05-15-2016, 03:35 AM
Bright Colors: I know it's not great, but I got my 75-300 IS USM in new condition cheap with the hood so I can live with it. I believe it was the first implementation of IS, so it is a also, I suppose the worst. Still always surprises me to hear how terrible certain lenses are considered. Looking at the lens designs, it is almost identical to the 70-300 IS USM that replaced it. Both only have micro-motors, and are rather slow. There is one of the smaller interior elements that was made of UD glass, and some slight changes to a couple of the elements. But people seem to be fine with that lens!
Rover, I do understand. I have been eyeing the 40/2.8 STM and the EF-s 24/2.8 STM. I know it would be nice to have upward mobility in my lenses ( to FF), but after years of crying "foul"! because Canon was not doing enough in EF-s, I actually appreciate the 24mm lens being made available!
Toni-a: I see the problem. It seems like something should be salvageable, but it doesn't seem too likely.
Thanks for your responses, gentlemen! Sorry if I am oversensitive with my 75-300!
Rover, I do understand. I have been eyeing the 40/2.8 STM and the EF-s 24/2.8 STM. I know it would be nice to have upward mobility in my lenses ( to FF), but after years of crying "foul"! because Canon was not doing enough in EF-s, I actually appreciate the 24mm lens being made available!
Toni-a: I see the problem. It seems like something should be salvageable, but it doesn't seem too likely.
Thanks for your responses, gentlemen! Sorry if I am oversensitive with my 75-300!