For the opportunity to review lens Canon EF 75-300mm f / 4.0-5.6 III Many thanks to Vitaliy Kukota.
Canon EF 75-300mm f / 4.0-5.6 III review
TTX Canon Zoom LENS EF 75-300mm 1: 4.0-5.6 III
Focal length: 75-300 mm
Diaphragm: f/4.0@75mm, f/5.6@300mm to f/32.0@75mm, f / 45 @ 300mm
Minimum Focus Distance: 1.5 meters
Optical design: 13 elements in 9 groups
Number of aperture blades: 7 pieces
Front Filter Diameter: 58mm
The weight: 480 g
Bayonet mount: EF (Full Fame, APS-H), EF-S (APS-C)
Photo on Canon EF 75-300mm f / 4.0-5.6 III
There are also lens options Canon EF 75-300mm f / 4.0-5.6 IS USM with image stabilizer and ultrasonic motor and Canon EF 75-300mm f / 4.0-5.6 III USM with an ultrasonic motor.
Example photo on a Canon EF 75-300mm f / 4.0-5.6 III
Focusing
The lens has an average auto focus speed. On the Canon EF 75-300mm f / 4.0-5.6 III there is a focus mode switch; in manual focus mode, the focus ring rotates approximately 90 degrees.
Example photo on a Canon EF 75-300mm f / 4.0-5.6 III
The lens can’t boast good. aperture. True, Canon EF 75-300mm f / 4.0-5.6 III can close aperture up to f / 45.
Example photo on a Canon EF 75-300mm f / 4.0-5.6 III
Weight Management
The lens is not heavy, the zoom and focus ring is pretty nice. The diameter of the front filter is not large, only 58mm, like a whale lens. I recommend using protective filter along with the lens.
Example photo on a Canon EF 75-300mm f / 4.0-5.6 III
Image quality
The lens showed not very good image quality. Canon EF 75-300mm f / 4.0-5.6 III suffers from aberrations. Holds back light normally. The image sharpness is not very good. Bokeh, a subjective factor, I didn't like it.
Example photo on a Canon EF 75-300mm f / 4.0-5.6 III
More examples of photos on this lens for Radozhiva kindly provided Alexander Frolov.
Personal experience
This is a rather dark telephoto, it cannot boast of anything interesting, except for its low price. It's too bad that when used on cropped cameras, the lens doesn't have an Image Stabilizer. At full frame, the Canon EF 75-300mm f / 4.0-5.6 III is more user-friendly due to its wider field of view than crop and better ISO values, which allow for faster shutter speeds and thus less shake. If you are going to buy this lens, then you need to know about handheld photography basics.
Sample photo on a Canon EF 75-300mm f / 4.0-5.6 III
Comments on this post do not require registration. Anyone can leave a comment. Many different photographic equipment can be found on AliExpress.
Conclusions:
Canon EF 75-300mm f / 4.0-5.6 III - very simple, not good aperture and image stabilizer tele lens. It can serve as an addition to a whale lens.
Material prepared Arkady Shapoval. Training/Consultations | Youtube | Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | Telegram
"It has nothing to boast of other than its low price."
I think it is very aptly said.
I recently purchased a Tamron AF18-200mm F / 3,5-6,3 XR Di II (IF) Model A14E for Canon. I don’t know if it’s worse or better, but I’m very unhappy. I also read that this lens at some exhibition was recognized as the best lens of 2005 (due to new technologies, compactness and cheapness).
Helios-44-2 has an order of magnitude higher sharpness! Maybe I haven't learned yet ... It's a pity that I don't live in Kiev, I would gladly give you Tamron for testing.
But your photos on any lens are beautiful.
helios 44-2, although old, but still fixed. it’s impractical to compare it with a budget zoom)
I'm not talking about that. I mean, in my case, the old optics turned out to be better than the new. I also have OSAWA Mark II MC 1: 5,6 60-300mm Macro, which I got for 10 cu So it is on the FD-EF adapter with an additional lens for infinity takes sharper pictures. But this is subjective and I'm just an amateur.
It is as if it was written about my Canon 55-250 is II. It can be seen that they are close relatives, I, however, have a stub. there is.
Sharpness is not their thing, just the fact that the TV. By the way, he was the second whale in my kit.
But if the budget does not allow you to take the best, then this will work. A couple of times already rescued.
This telephoto is evil! The only time he made me happy was the film. A digital full frame will not morally allow this to be put on ...
A whale is not the best. Even granite11 will be better
Why argue. This is called a number in the masses. Cheap optics for greater availability. And it’s nothing strange that Soviet optics are many times better and stronger. Yes, and the old film optics FD and M42 are better. You can take on ebee some PORST or Vivitar M42 or FD bucks for 30 and he will shoot much better than this miracle for 100-200 ye. In addition, you can compare for example with
Canon Ef 70-300 F / 4-5.6l Is Usm. And why does it cost $ 1000-2000? It’s not just like that?
I just think that taking Ef 70-300 is usm f4-5.6 or something better! And its cost now in photo.ru is 14000 rubles! But not 1000 bucks.
I’m also thinking of taking a Canon EF 70-300mm f / 4-5.6 IS USM on a 650D, it would be nice to snap a reviewer on it))
If someone gives a lens for a couple of days, I'll review it.
Arkady, if the question is still relevant, I will give the glass for the test. No problem.
I wrote to you in the mail.
I'd love to read the review you created for the Canon EF 70-300mm f / 4-5.6 IS USM lens.
The lenses are assessed biasedly: the Nikon 70-300mm is not bad, and the Canon 75-300mm is rubbish, I don't think that lenses from different manufacturers with similar characteristics and the same aperture ratio differ greatly in quality. Well, I can't believe that Sigma or Tamron are better at shooting than Canon.
Nikon 70-300 are very different, namely the model https://radojuva.com.ua/2011/10/obzor-nikon-70-300mm-f-4-5-5-6g-ed-if-af-s-vr-zoom-nikkor/ very good. And the price tags for Canon EF 75-300mm f / 4.0-5.6 III and Nikkor 70-300mm f / 4.5-5.6G ED VR AF-S are completely different.
And I have such a lens and I took it deliberately, and also the USM. I knew many of his "advantages". After Fuji Finepix HS10 zoom is sorely lacking. Of course there are hiccups and a bit dark ... But I'm not going to look at each frame in pixel magnification, looking for aberrations. Satisfied with the lens. There is also Helios 44-2 and Helios 40, 66th year and Kenon 25-90.
The first time I shot 37 with Yuriter and then Helios, I really saw the difference. This plastic, in terms of image quality, is very, very inferior. That's just ... quite often, I make “random” shots. And without a zoom, you will agree. So I can't say too many bad things about this kit lens. All the same, about 300 photos remained after him in the home archive.
I've been using this lens for half a year, I tried to squeeze everything out of it - it's useless: you can't get a good picture. Lack of sharpness and terrible aberrations at 300 mm - this is his "strong point". I don't see any point in buying the same one, but with USM and IS for $ 666, while you can already buy Canon EF 70-200mm f / 4L IS USM for $ 666 (with a discount, of course), which has practically no aberrations, very sharp on all focal, having a constant aperture, dust and moisture protected. Better the absence of 300 mm than the absence of a good picture with the available 300 mm. The only normal use of this lens is as a portrait and tripod. Then the picture is more or less decent. But why do we need a telephoto camera that better plays a secondary role than the one intended by the manufacturer? That's right - it's better then to buy a relatively inexpensive high-aperture "fix", for example, Canon EF-S 60mm f2.8 Macro USM - there will be more benefits, but fewer problems.
Anton, Gene JB was referring to the “L” series lens, which uses completely different optical elements in its composition than in the telephoto presented in this review.
Help me choose a good lens for the Canon 400d
and can anyone say at least 150mm the picture will be sharp? I now have a whale lens 18-135 at 600D, the one that it shoots at 80 is quite fine for me. even at 100 sometimes if using a tripod. and at 135 of course no tripod will help. But I’m just an amateur and 80-100 is not enough for me. I want at least 150. I think now it’s worth buying it for 145 euros or not. dear anyway, in the coming years 2 it doesn’t shine for me and maybe then it doesn’t shine. So if he removes normally at least 150mm, then for that price I’ll be fine.
or maybe there is something more decent maximum for 150 euros? most of all I want this lens to take pictures of flamingos at sunset. but they are not close to the shore. 150mm is enough for me, but so that the picture is sharp. or is it unrealistic for such a price?
For flamingos, take Samyang 500mm f / 6.3 Mirror (T-mount) with an adapter for your mount, 300mm is clearly not enough for such tasks or a similar 800mm 8.0. Weight and price are small, quality is on par. Have a nice photo shoot.
Hello. I also have a comment about the lens. I have a Canon 650D, and with a large zoom the lens starts to soap. So this lens can be used by sports fans, and for the landscapes even the same helios would be better.
For landscapes, whale 18-55 will be better than this, the viewing angle is larger. 75-300 for close-up shots and cover the aperture to 8 - 16 and the sharpness will increase.
this lens will have the best sharpness at aperture values of 8 - 22, that is, its capabilities are limited to daytime shooting in good lighting. Up to 200 mm it is not very bad, but at 300 mm the picture becomes too soft (soap). But for $ 120, you can't find it better. Suitable for study and amateur photography.
Help me please. I want to take a lens of either 75-300 or 50-250, which is better? Thank you in advance.
I'm wondering where the 550 has such an ISO step as ha signed pictures ??? I doubt it is sharpened better than my 600, but it does NOT have such ISO values. Regarding the barrel itself: here and I go it is clear that it is not sharpened for professional photography! For those who want better - pay more, but as a beginner, I wonder whether it is worth taking it or not. If you want to fight, I'll take UM ...
It would be nice if you watched your words. ISO values are taken from the automatic (Auto) ISO sensitivity control function.
Arkady, I apologize for the French, gourmets pissed off! Everyone wants something supernatural from this inexpensive, and in most cases the whale muzzle, but they have failed to live up to their expectations.
I’ll also put in my 5 cents. I use it on a Canon 60D (they gave me a lens). Mostly in the range of 100-200. I do not open the diaphragm more than 6.3 (and up to 8). At first I was very unhappy, but soon got used to it, set the framework and get acceptable results. Sometimes not bad, from my profane point of view. Example (chamber jpeg without processing, full size): http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7300/9308167895_f4677f78ea_o_d.jpg
Great photo. My Sigma 70-300 mm is also cheap, with an aperture of 7.1-16 I get decent sharpness, a normal lens for daytime shooting. He was also at first dissatisfied, but then he shot in general for amateur shooting normally.
Good evening! Beautiful photo. The hand of the artist is felt.
L 70-200 4.0
Well, really, guys buy it, buy it on ebay or where else you will be happy.
One of the most dumb from Canon.
Gives only 3 wishes at the beginning of the photo path -
1. getting used to zoom and the desire to create
2. Be sure to choose a replacement as you master
3. when choosing a replacement, the desire to get rid of him right away
ALL
Please explain to a beginner how you get such beautiful bokeh on this lens? I shot on this lens, bokeh only with a strong approach to the subject or at 300 mm! the aperture is fully open! but still the background is slightly blurry, not as much as in your photo!
Below the photos are shooting options. I also shot at 300mm.
Probably, it would be time for the reviewer to already know and bear in mind that even with top-class lenses, the quality can significantly fluctuate depending on the specific instance, market, etc., not to mention the budget category. And therefore it is not necessary to make peremptory authoritative conclusions that lathers, unsharp, etc. and to give thoughtful conclusions, you have already been told above that the lens of one company cannot be worse than the analogue of another.
And even this model, provided that a good quality specimen is tested, suppresses XA much better than other analogues and the sharpness is very decent on targets in comparative tests.
So write your reviews more thoughtfully ……
How much does such a lens cost?
I added to the review
See for yourself :)