RF 75-300mm f4-5.6 zoom: My thoughts

[LeeP]

Be forewarned, I enjoy cheap thrills and in over 45 years as a working photographer I have never believed that top-of-the-line equipment is necessary for top-of-the-line results.

Quite the opposite. Skill makes top-of-the-line results.

And I see virtue in simple and affordable things.

I'd rather go bottom to middle of the line and upgrade occasionally than to buy the top-of-the-line for big bucks and feel "cheated" when a newer, less expensive camera has features that used to be reserved only for the top model.

I don't do much telephoto work so spending money on the ultra high-end glass would be an expensive waste for me.

But, a telephoto zoom is a nice option to have.

Thus, when I saw how inexpensive the RF 75-300 f4-5.6 zoom was, I thought it was worth the very affordable price of entry.

And it is.

Construction is obviously consumer grade for the price point, but the zoom ring is sufficiently smooth and it handles nicely.

I've been shooting with it on my R8 to put it through its paces and I think it is a good product.

Although this lens if definitely aimed at the amateur/hobbyist, the construction feels better than the price point would suggest.

I commend Canon for providing a lens that a hobbyist can afford to buy and which they will enjoy.

[kvbarkley]

I think the optics would be adequate if it had IS, which is required for a telephoto, IMHO.

[ebiggs1]

The facts are, which most people ignore, all digital photographic gear produces pretty darn good results. Bottom line.

Most high end gear is better because of  build to stand day in day out full time work. I would destroy that lens in short order if I had to use it daily. My second shooters did use Rebels and Rebel kit level gear so I am very aware of its durability. Packing and shipping gear takes its toll too.

I have "L" lenses that have stood with me for my entire digital career requiring nothing more than a C&C occasionally, but I have no Rebel level gear left. And, yes, even though I said the beginner stuff can do a good job, the better "L" level gear is better and if you sell your work as I do/did you want the very best you have to offer.

Shoot what works for you.

[ebiggs1]

"I am amazed by how much value Canon provides on a tight budget. Truly remarkable company."

I totally agree in spite of what a lot of even the resident responders on this forum say sometimes. The Rebel with kit lenses were by far the most common gear when I did my DSLR 101 classes. 

Canoan is a "remarkable" company not because it produces Rebels and low cost lenses because lots of companies do that but because of their customer service and support.

[zakslm · Accepted solution]

EB,

I agree. 

In my case, I took a fairly long hiatus from my photography hobby and a T7 Rebel kit was the "gateway drug" that got me back into it.  The technology and features that lie beneath the surface of entry level camera and "kit" lenses is amazing for the modest investment. For instance, even the humble EF-S18-55 IS II kit lens has image stabilization and macro capabilities.  The Rebel has limitations, but beyond the A+ and P modes lies a lot of potential for creativity, learning and creating memorable images.   

[ebiggs1]

The most common people I ran across were the so-called 'soccer moms' but the second was for sure the folks that said they used to do photography and just wanted to get back in to it. Never underestimate a Rebel. I used them to their fullest owning five throughout my career.