
Canon EF 70-300 IS
Tamron 70-300
I just pulled one of these out of a bargain bin in Kyoto for 550 yen (about four bucks). Not that bad in bright light, and it certainly weighs a lot less than my 80-200 2.8L!
My wife has this lens and it broke when she dropped it. Can you recommend an upgrade to for it that allows for more distance but won't break the bank? She like shooting birds and sometimes in low light. Thanks
Look at Tamron
does anyone know if this is compatible with a canon 90d??
It very much is!
@@MirthFilms thanks so much 😁 I ended up ruling against buying it, unless I find one for under $100 like a lot of ppl are!
I am relatively new to photography and have been using this lens for a little under a year. I shoot almost exclusively aviation and for the most part, this lens is acceptable but the lack of IS and the frankly terrible chromatic aberration make this lens frustrating to use. I currently looking to upgrade to the Tamron 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 Di VC USD.
Tamron or any ''jobber'' brand won't give you the same results as a Canon or Nikon if your Camera is a Canon or a Nikon. Like riding in a Cadillac with cheap tires, wiper blades...
I recently bought the Tamron lens I mentioned for my EOS T5, it is undeniably better than this Canon lens in almost every way.
@@HullarsRedDust You NUTS! The Tamron lens you are talking cost 900 canadian dollars plus taxes versus 200 for the Canon! Don't compare apples with oranges!!! Entry level lenses versus pro ones. Buy a Canon at the same price (1,000) and your Tamron goes in the garbage bin...
Is the higher the mm the more zoom you get?
Yee
@MothaTech how much does it zoom in in 300? I'm new
As an old pro in the 80's and 90's with film cameras, a digital camera is a gift from God! But we are not in the pro range here. Pro range are expensive, useless for you and me and they don't suggest zooms but single lens like a 50, a 100, a 200 or 300mm for sports, etc. When it comes to zooms, the lens quality is less present and forget for an aperture in the 1:4 or 1:8.
Aperture is 4 or 5.6 which is ok IF IF IF you use the lens outdoors in day light. And you can still use the camera at 100 or 200 ISO. At concerts you have to boost at 1000-2000 or more ISO. In my time we would boost black & white films at 1400 ISO for concerts or hockey games. To have at least a speed of 60 or 125!!!
But to shoot a horse away from the fence in day light, you will be satisfied. Or sports in day light or your daughter away in the marching band... Just think day light and you won't see the difference with a more expensive lens. As for the auto focus, if you are not in a hurry to shoot, won't be any problems. And with Canon brand (or Nikon) you are safe.
I stopped doing photography in early 2000's when digital cameras were on the market and tired of paying for films and processing plus losing time. I bought a Canon 2000D in 2020 with the 18-55mm plus that 75-300mm and it makes me happy. Plus we have a zillion softwares to help us after but i don't like to change the pictures i've took. I will only use the crop option to remove a telehone polst in the corner i didn't notice when i took the shot.
I recommend that lens for the reason i said. Have fun!
Comparing this to a 70-200 2.8 is dumb to start with. The 75-300 obviously isn’t meant for low light and is nowhere as crisp. But that’s fine for me. Sometimes there’s something as too sharp to the point of clinical. I liked it when I had one but I had very realistic expectations of its capabilities. So I wasn’t disappointed when it didn’t perform well in low light. IT’S NOT MEANT TO.
This is a lens that you need to either be shooting in situations where the light is decent to great. And I enjoyed shooting it when using flash. Call me crazy but I’d get back one again the first chance I get (and I own a few Primes). I liked the look it gave the pictures. Is it a superb lens? Not by any means but I liked it a lot for what I shot with it and would own one again.
Pretty bad I returned it 😂😂😂
These ar 80 bucks now on keh
I know a career photographer that shoots all her portraits with this lens only, on a 1200D camera. It is all she has.
Not even great for casual users. Very poor lens gave mine away.
I have this lens, and it sucks, I know how to shoot and this lens is weak and terrible, you might get lucky, but the chances are you wont.
What do you mean by "weak"?
@@jamiewearmouth2735 I can't speak for OP, but as a long-term owner of this lens (since ~2010, which is the year I bought my first dSLR, a T1i), I think I know what he means. The purple fringing is absolutely horrifying. Images are soft even when in focus. Autofocus speed is absolutely horrible - I'm exaggerating, but you could brew a coffee while you wait for it to rack in and out, and it hunts a lot. The best thing I can say about it is that it taught me good long lens hand-holding technique.
By ur reviews this lense seem pretty good but for outdoors activity n not for a night events. Also pls stop comparing 2000 dollars lenses to this one. You sound so ignorant. One last thing i want to mention. A great guitar player can make sound any guitar cheap or expensive like gold . My point is that u have to work with what u have and get the beat out of. U can have your music gear such ,expensive microphones, top speaker brands, expensive guitar and 5000 drums set
Up . If u dont k ow how to use it then you will sound like crap. Same for this lense get the best and dont over do it. U dont necessary need to zoom in all the way in to get a shot. If is unstable checl shutter speed and adjust for the shot. 200 dollars lence it is not a cheap lence also. A cheap lence is 50 dollars
Dude stop flashing gang signs every three seconds. Put your hands down
@@stevenhornostaj5676 nah