[toni-a]

I hesitate to ask, and if it's not proper to ask, just ignore it, but why so expensive in Lebanon?  (California's a long way away...).

 

I inquired about it and asked people inside Canon Lebanon :

Two reasons lenses are expensive in Lebanon:

Lebanon is a small country, a small market, so they don't have same prices as the big dealers worst Canon Lebanon is buying its gear from Canon Dubai just like any local dealer there...

Second you have taxes and customs...

Prices here are at least 30% higher than  US 

[Rover]

We're not trashing "cheap" lenses per se; only when they're not only cheap but also bad.

 

Nobody would say any bad words about the 40/2.8 STM for example which is truly inexpensive but at the same time has great quality going for it.

[Arthur Macmillan]

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!

[Brightcolours]

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!

People are fine with the 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM because it simply is sooo much better!

To quote an old review:

"Image quality from the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens is 
<b>mediocre...</b> The IS version had slightly more corner softness." 


"T
he 75-300 IS is soft wide open at all focal lengths. Sharpness decreases as it zooms from 70mm to 300mm. However, the corners are softest at 70 and getting better by 300."


"
If you care about excellent quality, sharp photos, the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens is not for you. And Photoshop cannot enhance details that are not there."


 

The changes made in the "new" 70-300mm lens were enough to make that lens better wide open at 300mm than the old lens is when stopped down to f8.


See here: http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/rev...eview.html

[Arthur Macmillan]

I remember reading...it seemed to me he said if he already had the 75-300 it wasn't enough difference that he would change.  I do care about sharpness, but I find most of the time I am using the lens, I'm using it at 300mm anyway, so have I am thinking about get the 300mm F/4L IS.  Because I use a 70D and prefer the 55-250mm STM the only reason I keep it is for when I get a FF.  But this discussion is making me think, better to put it towards the 300 prime. 

 

I appreciate your comments everyone.  You have helped me think this through!

[toni-a]

If you aren't using a high pixel sensor then 75-300 is ok. On 30D almost all my lenses were fine, using 750D suddenly everything changed.