pappy0352 Loc: Oregon

I don't use telephoto lens very often as I shoot mostly landscape and waterfalls. I'm now getting an interest in birds and was wondering what the big difference is between the 70-300 and the 75-300?

can I get a little help here?

Thanks
Pappy

Bob Yankle Loc: Burlington, NC

I have owned both. The newer 70-300mm is "L" series glass with Image Stabilization (and a hefty bump in price). Theoretically, at least, it focuses faster. I have been able to attach a Kenko 1.4x extender to this lens, with varying results (you lose autofocus at anything much above f/5.6), but still sharp That being said, the old 75-300mm lens is still a very good lens.

legion3 Loc: Deer Park Long Island

canon also makes a 70-300 non L lens. which is also very good

Robert R Loc: Indianapolis and Naples

Pappy, I own the Canon 70-300 non "L" lens which has IS. The Canon 75-300 does not have IS, so it will most likely need a tripod. I have found that a tripod is quite cumbersome with a bird that moves a lot. I have since purchased the 100-400 "L" series lens with IS and I find it works much better for me over the 70-300. But it is larger, heavier, and more expensive, but I get much better bird pictures. That being said, I have seen some fantastic bird photos with the Canon PowerShot SX-50 HS which you might want to consider.

wkocken Loc: McGregor, MN

There are different varieties of both the 75-300 and the 70-300. I borrowed my brother's old 75-300 IS and it was not a good lens. It was not sharp beyond 200mm. Instead, I bought a 70-300 IS and I'm pretty pleased with it. Since then Canon introduced the 70-300 "L" , which I am sure is better yet.

Another set of options is a 70-200L. There are 4 varieties, either F4 or F2.8, either I/S or not, and get the Canon 1.4x extender. Without the extender you will have one of the sharpest tele-zooms available, With the extender, I think you keep autofocus you might lose a bit of sharpness, but still probably very good.

The short answer is, depends on how much you want to spend, but I would stay away from the 75-300.

Bill

AntonioReyna Loc: Los Angeles, California

I have the 70-300 non L image stabilized lens and it is very good for not being an L lens.

wtompkins Loc: Northern Michigan

I agree.

ocbeyer Loc: Baltimore

I sold my 75-300 (non IS) after just a few months. Could not get sharp shots a the long end, at least not over 200mm. Replaced it with a 55-250 IS and find it to be much sharper and much faster focusing.