canon 90-300?
 

has anyone got any experience with the canon Canon EF 90-300mm f4.5-5.6 Auto Focus USM? ive been looking at lens and stuff but being a totall novice its easily to be blinded by bull in the shop. i want a bit of range thats all and a bit of an all rounder. ive found this lens cheap as chips too £119.99! any body got a quick verdict?

yes im new to this and in camera terms a bit thick lol so please go easy.......:D

crazee,

I have no knowledge of this lens, but it would help others advise if you could explain a bit more about the kind of usage you are going to give it. What sort of things do you want to take pictures of with this lens, how often are you going to use it, is this going to be used as your everyday workhorse lens, or a now and again lens? Still life, moving objects, candid street stuff, landscapes, with or without tripod, etc. Daylight, night time, ........

You get the idea. Sorry to bombard you with questions, but just about any lens can be good or bad in a particular set of circumstances and it would help others advise if they knew what your usage was going to be.

Regards,

Duncan

Crazee, try fredmiranda.com for lens reviews by users.

sorry, i like to take wildlife pictures and things from afar but am on a bit of a budget, i really want a bit of an all rounder for birds and the like! and a bit of still life too!

As with most budget lens they have a sweet spot and if your work within that sweet spot your get some decent results.

So in good light where you can stop down the lens to f8 - f11 and keep to the 90 - 200mm of the zoom range will be it's sweet spot.

Workable for static subjects.

Wide open at 300mm will disapoint with soft images.

Another lens to consider is
70-300mm F4-5.6 APO Macro DG which maybe a tad better.

So what will paying more give you.

Normally a better build quality which is useful if this is your everyday lens.

Faster AF motor good for subjects on the move.

Improved optics that tend to be sharp wide open and less prone to colour fringing especially on the border of the frame. Even sharpness across the frame.

The 90-300mm is good for the money as long as you know it's limitations.

If you are serious about bird photography it won't be long before you meet these limits and you have to dig alot deeper into your pocket for some quality glassware. Secondhand quality glass is still expensive in terms of the 90-300mm.

Also mbkamrani has one of that lenses.
Here is a link to one of his pictures taken with it.
LINK
You may want to PM him for more info.

From what I can remember of a revue eons ago it was very ''ordinary.'' Nothing actually wrong with it but very much designed and built down to a price. Think some of the Sigma stuff at a similar price probably better.

dare i say ive been looking at this............... http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/BRAND-NEW-SIGM...QQcmdZViewItem

Always got good write-ups for the price, the APO version a bit better.

er............. whats APO?

I hope this link explains http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apochromat

Don

''Normal'' lenses are only designed to accurately focus one wavelength of light so on longer focal length lenses you can sometimes see the other colours around the edge of the focussed image (not the same as the purple fringing you get from the properties of the digital sensor but looks rather similar). More expensive telephotos or tele-zooms correct for this and are called apochromatic lenses. Sigma call their versions of this APO lenses. They produce sharper images but are more expensive. The effect does not show up on shorter focal length lenses under say 300mm. Hope this helps.

By the time I had finished typing my message and posting it Don puts a much better answer up! Ah well ;) .

I have used this lens and the APO version, if you can afford it the APO is a significantly better lens. The price of the one in the link is about what you should pay for it in a shop so have a look around before buying, the APO woud be ~£50 more.

bugger, ive just bought the 70-300 hope im not dissapointed.....................

Let us know. I think it will be fine.

APO = Apochromatic
It basically means one or more glass elements within the lens is of a higher quality than a non APO lens. Sigma terminogy...other Sigma lens options (off the top of my head) the 70-300 offer both APO and non APO versions...about £50 difference in price. Well worth it if you're after the sharpest lenses. Nikon call the same sort of thing 'ED' (extra low dispersion glass), Tamron 'LD' (low dispersion)...etc ....
Pick up a free Jessops catalogue at your local shop, as there's some lens reference guides in there which explain those letters which make appearances on many lenses now.

I can't offer anything additional with regard to the above lens, but wife Jacky has a 100-300mm f/5.6 Canon lens, despite being quite noisy focusing mechanism, it is quick, and is quite a nice sharp one, particularly at the 300 end.

Ooops, sorry...didn't spot there was a second page to this thread!:o :rolleyes:

well for the last week ive watched the front door like a hawk, ready to pounce and snatch my lens out of the posties hands and snap away like a lunatic, i couldnt believe how long the lens is taking so i checked my inbox, and when i ordered it apparently i never specified canon fitment or a contact number so it hasnt even been dispatched yet! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGHHHHH!

Well that gives you a chance to change your order to the APO version if you want to! :)

double aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagh! i wish you said that before lol.

well its arrived, initially it looks very nice and feels like quality, wow is it noisey! i thought ultra sonic was a gimmick lol this one certainly hasnt got USM.its a tad heavy, and to be honest needs a tripod nearly all the time, but i suppose im just picking fault for faults sake,anyways, watch this space for some very poor crazee horse photos!