Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III Telephoto Zoom Lens $99 @ sears INSTORE ONLY

Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III Telephoto Zoom Lens $99 @ Sears INSTORE ONLY
Not the best canon lens you can find but for this price not bad at all.
This price drop is nationwide, regular Sears price $199 %50 price cut!!!

Sears item# 03 41407

Other retailer sell around $150-$200

$159 @Amazon
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-75-300mm-4-5-6-Telephoto-Cameras/dp/...

inventory check
http://www.google.com/products/details?q=Lens+%28EF75-300mm%29+f...

if inventory check not work
you can call your local store for availability
Sears item # 03 41407
UPC 082966214073

For the price this is a very nice lens. My only complaint is the weight on the lens, however to get the lightweight lens you are going to pay the price. If I still used Canon I would not hesitate to purchase this lens, however I have switched to Nikon.

How is this compared to the 70-300mm IS USM? Or to the 55-250mm IS kit lens, for that matter? The 70-300mm IS USM is the one I really want, but for a quarter of the price, that seems outstanding to the get the additional reach. I haven't used a non-IS lens (or my 18-55mm kit lens in non-IS mode enough) have an appreciation of how camera shake will affect my shots (especially at long distance).

The 70-300IS lens is a couple of steps above this one - I've used the 75-300 and prefer the 70-300 IS (now my main zoom is a 100-400L IS but my wife uses/loves the 70-300).

At full zoom - tracking aircraft at airshows or wildlife/birds - IS makes the shots that would have been a blur otherwise. If you are going to be hand-holding at any amount of zoom - you will notice your 'keeper rate' increase with IS compared to non-IS lenses.

I also believe the 70-300 IS glass provides a bit more 'true' capture of the colors. For me, that means a bit less time in post-production of the shots.

The 55-250 lens is a bit more current as far as technology - compared to the 75-300 - so I would expect less issues with some of the glass distortions and focusing using it compared to the 75-300.

All that said -- if you don't have a lens that covers this range and your budget won't allow you to invest in one of the other options, this is an option that has provided service for Canon users for many years. Don't expect L results at a 'plastic fantastic' price and you should be happy with the lens. I would suggest, however, you keep your eye open for a nice deal on a tripod to help overcome some of the issues with the lack of IS for this lens.

Nice place to put the specs of the different lenses 'next to each other' is here -- http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/lenses

I don't think I'll ever be trucking around with a tripod -- not with my wife and child in tow, anyway -- so I'll have to wait until I am approved to buy the 70-300mm IS USM. What's the cheapest that people have seen that go for (legitimately)?

Hoogineer said:   I don't think I'll ever be trucking around with a tripod -- not with my wife and child in tow, anyway -- so I'll have to wait until I am approved to buy the 70-300mm IS USM. What's the cheapest that people have seen that go for (legitimately)?

The 70-300's are around right now, too. I've got a new, sealed one I just listed on CL for $380. You can find one easily for $400 on CL if you look- they seem to be going for a bit more on eBay at the moment.

I was told that you had to buy a DSLR at the same time and you get the lens for 99

"For the price" it's a good lens and the price is quite good by itself. However, you can generally get this lens for $60 after IR when buying a canon body or kit. Yes, different deal and requires other purchase but it's 40% less than even this price.

With that said...

Without buying crummy 3rd party or used/older lenses you can't do much worse either. It's a low-cost, low-feature entry level zoom. The reach is nice but you will have blurring issues shooting at full zoom without a tripod in most cases. Picture quality from a cropped shot on a 250mm IS lens will generally be superior to uncropped shots from this at 300mm.

If you can't afford anything else - get it. Otherwise there are much better choices for not THAT much more money. Most people would do better saving money on a cheaper camera body and getting a better lens.

It is a good price but I never hear too many good things about this lens. Research before you buy it. Paying more to get 55-250 is what I would recommend.

This is not a good lens, therefore not a good deal of any kind for anyone. If you can afford to own any camera on which this lens will fit, then you should save up and buy the 70-300mm IS USM or the 55-250.

A bad lens on an expensive camera yields crap for photos. Whereas a good lens even on a cheap camera yields much better photos. Spend your money on glass.

laidbacklarkin said:   Gojumpina said:   This is not a good lens, therefore not a good deal of any kind for anyone. If you can afford to own any camera on which this lens will fit, then you should save up and buy the 70-300mm IS USM or the 55-250.

A bad lens on an expensive camera yields crap for photos. Whereas a good lens even on a cheap camera yields much better photos. Spend your money on glass.True. ANd I can't ever understand why a line of non-IS lens is even produced. Beyond all the usual marketing crap they throw at you, IS is the best mechanical engineering feat (in conjunction with electronics) accomplished for photography. And one where the difference is night and day when compared to cameras/lenses without one. Who in their right frame of mind would purchase this lens anymore ?

IS is very nice to have for many circumstances. But no - it is not essential for others and can even be a hindrance. If you shoot fast action at a high shutter speed, you don't want IS.

That said .. this lens is crap.

I will echo what others are saying about spending money on a great lens if you have it. It will save you lots of frustration in the long run.

you'd be better off saving your money up and buy a used sigma 70-200

This lens is about shutter speed.... All the blurring that has been mentioned is when you shutter speed drops below acceptable hand hold speeds and even the slightest shake in the unit blurs the image. What has not been mentioned is that if your use is mainly outdoors during the day (ie. kids soccer or baseball) as long as you keep your shutter speed above a 500th or more, your image quality will be acceptable for a lens in this price range.
I do agree that for most uses the image stabilization will improve your images because our world is never perfect and keeping shutter speeds up that high is not easy cept on nice sunny days....

FreeToFly said:   
IS is very nice to have for many circumstances. But no - it is not essential for others and can even be a hindrance. If you shoot fast action at a high shutter speed, you don't want IS.

Heh? How is IS ever a hindrance?
The only possible argument would be that the IS elements take time to spin up, but they can be set in camera to always spin.

All of these comments make me wish I bought the T3i 18-55mm kit that also comes with the 50-250mm. (The 18-55mm kit was $618 after tax for store pick-up.) At least now I can justify spending extra to get that 70-300mm IS USM some day...

ahallfatwallett said:   Don't expect this lens to be sharp at 300mm. I had a 100-300mm for years that was not sharp at 300mm either - but at 250mm it wasn't bad. After that lens broke I splurged on a 70-200mm L f/4 which is SUPER nice and sharp everywhere. But it's heavy. I'd consider buying the 75-300mm for $100 just to have a spare, lighter lens. Not everything I shoot requires the same quality. And if my 70-200mm ever fails it's really nice to have SOME backup...

I bought the 55-250IS as a backup to my 70-200F4L. After about 6 months I ended up selling the 70-200F4L. The expanded range, IS, size and weight advantages of the 55-250IS ended up outweighing the better sharpness, improved color (much less than I expected) and faster focus. The 70-200L ended up staying at home most of the time.
The 70-200 was razor sharp, the 55-250IS is no slouch, quite sharp but not razor sharp like the L. Also the 55-250 handles CA and lens flare very well.

Granted, with what I shoot, I had little need for Ring USM focus speed or near prime sharpness.

A shot of mine showing CA and lens flare control: http://www.chibimike.com/Images/55250/smaller-01.jpg
Full size shot for those interested: http://www.chibimike.com/Images/55250/orange-sunset.jpg

I bought one of these yesterday at Sears. It scanned at $99 with no camera purchase required. Propably a mistake I had already convinced myself to buy the 55-250 IS but thought I would give this a shot.

FreeToFly said:   chibimike said:   FreeToFly said:   
IS is very nice to have for many circumstances. But no - it is not essential for others and can even be a hindrance. If you shoot fast action at a high shutter speed, you don't want IS.

Heh? How is IS ever a hindrance?
The only possible argument would be that the IS elements take time to spin up, but they can be set in camera to always spin.

IS slows down your AF. That can be a problem for things like BIF.

I've seen information that this may be true for in-camera, sensor-shift IS. This does not appear to be true for in-lens, gyro-based IS.

I am a beginner and about to pull the trigger on a new lens for my rebel t2i. Is this the one I should buy:

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-55-250mm-4-0-5-6-Telephoto-Digital/dp/B0056E49MK/ref=lh_ni_t_mi

Didn't work for me in Pittsburgh. Price is $199.