I'm having problems with my 75-300 usm II zoom. All images taken with this lens appear *razor* sharp in the viewfinder, on both my EOS5 bodies and an EOS600, autofocus and manual. However, the 9" x 6" prints are out of focus (certainly not worth putting in an album), nothing *razor* sharp. I use a tripod whenever possible and ensure I handhold >1/500th. Just to be sure its not my eyesight, I also lent the lens to a mate to use on his eos5 and his results were very poor with his camera. I returned the lens yesterday to Canon UK and I'm currently awaiting there reply to my problem (nolonger in warranty). Looking back at some of my slides/6x4 prints the results have always been poor. The latest problem's have been using kodak 400asa gold film and Jessops D&P 9x6 standard service, tested using one film on all 3 bodies with various lens, the 75-300 lens produced the softest to poor. I have also started using a 7 element 2x converter and the results are not worth the paper printed on. Many years ago I had a cosina, 70-200sun and a cheap 2x converter this setup produced better results!!!!!!! I have posted this question as Klaus Schroiff has suggested that this lens performance at the 300 end is poor and also wondered if anyone else has had poor results with this lens.

-- wayne walker (waynewalker@xoommail.com), November 24, 1999

Answers

This lens is consumer grade cheap zoom. At the 200-300 mm end (especially at 300mm) it is soft. This zoom must be used as zoom, for using as tele-lens you must pay more money for non-zoom lens (e.g. 300/4) or profi zoom (e.g. some L lense, 100-400 L IS). The good results (sharp) you may obtain in 75-150 mm end. I have the same experience with its soft 300 mm end but it is good when you consider its worth. I think, that optical characteristics of another telezooms at this price range is not better. It is impossible to use converters (not even 1.4x). The best results at tele-range you will obtaine with non-zoom lenses. See some articles about nature photography by Bob Atkins.

-- Ivan Miksik (miksik@biomed.cas.cz), November 24, 1999.

At 75mm the images should be razor sharp. At the short end this is an excellent lens. At 9"x6", even at 300mm the shots should not look too bad. It's certainly not razor sharp at 300mm, but it's not bad.

Check out this example

-- Bob Atkins (bobatkins@hotmail.com), November 24, 1999.

Bob, Thanks for your example (exactly want I needed to see)- if this had been my picture at the 300mm end you would not have any detail in the head, would just be a blob, the body would be out of focus and none of the grass would be sharp. Thanks, I'll await Canon's results and let you know.

-- wayne walker (waynewalker@xoommail.com), November 25, 1999.

I'm wondering if its the only zoom lens that Canon made having a 75-300mm focal length...I'm planning to have the same range with an IS control.

-- Alvin S Granada (granada666@yahoo.com), November 25, 1999.

Alvin,

There are several versions of this same basic design made by Canon. The 75-300 IS is basicly the same lens with stabilization added to it.

Bob Atkins' comments: "...at 300mm the shots should not look too bad" are accurate for the IS version one as well.

-- Jim Strutz (jimstrutz@juno.com), November 26, 1999.

Thanks Jim for the info.

-- Alvin S Granada (granada666@yahoo.com), November 27, 1999.

I owned the 100-300 USM and while the results at 300 weren't spectacular, they were certainly acceptable for prints up to 8" X 10".

I suspect you may have a bad sample.

-- Jim Erhardt (jimerhardt@hotmail.com), November 27, 1999.

I have the 70-300usm and thought it poor using print films but having just shot 2 loads of slides ( 50 & 400 iso) off I have changed my views. Using a monopod I am more than happy with the 300mm end, most d&p houses seem to be non too accurate on their focusing your prints. At the end of the day #169 is cheap for any Canon lens so don't be surprised if there is a trade off somewhere

-- David Haigh (no1traumanurse@hotmail.com), November 28, 1999.

I thought I would round off this thread by posting the conclusion.

The Lens went back to Canon via Jessops, Jessops quoted #94 to have the lens fixed. When I asked them what was wrong, I was told that the #94 was the minimum charge to investigate the problem and if necessary fix it. So after a few phone calls and various letters Canon eventually agreed to reduce the cost of the repair and replace the lens with a service replacement. I agreed to the charge on a Friday and the Lens was with the shop ready for collection on the following Tuesday just in time for xmas.

I have learnt to deal direct with Canon they certainly treated me as a customer and listened to my concerns.

I have now received some test 9x6 pictures back and they are certainly much improved as the above posts suggested.

Im waiting for Canon to let me know exactly what the problem with the original lens was.

Thanks to the above posts particularly Bobs picture. I now know what to expect from this lens. Thanks Bob and all other posters.

-- wayne walker (waynewalker@xoommail.com), January 13, 2000.