Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
A Good Used Lens for a FF Camera?
Page 1 of 3 next> last>>
Mar 24, 2019 12:29:44   #
whlsdn Loc: Colorado
 
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.)


(Download)



Reply
Mar 24, 2019 12:42:11   #
rcarol
 
Price is good. Image quality is a bit soft at the 300mm focal length but otherwise a decent lens.

Reply
Mar 24, 2019 12:44:20   #
CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City
 
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.

Reply
 
 
Mar 24, 2019 13:22:37   #
speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho
 
whlsdn wrote:
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.)
A few who see this may recall an earlier post from... (show quote)



I think that's a bit steep price for that lens, new they are not much more new! I bought a 150mm/3.5 Pentax for $ 48, that I use on my 5D M III and that is one of the sharpest lenses I own, another one I bought was $ 12 and that one too is an awesome lens, so it pays to look around for bargains! The 75-300 is known to be a rather bad lens, so that price, I think is way too much! Another lens that I like is another Pentax that I bought for $75, it's a 300mm/f 4,.... its well worth that!

Reply
Mar 24, 2019 13:30:40   #
rcarol
 
rcarol wrote:
Price is good. Image quality is a bit soft at the 300mm focal length but otherwise a decent lens.


Sorry, I was thinking this was the 70-300mm which is a much better lens. The 75-300 mm is mediocre at best.

Reply
Mar 24, 2019 13:50:21   #
ken_stern Loc: Yorba Linda, Ca
 
"The 75-300 IS mm is mediocre at best." --- That pretty much describes this lens -- Had one when I shot way back with a Canon Elan 7 -- Retired it & purchased a 100-400 IS which in turn was retired & replaced with the 100-400 version 2 -- With lenses you generally with few exceptions get what you pay for

Reply
Mar 24, 2019 15:08:48   #
whlsdn Loc: Colorado
 
ken_stern wrote:
"The 75-300 IS mm is mediocre at best." --- That pretty much describes this lens -- Had one when I shot way back with a Canon Elan 7 -- Retired it & purchased a 100-400 IS which in turn was retired & replaced with the 100-400 version 2 -- With lenses you generally with few exceptions get what you pay for


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.


(Download)


(Download)

Reply
 
 
Mar 24, 2019 15:46:58   #
CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City
 
whlsdn wrote:
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.
Thanks, folks. I'm getting the general drift here... (show quote)


The 70-300 II mentioned above would give more reach at a lower weight vs the f/2.8L. I wouldn't replace the f/2.8 with an f/4, but the non IS 70-200 f/4L is just as sharp, but with less weight. The glass and IS of longer lenses, even primes, add to the weight of the lens. The juggle of size / weight, low(er) cost and quality are a difficult mix of variables, especially when you have f/2.8L in your bag already.

Reply
Mar 24, 2019 16:08:06   #
whlsdn Loc: Colorado
 
CHG_CANON wrote:
The 70-300 II mentioned above would give more reach at a lower weight vs the f/2.8L. I wouldn't replace the f/2.8 with an f/4, but the non IS 70-200 f/4L is just as sharp, but with less weight. The juggle of size / weight, low(er) cost and quality are a difficult mix of variables, especially when you have f/2.8L in your bag already.


Exactly right! With two 2.8 lens at hand covering 28mm to 200mm, I found myself arguing with my other self that I could just close the wallet, man up, and carry what I have when I really want to heft the big FF on a hike. After that novelty wears off - and my chiropractor has collected a lens’ worth of fix-me toll - I’ll be more likely to carry the T6s or the Lumix 4/3rd on the next hike. Or a simple bridge (Which I relieved my granddaughter of when I gave her a second hand T6 recently - and she was happy to let it go!) And one of those choices may end up making the most sense anyway.

Anyway, I’m now looking at a used 70-300 with IS for $89 fro Adorama, but condition is just “V”.

Reply
Mar 24, 2019 16:24:53   #
User ID
 
whlsdn wrote:
........

Anyway, I’m now looking at a used 70-300 with
IS for $89 fro Adorama, but condition is just “V”.


"Just V" ... but only $89, and they have a
generous return policy. Just one very ugly
mark on the barrel can take lens down to
"V", even if the glass and mechanicals are
perfectly clean. Can't hurt to order it and
see if it's a keeper.

.

Reply
Mar 24, 2019 16:49:53   #
whlsdn Loc: Colorado
 
User ID wrote:
"Just V" ... but only $89, and they have a
generous return policy. Just one very ugly
mark on the barrel can take lens down to
"V", even if the glass and mechanicals are
perfectly clean. Can't hurt to order it and
see if it's a keeper.

.


Thanks for pointing that out. Unfortunately, my search brought up some irrelevant lenses as well that ARE IS, but this one is NOT. Found one even at "E-" for $99, but I worry at 75 that it does not have IS.

Reply
 
 
Mar 25, 2019 00:29:40   #
jdub82 Loc: California
 
Mpb.com has the Canon EF 70-300mm IS USM (Version I not II) from $149.00 for a copy rated as 'Good Condition', and $169.00 for a copy in 'Excellent Condition'. (They have a couple rated well used for less $$).

Reply
Mar 25, 2019 07:15:57   #
jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY
 
Looking on eBay, that seems like a reasonable price, but clicking on "Sold items" didn't show any results. Odd.

https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_nkw=canon+70-300mm+lens&_sacat=0&LH_TitleDesc=0&rt=nc

Reply
Mar 25, 2019 07:27:23   #
ggab Loc: ?
 
whlsdn wrote:
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.)
A few who see this may recall an earlier post from... (show quote)


There have been 7 variations of this lense to date.
Only one has Image Stabilization, all of the others do not.
The really cheap versions do not have IS.
Just a heads up.

Reply
Mar 25, 2019 09:36:16   #
dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia
 
whlsdn wrote:
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.)
A few who see this may recall an earlier post from... (show quote)


That lens can be had completely refurbished with a manufacture's warranty for $188 at Canon's used store. I would not expect to pay more than $125 for a non-refurbished lens.

Reply
Page 1 of 3 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.