This is Canon's first consumer-grade lens with IS. It's worth closer to $100, all things considered, including image quality.

The real question: what are you trying to accomplish? Just any old lens that will mount? Some specific focal length and / or target image type? "Lighter weight zoom", for what?

The current version, Canon EF 70-300mm F4-5.6 IS II USM , would be a much better choice, not as cheap of course, but for image quality, IS performance and weight over the same focal length.

A few who see this may recall an earlier post from me inquiring about camera choices primarily related to sensor size. If so, you know all who followed the topic read lots of insightful and thoughtful input sent my way by our more knowledgeable members. For me, it was certainly instructional! I'll add there an update of more details on what I've done since getting that advice, but for here I have but one question.

I'm looking for an inexpensive telephoto lens to use with a Canon 5D Mark III (high shutter count, otherwise very nice, now cleaned & updated by C.R.I.S. in Chandler, AZ). I have 2 very appropriate lens, but I'm looking for a lighter weight long zoom. Does this fit the bill, and if it's in clean, good condition, is $150 a fair price? I think it's a Sept. 1995 edition, if I found the right one in the Canon Museum. (Doesn't mean THIS one is THAT old, of course.)

Thanks, folks. I'm getting the general drift here: not a great choice.

CHG_CANON, to address your question of purpose, I have a Tamron SP AF XR Di LD IF 28-75mm 1:2.8 that I moved from my 60D and now is my main lens for the 5D Miii. It's just a little noisy focusing, but other than that, I love it! Having bought a camera with this lens on it and resold the camera with a cheaper lens and no loss of $, I nearly got it for free. How could I NOT love it? I also have the lens pictured below. It's old (Dates back to film cameras?), not cheap (though I still considered it a bargain) nor lightweight, but it is awesome.

Unless I find another insanely good bargain, I know I'll not be getting anything in the same class as either of these lenses. But I was hoping to find something with reach similar to or greater than the 70-200 L yet much more hikable. I did take a decent rocky trail hike here in AZ with the L, and I love the shots I took, but it isn't something I expect to repeat often.

For the full picture, so to speak, I should add here that I also have - and expect to keep for the foreseeable future - a Canon Rebel T6s and a Lumix GX85, each with a selection of lenses. That's representation from 3 nifty sensor formats right there! I'm having great fun probing the strengths and limitations of each. And exposing my own weaknesses and growth opportunities.

I'll be selling the Canon EOS 60D as soon as we get home to Longmont, CO and I decide what lens to send it off with. It was recently cleaned and updated by Key Camera in Longmont and received a good bill of health.

While I did a mild mile or more hike in the desert hills OK with the big gray guy on the 5D, the short hike that did me in I had the Tamron 28-75 2.8 on and the Canon 70-200 L 2.8 in its bag around my neck. My neck and left shoulder are still bad! So I'll roll the dice and choose one or the other for now - while I save $ for a lighter weight L with greater reach. But I don't really like changing lens on that camera out in the elements, so I need to make myself choose at the outset anyway.

Maybe my biggest concern with the gray beast is a stumble when I'm on a rocky trail and potential damage to a combination that would cost me more than 2K to replace. Eek. But, I know, that's one risk when one takes the FF leap.