The Canon 75-300mm lens has seen many versions and is an old design but it is still going after these years. Why? Well, it offers decent image quality in a relatively light and compact form, has a metal mount, is well constructed and is surprisingly cheap, especially second hand. Of course if you compare it to more recent, more expensive zooms with fancy lens elements, it will not seem as good. But if this bothers you, you will either have the money to buy them, or sigh and admit that this old budget lens is the best option available. All older designs of the 75-300 or 70-300 tend to be less sharp at 300mm, and this Canon lens is no exception. But I got perfectly good shots of a robin singing in a tree at 300mm. No doubt a better lens would have given me a touch ... MoreThe Canon 75-300mm lens has seen many versions and is an old design but it is still going after these years. Why? Well, it offers decent image quality in a relatively light and compact form, has a metal mount, is well constructed and is surprisingly cheap, especially second hand. Of course if you compare it to more recent, more expensive zooms with fancy lens elements, it will not seem as good. But if this bothers you, you will either have the money to buy them, or sigh and admit that this old budget lens is the best option available. All older designs of the 75-300 or 70-300 tend to be less sharp at 300mm, and this Canon lens is no exception. But I got perfectly good shots of a robin singing in a tree at 300mm. No doubt a better lens would have given me a touch more clarity. But...the price/quality ratio of this lens is just fine. The main down for it is it has no image stabilisation. I will let you into a secret; if you want to freeze the movement of say a bird, what you need is a really fast shutter speed. If you shoot a bird with your IS lens at 1/125th of a second, it won't be sharp because the subject will have moved during the exposure. IS does not make the world stand still. So the claims for the importance of IS are overstated. If you want a lens with IS on a budget the Canon 55-250 is just the job; it does not go to 300mm however, it has a plastic lens mount and is entirely made of cheap plastic. So I would rather have this venerable 75-300mm lens which is in my comfort zone financially and which usually delivers excellent results.

I give this lens 5 stars based on its overall quality:value ratio. To be clear, it is not comparable to the 70-200 f2.8 (or even the f4) with image stabilization, but at its amazingly low price point, this is a very good lens. I purchased mine about two years ago as an inexpensive (on a "deal of the day" sale, around $100) emergency backup lens. Opened the box, attached it to my 6D M1, ran a few test shots, then tucked it into my bag where it has stayed until this past week. Recently, I attended a concert at a venue that allowed cameras but no flash or "pro" lenses, so I was unable to pull out my 70-200 f2.8 IS. Without terribly great expectations, I decided to give the 75-300 some work. Much to my surprise, this lens yielded very good image quality; even at 300mm, ... MoreI give this lens 5 stars based on its overall quality:value ratio. To be clear, it is not comparable to the 70-200 f2.8 (or even the f4) with image stabilization, but at its amazingly low price point, this is a very good lens. I purchased mine about two years ago as an inexpensive (on a "deal of the day" sale, around $100) emergency backup lens. Opened the box, attached it to my 6D M1, ran a few test shots, then tucked it into my bag where it has stayed until this past week. Recently, I attended a concert at a venue that allowed cameras but no flash or "pro" lenses, so I was unable to pull out my 70-200 f2.8 IS. Without terribly great expectations, I decided to give the 75-300 some work. Much to my surprise, this lens yielded very good image quality; even at 300mm, the labels on the guitars and drum heads could be clearly read. My distance to the subjects ranged between 60-80 feet. I didn't experience any of the soft focus or vignetting issues mentioned in other reviews. My camera was a 6D M2 shooting at ISOs between 8000-10,000. A number of the reviews mention the need to use a tripod, but all of my shooting was handheld and I had no problems with shake as long as I kept the shutter speed above 1/125. A couple sample photos attached. IS is a great feature, but anyone who's been shooting before IS existed should know how to brace a camera without using a tripod. The lens is extremely light and easy to hand hold, and the extra 100mm (vs the 70-200) of reach proved very beneficial. For photographers who need telephoto capability but are on a tight budget (or those that just want to have a lightweight backup to their "big" lenses), this 73-300 is a decent piece of glass to have in your bag

I bought a used Canon EF 75-300 f4-5.6 III Zoom lens. I'm using it on an old Canon 5E Mark II full frame camera. I was surprised because the lens tends to get some bad reviews. But, I only paid $80 for a lens that was basically new and the pictures are sharp as long as you hold the camera steady. Now for video, it's a little trickier because you really need to use a tripod to get the video smooth. It's harder to hold the camera still for videos with a lens like this. For my purposes, to get some photos of birds or something in the distance, I'm sure I'll take plenty of very good looking and sharp pictures with it. It's not a professional quality lens but it is much better than I thought it would be.