Thoughts on the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III

[tokaok2]

I am a teen photographer who got my first camera 6 months ago. I’ve had a lot of experience using the included 18-45 mm lens with my EOS R50. However I’m looking to do some more sports and wildlife photography. I have been looking for a telephoto lens for my R50. I understand that this lens has quite a bad reputation. Is it worth buying if I’m still somewhat of a beginner, especially to telephoto lenses. Please offer any advice/insight you have on this lens. Thanks!

[shadowsports]

Greetings,

Since you have a mirrorless body, I would not recommend investing in EF glass.  Not only would you have to buy an adapter, but the optical quality on the 75-300 just isn't there.

Better choices in this case might be the RF-S 55-210 or the RF 100-400.

https://www.usa.canon.com/shop/p/rf-s55-210mm-f5-7-1-is-stm

https://www.usa.canon.com/shop/p/rf100-400mm-f5-6-8-is-usm?color=Black&type=New

Here are some considerations.  The 55-210 picks up where your 18-45 leaves off.  Reach wise it will be on the short end for wildlife or sports.. You'll have to get pretty close and this may spook some of your animal subjects.  

The RF100 400 would be better suited for wildlife, but it's field of view on the R50 would be a bit more narrow.  It would still be my first choice for wildlife and outdoor sports on a budget. 

These lenses will not work effectively for indoor sports.  To freeze motion, you would have to use a high shutter speed and the minimum apertures will limit light gathering capability.  Outdoor use would be my recommendation.

Both of these lenses are available new or  refurbished from Canon or used at KEH.

[Ron888]

As Rick said you will need an adapter to use that lens on your R50.That takes away a lot of it's attraction as a low cost lens.However you may want to buy more EF lenses in future,so buying the adapter would make sense. I for example cant afford the RF 70-200 lenses so i use an older EF version via the adapter.And there are a lot of other EF and EF-S lenses still worth using! BTW if money is an issue you dont absolutely have to buy the canon brand adapter.I've been using a cheap TTartisan adapter for EF lenses and it works fine(so far at least).
Getting back to the EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III this lens isnt terrible,just a bit soft at the long end.I've used it and all the previous versions.It does ok but something like the newer EF-S 55-250 STM is much better.Personally i'd rather crop a picture from that lens than use a 75-300.
Sorry i havent used earlier versions of the 55-250.FWIW i hear they're almost as good

[ebiggs1]

"Is it worth buying if I’m still somewhat of a beginner, ..."

In a word, no, it is not. Save your money and buy RF lenses. The only caveat is if you find a really unbelievable deal of some EF glass but don't spend big money on them.

[Waddizzle]

"Is it worth buying if I’m still somewhat of a beginner, .. “

No.  Image quality issues aside for a moment, the lens mount adapter that’s needed to use the lens will set you back another $100 to $200.   

In other words, it will cost you almost as much to buy the EF lens as one of the RF lenses.  

[March411]

A good Canon adapter new is $129 new and you can find decent ones used for $80/$90. If you do some research you will find that there are many enthusiasts and professionals purchasing EF glass because of a fairly substantial savings and there are many that remain great lenses. With an EF lens you will achieve faster focus and subject tracking on an R body. It will be far superior to an EF lens mounted on just about any DSLR. It's simple math, R series bodies have significantly more focus points.

So I would have a different opinion and also put this opinion to practical use, I will still buy an EF lens and have the $129 adapter. If you currently have the funds and can't put more resources together quickly I would purchase the lens especially if you a specifically looking for  lens in that range. Why, because the RF100-300mm F2.8 L IS USM which goes for $9,499. One option that may fit your goal in an RF lens would be the RF100-400mm F5.6-8 IS USM which goes for $650 and it's a pretty good lens. A little slower then the EF but not by much. If the EF 78-300mm is cheaper, you can't swing the $650 and the lens is in real good working condition I would make the purchase. If the lens is in questionable shape pass.

Where the RF lens really does perform better, communication with the body. The RF lens mount has 12 electrical contact pins, compared to the EF mount's 8 pins, the added contact pins result in a significantly faster data transfer rate. Image stabilization is another area where the RF lens will perform better as it can coordinate with the lens's image stabilization system more efficiently due to faster data transfer using the 12 pin design.

EF glass still makes sense if you currently can't afford RF glass but can purchase the same lens in an EF mount at a significant savings.
You are not a professional photographer completing projects for hire where the speed of the lens can impact your ability to fulfill the obligations of your job.

This is the catch with EF glass and an important foot note. It is vital to realize that at some point parts for EF glass are going to become difficult to obtain. EF lenses at some point will not be a repairable commodity and will become end of life.

[ebiggs1]

"Why, because the RF100-300mm F2.8 L IS USM which goes for $9,499."

And I am sure if a person doesn't buy a EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III he is certainly going for that lens. Makes sense to me! 🤔

[March411]

Simply a comparison to a similar focal length in RF Ernie, I never said the OP would/should buy it but I understand it's just you up to your old tricks again. You seem to like putting words in others mouths or use selective quotes and  reading but don't quote full context. Both appear to be your MO but I get it that's how you roll.

You did see the suggestion for the RF100-400 for $650 or did you miss that note.

[ebiggs1]

"If you currently have the funds and can't put more resources together quickly I would purchase the lens especially if you a specifically looking for  lens in that range. Why, because the RF100-300mm F2.8 L IS USM which goes for $9,499."

Perhaps you should look in the mirror from time to time. It certainly looks like you are suggesting an either or doesn't it? But thanx I was unaware I had an MO. I'll try to remember that. 

[March411]

I look in the mirror daily my friend, because there is always room for self improvement, you should give a try sometime. Apparently you like to interpret things from only from your view and you are consistent in your MO. You don't use the facts within the content of a post you use what you perceive as appearance or to use your word "looks like" even though the full content is clearly different. The fact remains I did suggest purchasing the EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III because the RF was almost $10K as well as the RF 100-400mm. You selectively use a portion of a statement to quote someone to make invalid point, again your MO. I do understand that some are challenged by reading comprehension and that why I attempt to give clarity.

I clearly made the statement "looking for lens in that range" and gave a comparison to the ONLY RF lens available in the Canon line in that is similar. I guess the concept of comparisons elude you and would rather attempt to mock someone that disagrees with you. It appears that others overlook your crude style, I feel it's worthy to point out your inaccuracies when they are directed towards me.