I have recently taken up photography, and I am interested in purchasing a Canon EF 75-300 USM lense. As a begginer, I would appreciate any comments about the lense.
Hi David, I own a 70-300USM and find it to be a first class lens. Sharp as a pin with quiet and fast AF. The only thing to be wary of as with all 70-300 lenses is to be aware of the possibility of camera shake at the 300mm end. A monopod is recommended or use at least 1/500th of a second shutter speed if possible. BigWill
An excellent lens but if you can afford it, go for the IS version - it makes the lens really usable at the long end and in low light. David Stout (http://image-one.org.uk)
Thanks Guys for the advice. I have been doing a little more research, and have been advised to look at a Sigma 70-300 APO Super Macro lense. It is a little more expensive, and having looked at the two lenses together, it is much heavier due to better optics (I'm told). Do you think that this is a better option? Cheers, Woody
A certain other monthly photographic publication whose name I dare not mention on the AP site recently gave the Canon top marks against the Sigma lens. (a wee clue, PP!). I would sway you in the direction of the Canon lens, pay heed to the words of David Stout when he says "Canon gear works best with Canon cameras!". BigWill.
I have the Image Stabilizer version of the 75-300 USM and was so happy about its results that I bought the 28-135 USM IS. The IS option allowed me to make sharp candid shots at 300mm without any support. I think the IS option is well worth the extra money but if you feel that the extra price is too much for you as a beginner, than I would look at other options instead. One option would be a cheaper 80-200mm lens that would be far less bulky and lighter than a 75-300mm lens.
