imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

The lens you should buy - today on UHH ! - https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-584548-1.html

You are welcome ... OOPS, sorry, NO IS 8-(

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

I am a Nikon user so I do not know if my comments will be useful to you. You said you need a tele but you did not mention what you want to use it for. A 70-300 VR lens is a very versatile lens. You could use it to isolate part of the landscape, for portraits and even to reach many wildlife subjects and that include action photography.
Canon lenses tend to be less expensive than Nikon lenses although that is not a rule. I believe that $150 for the 70-300 VR is a very acceptable price assuming the glass is clean and free of scratches, the cosmetics are good and they seem to be from your sample and the lens is working to specs.

Weddingguy Loc: British Columbia - Canada

Your camera/lens/filter combination is like a chain . . . only as good as it's weakest link!

I don't understand the up-grade to a FF for better quality, only to down-grade the quality of your "chain" by adding garbage links. To get the most from your 5D Mk III, you should really consider an "L" series lens. The 70-200 F/4 L non IS is a superb lens that will do your "chain" more than justice.

These are real great value used !

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

The Canon EF 75-300mm lenses are not known for their image quality. The one pictured is a very old version, the first lens Canon fitted with IS (as well as USM), first introduced in 1995 and discontinued long, long ago.

Currently there are two 75-300mm available.... the "III" (without either IS or USM) and a "III USM" version (also without IS). They are Canon's cheapest telephoto zooms, share similar optics and have the worst image quality among Canon's telephoto zooms. They are extremely soft at 300mm. There have been "II" and original versions of each of these in the past, as well as the long discontinued version with both USM and IS that's shown in first post here.

ANY of the Canon EF 70-300mm lenses offer substantially better image quality.... especially toward the 300mm end of their focal length zoom range... but tend to be more expensive. There are at least four Canon 70-300mm either currently available new or recently discontinued, all with good image quality and with both USM (fast, quiet autofocus) and IS (image stabilization):

- EF 70-300mm IS USM (intro'd 2005, now discontinued but still widely available new)... new $377, used from $149.

- EF 70-300mm IS USM "II" (current model, intro'd 2016) improved IS and now has "Nano USM" focus drive... new $499.

- EF 70-300mm IS USM "DO" (intro'd 2004, discontinued a couple years ago) "diffractive optics" for a more compact design, but actually not any lighter than the others. Originally was the most expensive 70-300 and sold for $1400 new... Now only avail. used from around $500.

- EF 70-300mm IS USM "L" (current model, intro'd 2010) best image quality and build quality of the bunch, about 3/4 lb. heavier than the others and the ONLY Canon 70-300 that can optionally be fitted with a tripod mounting ring and the ONLY Canon 70-300mm that can be used with any of the Canon teleconverters... New $1349, used from $1000.

ANY of these tele zooms would be a better choice than ANY of the 75-300s for image quality. AFAIK, all of the 70-300s listed above are still repairable too, if needed. A really old model like the one shown in the first post is very likely no longer serviced by Canon. It's likely replacement parts are unavailable, so it may not be reparable by anyone else, either. On crop sensor cameras (NOT full frame, like the original poster's 5DIII), the EF-S 55-250mm IS STM also is superior in almost all ways to the current 75-300mm lenses.

NOTE: The Canon 70-300mm lenses DO NOT use fluorite in their optical formula. Both of the Canon 100-400mm versions do, as well as most of the Canon 70-200mm lenses (all except the f/2.8 non-IS and the original f/2.8 IS versions). Fluorite, which Canon uses many of their telephotos (and Nikon has recently begun using in theirs too), is particularly helpful reducing chromatic aberration. None of the third party manufacturers use fluorite in any lenses, due to it's cost and difficulty working with it. Few other camera manufacturers use it either. Sigma uses some "FLD" elements that they call "fluorite-like". Canon is able to use it extensively and keep it fairly affordable because they pioneered methods of growing their own fluorite crystals in the 1970s and 80s, along with improved methods of working it into the shapes needed for lens optics.

whlsdn Loc: Colorado

Good leads here, and I have an IS version in E condition in my Adorama cart for $169 + shipping, but this suggestion makes good sense, dsmeltz. I'll take a look. Thanks.

Oops! Wrote this at the end of page 1, then it popped in at the end of page 2 and I began reading the first of comments on page 2. I'd better study this whole page before moving on!

As for the $188 refurb lens, dsmeltz, I could not find it. Here is what I found at Canon, but it's just my first time checking their refurb lenses, so I could have wandered in the wrong direction. (Oh, I did see there is a 15% discount available right now.)

Now, I have some reading to do....thanks in advance everyone! I love all the choices I end up with when I pose a question here. And every one of them has fine rationale behind it - I just have to find what best aligns with where I want to - and can - go.

(Download)

whlsdn Loc: Colorado

This is very tempting...even without the IS. But that does worry me.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

ggab Loc: ?

It is listed as "out of stock" now.

$187.99
Out of Stock

The non USM version is in stock

https://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/ef-75-300mm-f-4-56-iii-telephoto-zoom-refurbished

whlsdn Loc: Colorado

Very logical comments, Weddingguy. A cheap lens can be viewed as a temporary link, though, to let me experiment with the idea of greater reach with a lighter lens...for framing the exact portion of that landscape into all those available pixels, or climbing right up on that cliff with that bighorn sheep, or catching my granddaughter rounding the curve on the far side of the track (if she indeed does jump from volleyball next year to track), or...well, you get the picture. Then, if I really like what I'm doing (getting by with clambering up and down the bleachers or mountainside without my beloved but huge L 70-200 2.8), I can always sell the weak link lens and upgrade to the L that is junior to the big, light-gray guy. Or I can decide that it is just a weak link that I don't need and sell it without replacing it.

My thinking may not be the best, but it's mine.

whlsdn Loc: Colorado

I always learn good stuff when you participate, amfoto1! Thanks.

whlsdn Loc: Colorado

And I thought I was a good searcher! Thanks. At least this "weak link" would be pretty cheap...in the grand scheme of things.

whlsdn Loc: Colorado

Some might accuse Nikon users of having questionable input, but never I. Thanks for chiming in! From those really familiar with the specific lens in question, though, it sounds like it was a bit of a lemon. 'Twas info I did not have until now.

ggab Loc: ?

If you go this way, Ebay that is.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Exc-Canon-EF-70-300mm-F-4-5-6-II-IS-USM-Lens-w-Hood-60603029-From-Japan-F-S/123702214819?epid=230271049&hash=item1ccd3a00a3:g:iLYAAOSwb-JclCej

They mistakenly list it as a ver. II. The pictures indicate it is a version I. A good lens anyway. Lite weight with IS and USM.

Another one correctly listed as a ver. I from a camera store in the US.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Canon-EF-70-300mm-f-4-5-6-IS-USM-AF-Lens/312528025061?epid=99723043&hash=item48c41f35e5%3Ag%3AdsYAAOSwbURciWHn&LH_BIN=1

Just a thought.

Weddingguy Loc: British Columbia - Canada

I understand your reasoning . . BUT . . . I have found that the "weak links" that have to replaced later have been my most expensive experiences.

whlsdn Loc: Colorado

Thank you! The one in the US is now on my watch list. Might have gone ahead and ordered it, but the msg following yours still has me reconsidering a bigger expenditure on a black L.