I,m considering buying a Canon 75-300 IS as I,m pleased with the 28-135 IS. Is this the same lens as the non-IS version that has been out for a good while? General opinion of the non-IS was that the optics were not up to standards and the SQF tests done by Pop Photo gave the Sigma 70-300 APO the edge over the Canon 75-300. Any thoughts would be appreciated here as I cannot find any tests of these online.

-- Jeff Hallett (franjeff@alltel.net), February 23, 1999

Answers

Bob Atkins has a nice write-up about the Canon xx-300 zooms on the Nature Photography pages of photo.net. I don't remember if he says much about this lens or not. I own it, and am generally satisfied, but only because of the IS. I tend to do a lot of handheld shots at 300mm, and many of them wouldn't be possible without IS. That said, I used a friend's old 100-300 f5.6 (non-L, like I said, old) and his was sharper at 300mm on a tripod, without a doubt. Of course when it came to handholding at 1/180 sec the IS lens won hands down, unless I was braced against something, and controling my breathing, etc. Below 1/180 the 100-300 is useless handheld, while the 75-300 IS is good to 1/60, and even 1/30 if I try hard enough.

If you are going to have the camera on a tripod all the time, go with one of the 100-300 lenses, preferably the "L". If you are going to handhold quite a bit, go with the "IS". As has been said before, it is all in how you will use it. On a tripod, I would buy something else. For handholding at the shutter speeds f5.6 will give you with slow film nothing else will come close though.

-- Brad Hutcheson (bhutcheson@iname.com), February 23, 1999.

As mentioned , I am familiar with IS function and capabilities since I own an IS lens. Concerned mainly with the optics as stated in the post.Thanks!

-- Jeff Hallett (franjeff@alltel.net), February 23, 1999.

If you want sharp optics forget about zooms and find a used Canon 300/4L. All the x-300 zooms are pretty similar. My tests showed the 75-300IS to be just as sharp as any of the other Canon zooms (100-300 USM, 75-300 non-IS), with the possible exception of the 100-300L at the long end. I once tried a Sigma 75-300 APO and found it little different from the Canon zooms. In the $200-$300 price range (and the 75-300 IS is a $200 lens with IS added), there's not much difference in optical quality.

The Pop Photog tests are virtually meaningless unless the differences they find are huge. I wouldn't put any faith in differences of a few "SQF" points or their summary "good/average/etc" comments.

-- Bob Atkins (bobatkins@hotmail.com), February 23, 1999.

Jeff... Heres a subjective opionion...

My wife uses the 75-300IS and I use either the 300F4L or the 100- 300F5.6L

The 75-300 is definately 'softer' than either of the others but my wife definately grabs shots I don't get.

One of the best bits of advice I ever heard was - take the shot, take the shot you want. The 75-300IS really lets one attend to this advice.

As to the 300F4 vs the 100-3005.6L - There is not a big difference in the images and 4-5.6 is NOT a big difference in speed. In fact, my impression is that lenses with flourite elements give me shots that I like better (contrast? saturation? I don't know). Ths zoom has a flourite element the prime does not.

Given the cost of the zoom vs prime (particularly now with the 100- 400 announced) if you were going non-is I know what I'd buy.

Mike

-- Mike Milton (M_G_Milton@msn.com), February 26, 1999.

Just a counter opinion. I had the 100-300/5.6L, then I bought the 300/4L too. Within a month or two I sold the 100-300L. The 300/4L was so much better, faster, sharper, quieter, faster focusing and easier to use (with the built in tripod mount), that the 100-300L never came out of the bag. For me, the choice was clear - the 300/4L, hands down every time and I don't miss the 100-300/5.6L one bit.

Just goes to show that people differ in their preferences when it comes to lenses. There's no "best" for everyone.

I also have the 75-300 IS as a general purpose, do everything, carry around lens. Very sharp at 75, a bit soft at 300, but it's a tool for a different job than the 300/4L.

-- Bob Atkins (bobatkins@hotmail.com), February 26, 1999.

Bob's experience should very much be expected. A fixed 300mm is going to be better than a zoom whose long end is 300mm. Moreover, that one stop difference is important. For lenses 300mm or longer, I use them at f4 or at least f5.6 most of the time as you need the shutter speed to freeze the subject's motion (as I use long lenses for animal shots most of the time) and any camera shake. To me, a 300mm/f5.6 is a bit too slow and gives me a pretty dark viewfinder.

-- Shun Cheung (shun@worldnet.att.net), February 28, 1999.