A solid higher-end consumer lens

Its always hard to get the perfect lens. Especially if you don't want to spend a ton of money.

In the "ton of money" catagory, you have Canon's "L" lens series. Generally, the prices start at $1000 and go up from there. Even if you do have the money, many of the "L" lenses also are pretty darn heavy to carry around.

I initially picked up this lens because I wanted to reach out beyond 200mm and didn't want to spend too much. What I've instead discovered is that its an excellent lightweight (1.5lb) lens that I'm willing to carry on longer hikes in the woods.

First, a word about "IS": Image Stabilization. "IS" typically allows you to shoot two additional stops slower on your shutter speed, which means that the traditional rule of thumb of a minimum shutter speed of "1/(focal length)sec" effectively goes to "4/(focal length)sec". For example, at a zoom of 250mm, the rule says you want a 1/250sec shutter speed, but with IS, you'll get as sharp of an image at 1/60sec. In a lot of situations, this allows you to hand-hold instead of needing a tripod, especially if your lighting isn't the nice, bright "Sunny 16" kind of day. If you don't want IS, Canon makes a less expensive version of the 75-300mm that doesn't have it, but I'm of the opinion that IS is worth paying for.

Next, a word about "DO": Dispersive Optics. Canon now also makes a 75-300mm IS DO lens which looks very similar to this lens. But since it costs roughly 3x as much ($1200), its pretty safe to say that its not really a competitor. But if you do find an IS DO mismarked to the IS price, please grab one for me too while you're at it :-)


So much for talking about what this lens isn't: what does one get with the 75-300mm IS?

What you get is an excellent lens that's light enough to carry with you without breaking your back, or busting your wallet.

On the weight and wallet side of things, three possible contenders that would produce equal or better images would be the aforementioned 75-300mm IS DO ($1200 & 1.5lbs), or the Canon 300mm f/4 "L" telephoto ($1200 & 3lbs), or the Canon 100-400mm IS ($1400 & 3lbs). All of these are IMO not in the same price class of this lens, so don't really represent a fair comparison.

What don't you get?

First, you don't get "L" quality of images, but this shouldn't come as a surprise...we've also not paid as much. It is known to get a little bit "soft" beyond 250mm or so. The IS can offset this a little if you have enough light because you can trade-off a slower shutter speed to increase the f/stop some. Even so, we really need to see images to get a good handle on what's really "good" or "bad".

So to that end, here's two views of one photo I took handheld at full 300mm extension in some shady woods:

http://www.huntzinger.com/photo/2004/peru/SV_cock-of-the-rock_c1_(24_0445).jpg

http://www.huntzinger.com/photo/2004/peru/SV_cock-of-the-rock_c2_(24_0445).jpg

(Notes: same frame of Fuji Provia 400UC 35mm film, f/5.6, ~1/150sec, digitized at 3000 x 2000)

Granted, the first of these has been downsampled to a smaller file size for the Web, but it looks sharp enough.

The second, on the other hand, definitely looks a bit fuzzy. But in fairness to it, it has been very strongly cropped: if this was its original full frame, you're roughly looking at the equivalent of a 1000mm focal length image that was taken _handheld_! As such, I'd say that for a 1.5lb lens, this has done very, very well.


Moving on...

Second, while its IS feature will give you more good keeper shots compared to less expensive lenses, you do have to keep in mind that this is Canon's basic IS, so it doesn't offer a panning switch like on "L" lenses. As such, its most suitable for zooming in on critters when they're not moving around too much.


Third, the lens is not "L" quality fast on its focusing speed. But again, you get what you pay for. However, it is worth noting that I've seen one report that claimed that the Canon 10D digital body's speed of focusing outstrips the performance of the motors in this lens when its IS feature is turned on. Keep in mind that this is only going to be a problem when you're shooting moving subjects with less time to autofocus, but it is something to check out when considering this lens if you suspect (as most of us probably are these days) that you'll want to put it onto any of Canon's newer digital SLR's. I expect to be buying a 20D later this Spring, so I might find out what the deal is...although in balance, I also have to say that I don't generally shoot too many fast moving subjects with my telephoto lens.

Fourth, minimum focus distance is around 6ft. This can make small critters that almost need a macro lens into a bit of a challenge, but a 12mm extension tube is one admittedly partial solution to the problem that's also lightweight an inexpensive. Besides, upgrading to a big "L" lens doesn't generally magically solve this problem anyway.

Well, these are the highlights. The bottom line remains that without paying a lot more both in weight and/or cost, you're not going to reach this level of quality. If you want a good long lens that's going to be not too heavy to carry around, this is probably your best choice.


-hh