Canon EF 75-300mm f4-5.6 III - Decent Starter Telephoto... But Not Much More Beyond That
Written: Jan 26 '08 (Updated Mar 29 '09)
Product Rating:
Pros: Light-Weight; Inexpensive; Smooth Zoom
Cons: Softness; Rotating Front Element; Cheap Build
The Bottom Line: The Canon EF 75-300mm f4-5.6 III is Canon's lowest-end telephoto kit lens. It will make true amateurs happy, but beyond that there are better options.
soupcraze's Full Review: Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM Lens
As I was looking into getting a nice mid-range telephoto lens for myself, I borrowed a low-end Canon EF 75-300mm f4-5.6 III lens. This is the lowest-end variant of Canon's consumer level 75-300mm market. The version I used was the non-USM variant. I used it for about three weeks before I decided on purchasing my Canon EF 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM lens. As a temporary lens, it was fine, especially considering I didn't pay anything. Beyond that, you may be compelled to look further.
-The 75-300mm Family-
*In terms of consumer and semi-professional (Non L-Series) telephoto lenses, Canon has two separate lines. It has the 75-300mm variants, which I am reviewing, as well as the 70-300mm variants which include the more expensive Image Stabilized and Diffractive Optics variants of those lenses.
As far as the 75-300mm goes, the Canon EF 75-300mm f4-5.6 III is the lowest-end model. The reason that it is the cheapest is because of the auto focusing mechanism. It just has a basic motor, thus is a non-USM model. You can also purchase a more expensive version of this same lens that has a micro-USM motor. This is the Canon EF 75-300mm f4-5.6 III USM The only advantage of that lens would be the USM focusing motor which could make a difference if you are trying to take action photos of birds, airplanes, wildlife, or just about anything.
Then there is the most expensive variant of this lens, which is considerably more expensive than either. It is the Canon EF 75-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM lens. The reason that it is much more expensive is because of Image Stabilization. This helps correct blur in your photos from camera shake. That lens costs near $400 or so. Though if you are already heading up into the telephoto midrange, I would recommend the Canon EF 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM lens over the 75-300mm variant.
The Canon EF 75-300mm f4-5.6 III maybe appealing for some because online it can be purchased for less than $200, closer to $150 at online retailers and eBay. What's interesting though is that you can find this lens easily at Big Box retailers such as Target. I just saw it displayed in the camera display for $199.00. Therefore, the lens maybe appealing to those that are looking for a lower-cost telephoto, and also prefer to shop at stores like Target or Best Buy.
Just be aware of the options. If you want a sub-$200 telephoto, I would recommend getting either the USM version or going with a third party maker such as Sigma and Tamron, which might actually give a better overall product.
-PRICE-
*The Canon EF 75-300mm f4-5.6 III is the cheapest of the Canon 75-300mm telephoto lenses. If you do not care about having a USM motor and want a lens with the Canon badge, well... Yeah... This is what you would most likely purchase. Though I would recommend investing into the next model up solely for the USM motor which would allow it to focus faster. This can mean the difference between making or losing an action shot.
If you are up for purchasing a third party lens, I would be interested though to see how this would stack up against Tamron and Sigma's lowest-end telephoto lenses. I have never used them, but would be quite interested to see how they stack up. Based on Tamron's products that I have used before, I think you may have an advantage with a faster focus mechanism, as well as better optics? You can also purchase the third party telephoto lenses closer to the $100 mark. I have seen the Tamron 75-300mm lenses going for $120-$130 on eBay. Sigma also manufactures a 70-300mm lens that you can also get for less than $200. Imagine that, you can get a lens that will go 5mm wider then the Canon... Reading up articles and forums online, amateur photographers generally had good things to say about both the Tamron and Sigma lenses. Read it up for yourself, and then see what's available.
If you are feeling adventurous, you can also try some off-brand telephoto lenses. The off-branded lenses are actually rebadged Tamron, Sigma, and Tokina lenses. You can look up lenses from Promaster, Quantaray, and other brands that I can't think of from the top of my head. I have seen some Quantarays on eBay that looked just like their Tamron and Sigma counterparts. Also, those you might find closer to the $100 price point.
The Canon EF 75-300mm f4-5.6 III is technically a "kit lens." Therefore, you can't expect too much from it. For the price you pay, it does what it is supposed to. While you may get an advantage from the third party manufacturers, based on what you are paying, you can't expect L-Series quality. The quality also is not terrible anyhow. Thus, if you want a bare bones telephoto with the Canon badge, get this. Though I would recommend stepping up to the USM, it may be a better choice.
The one nice thing about buying the Canon EF 75-300mm f4-5.6 III is that it is available at the Big Box retailers. Therefore, if you prefer to shop at Target, Walmart, or other stores that carry a limited camera and accessories collection, you would be in luck to find this lens for just under $200. Unfortunately, the retailers demand more for this lens than online retailers or eBay. Therefore I would stay away from them. But if you just want to buy it at Target and have it in your hand, then it is readily available for you!
-BUILD QUALITY-
*The overall build quality feels pretty cheap. The lens is plasticky, but it is not the worst feeling lens that I have ever used. On the bright side, the zoom felt pretty smooth on this lens. For what you are paying, you really can't expect to have a metal barrel. So while your lens is less able to withstand abuse, the all-plastic design also has an upside. The Canon EF 75-300mm f4-5.6 III is quite a bit better than the lens I have now in terms of weight. The Canon EF 75-300mm f4-5.6 III is a very light lens, thanks to the plastic body. Therefore, if you really need that far 300mm stretch when taking photographs but don't want to carry the weight, this would be a great lens. You can throw it in your camera bag, and barely even notice that it is there! Like any lens, as long as you take care of it, it should be fine. Despite the all-plastic construction, it still feels solidly built, much more so than the "Nifty Fifty".
-FEATURES-
*It is difficult to talk about features with this less, it is easier to talk about how it is "featureless." As I have mentioned earlier in the review, the Canon EF 75-300mm f4-5.6 III is the lowest-end 75-300mm lens that Canon offers due to the lack of the USM (Ultrasonic motor). What does this mean? This means that the lens takes a bit longer to focus. I found the lens to focus very slowly when I attempted to take images. The lens did tend to hunt. Yes, it is a very far cry from the micro-USM on my 70-300mm (Where the focus isn't all too great anyway). Therefore, you will find good results when it comes to focusing on stationary objects. But when it comes to moving objects, especially fast ones, then you may have trouble getting the perfect shot. For this reason alone I urge you to consider the more expensive USM variant of this lens. It can cost you a precious shot.
The lens like the other 75-300mm models has the rotating front element. This is not very good if you are using a polarizing filter. I used the lens with a UV filter attached, therefore making absolutely no difference.
-IMAGE QUALITY-
*Outdoors the Canon EF 75-300mm f4-5.6 III was alright. The lens took decent pictures, though the lack of Image Stabilization made some of my farther images (Beyond 200mm) come out a bit blurry if the camera experienced any shake. I noticed that it did get a bit soft around the edges when going out longer. I also used the Canon EF 75-300mm f4-5.6 III indoors. In fact, I attempted to compare it to my Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM lens at roughly 75mm (IS off) with using a Canon Speedlite 430EX flash. I was not very impressed with the images that the Canon EF 75-300mm f4-5.6 III produced. At 75mm with bounce flash, the colors looked very similar to what my old Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM lens (Kit lens) produced. The images appeared very soft.
You might be saying, why would I compare the Canon EF 75-300mm f4-5.6 III to the much more expensive 28-135mm lens. The 28-135mm is also a walkaround lens, not a telephoto! Well, I wasn't trying to compare the lenses for the sake of purchasing one over the other. I was just trying to see how the optics differed. By using the manual mode on the camera set at f4.0 at ISO 800 with both lenses, I saw the different in colors and sharpness. The colors with the 28-135mm looked better saturated with better sharpness at ~75mm than the Canon EF 75-300mm f4-5.6 III. If the non-IS Canon 18-55mm extended out to 75mm, I would have had the same level of performance as the Canon EF 75-300mm f4-5.6 III. I never compared the Canon EF 75-300mm f4-5.6 III side-by-side with my Canon EF 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM lens, but the 70-300mm creates images that most closely resemble my 28-135mm in terms of saturation, sharpness, and overall quality.
Ultimately, the Canon EF 75-300mm f4-5.6 III performs as a kit lens. I have seen it come with plenty of cameras, even up to the semi-professional EOS##D cameras on eBay, and maybe even Costco with the XTi if I am not mistaken. Thus, while the Canon EF 75-300mm f4-5.6 III may not have sufficient image quality for those that are closer to being semi-professional, I believe that the Canon EF 75-300mm f4-5.6 III would be very sufficient for those that have just stepped up from a point-and-shoot camera. Had I used this lens immediately after switching from my Canon PowerShot SD500, I would have been amazed with the quality. Therefore, those that would be looking for a technical "kit lens" would probably be quite satisfied with the quality.
As far as other things go, the lens is susceptible to lens flare. That is why if you take many outdoor photos, I would recommend using a lens hood. I did not notice a dramatic amount of flare when taking photos, but I did take many where I received stray light from the sun.
I also did not notice chromatic aberration. Perhaps I had a difficult time viewing this due to the overall image softness. Nonetheless, a lot of people that aren't into serious photography may not be overly concerned about CA.
I was using the lens on a cropped sensor camera (Canon EOS 400D Digital Rebel XTi), and did not notice any vignetting with the lens.
I do not know how the image quality compares to the Sigma and Tamron counterparts, but have read online in numerous places that it is better. I can not comment on this, but it would be interesting to find out. So please do your research if you are buying this.
-CONCLUSION-
*The Canon EF 75-300mm f4-5.6 III is Canon's lowest-end telephoto lens. It is pretty much marketed as a kit lens, so therefore you can't expect too much. Those that are just switching from a point-and-shoot and are still unfamiliar with the dramatic improvements in quality than an SLR camera can make would most likely be very satisfied with the overall image quality. By using the lens outdoors, it was alright in quality. The focusing was ridiculously slow though, which prevented me in capturing certain shots that I was hoping to get. Indoors, the Canon EF 75-300mm f4-5.6 III reminded me too much of the Canon 18-55mm kit lens that I got rid of long ago. The images were quite soft and the colors were less than spectacular.
Is the lens worth it? If you are set on getting Canon glass, I would highly recommend the USM variant of this lens more since it would provide a faster focusing mechanism. This is extremely important, especially when capturing action shots. Therefore, if you take plenty of action photographs, I could not stress the USM enough. If you take stills, then you would probably suffice with the Canon EF 75-300mm f4-5.6 III. I must warn you though, this thing focuses very slowly!
I can not compare this to an Image Stabilized Canon telephoto lens since those are considerably more expensive, even the cheaper 75-300mm IS variant. This would be pretty helpful though if you shoot without a tripod.
If you can get your hands on the Tamron and Sigma counterparts, by all means try them out. You may essentially get better image quality from them, as well as a lens that could probably focus faster. Another thing I would consider is to wait and see if the Canon EF-S 55-250mm f4-5.6 IS lens makes it to the US market. You might be losing 50mm on the long end, but you will be gaining 20mm on the wide end as well as Canon's Image Stabilization. I looked at gray market versions, but they were very expensive. Perhaps it will be cheaper when it makes it to America (If it does that is).
In conclusion, the Canon EF 75-300mm f4-5.6 III does what it is supposed to do. It provides decent performance as a telephoto kit lens. I wouldn't look for it to do anything beyond that. Many people are quite satisfied with the performance. Since the lens is all-plastic and is quite light, many people that have just switched to an SLR will be comfortable with lugging this thing around. Otherwise, if you are a more serious photographer that requires more room to grow, I would recommend passing on this lens. Pay out the extra few hundred and get either the Canon EF 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM or the wonderful Canon EF 70-200mm f4L USM lens. You don't want to spend that much? Just get the USM version or try the Sigma and Tamron telephotos, you might fare better that way.
The EF 75-300 mm f/4 - 5.6 III Telephoto Zoom Lens from Canon is designed to fulfill your digital photographic needs. This lens makes it easy to throw...More at Dell
Non-USM version Focus Drive: MM Groups: 9/13 View of Angle: 32? - 8? Min. Focus: 4.9 ft. (1.5m) Min. Aperture: f/32-45 Filter Diameter: 58mm Le...More at BuyDig.com
Epinions.com periodically updates pricing and product information from third-party sources, so some information may be slightly out-of-date. You should confirm all information before relying on it.
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.