[Brightcolours]

Bright Colors:  I know it's not great, but I got my 75-300 IS USM in new condition cheap with the hood so I can live with it.  I believe it was the first implementation of IS, so it is a also, I suppose the worst.   Still always surprises me to hear how terrible certain lenses are considered.  Looking at the lens designs, it is almost identical to the 70-300 IS USM that replaced it.  Both only have micro-motors, and are rather slow.  There is one of the smaller interior elements that was made of UD glass, and some slight changes to a couple of the elements.  But people seem to be fine with that lens! 

 

Rover, I do understand.  I have been eyeing the 40/2.8 STM and the EF-s 24/2.8 STM.  I know it would be nice to have upward mobility in my lenses ( to FF), but after years of crying "foul"! because Canon was not doing enough in EF-s, I actually appreciate the 24mm lens being made available! 


Toni-a:  I see the problem.  It seems like something should be salvageable, but it doesn't seem too likely. 

 

Thanks for your responses, gentlemen!  Sorry if I am oversensitive with my 75-300!

People are fine with the 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM because it simply is sooo much better!

To quote an old review:

"Image quality from the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens is 
<b>mediocre...</b> The IS version had slightly more corner softness." 


"T
he 75-300 IS is soft wide open at all focal lengths. Sharpness decreases as it zooms from 70mm to 300mm. However, the corners are softest at 70 and getting better by 300."


"
If you care about excellent quality, sharp photos, the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens is not for you. And Photoshop cannot enhance details that are not there."


 

The changes made in the "new" 70-300mm lens were enough to make that lens better wide open at 300mm than the old lens is when stopped down to f8.


See here: http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/rev...eview.html