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
pappy0352 wrote:
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
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.
canon also makes a 70-300 non L lens. which is also very good
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.
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
I have the 70-300 non L image stabilized lens and it is very good for not being an L lens.
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.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.