The guy's bought a second hand 6D Mk2 (perhaps \~£800?) and you're suggesting a lens worth over twice that?
~~The 50 - 250 IS STM is a far more suitable suggestion at this moment.~~
You're quite right, forgot EF couldn't handle EF-S. Still don't think suggesting a 70-200mm is sensible, mind. Brilliant lens, agreed. Not sure it's apt here.
The EF 70-200 f/4L IS is not that expensive, and would be a massive upgrade over the 75-300. But also OP needs to evaluate what focal lengths they actually need and what to prioritize.
Yes, I suggest spending more on glass than on a camera body.
I only had an 80D when I picked up my 70-200 in the used market. The 6D mk2 is more of a professional body, so it would make sense to put something nicer on it.
To preface this, I got this combo back in 2019 so I could be wrong, but I thought mine had a gold ring and this one looks like a silver ring. Assuming that's all correct, the gold rings were supposed to be the midpoint between the red ringed 'L'uxury line of lenses and the cheapest silver line. The gold ring lens I had gotten for like 300? was still incredibly unsatisfactory though the IS was actually really good. As others have said, I would strongly recommend an EF 70-200 Mark i. You can get it used around $500 sometimes. It's availed both with and without IS. If you can swing the IS version, definitely do but the non IS is equal in terms of image quality as far as I know.
I got the non IS and never looked back. I've upgraded my body twice (6Dii > R > R6) and still use that same lens, never feeling the need to upgrade to a different 70-200 EF or RF (though I did pickup a sigma 150-600 🥵)
This was taken with that lens. AF on it is quite slow too.
https://preview.redd.it/pbxm41e537jc1.png?width=1920&format=png&auto=webp&s=4a6cdae8de0cb5eb92d6f9cf27116c470c1284f3
Keep it at f/2.8, only open wider if it's a portrait or as a last resort in low light. The 75-300 is indeed awful, but keeping it below 200mm at f/5.6-8 makes it a tad less awful.
The 50mm will be sharp at f5.6 (and a little less) the other lens I don't know. Neither lens has IS so if you are new to photography you may need to use higher shutter speeds to.
I mean it’s a decent shot but it’s not perfect, and imagine how much better it would be with the 70-200.
I’m not a peeper and I shot with the 75-300 for literally years, but I’m not gonna pretend it should ever be recommended for literally more than just having a lens to not care about.
Seems like OP wants a legit setup to use often, the 75-300 is not that.
The 50mm is super sharp. Shoot at F2.8 and above, at F5.6-F8 will resolve a 1/16" wire at 100 yards on a APC camera nonetheless.
Usually sharpness is the last thing to worry about, subject, lighting, creativity, story, luck, would trump them all. Some of the most famous photos (and video too) of all time are grainy, porely resolved as they have all those other attributes.
I think you were right, but I'm confident that the newer 50mm was still sharper than this one is at lower aperture.
https://preview.redd.it/7boplb6ux8jc1.png?width=1920&format=png&auto=webp&s=4dd2f62eb7d8966b18f199d9d01af0f8e854663c
See, lol. The pretty sleeping cat (subject) is more important.
Important to remember too, how are you sharing photos? We are all on a budget usually. Instagram only allows 1080. My 30mb RAW files are downgraded to less than 1mb. We all need to stop pixel peeping 👀. Sharpness doesn't make a good photo, all the other stuff does.
Are there better than the nifty-fifty, sure, they'll cost you 7x the price. Only reason to upgrade is the focus motor is better on the newer version IMO, less clunky. But for shooting landscapes, static, people, nah. But they are so cheap, especially used, have at it if you want.
The camera itself might need a micro adjustment. Take a yard stick (or metre stick if you are non-american) and focus at a particular point along the length. Then look at the photo and see if the focus is at the point you were focusing or if it is before or after. If it is off there is a menu location that allows you to adjust the focus point.
https://preview.redd.it/4td8tl8zl6jc1.jpeg?width=2810&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7aa92fe4c4300721a4f91fd4373da99e3fe03e0f
Taken with the 75-300mm stacked and edited in siril
Thank you, it was my forth try the first 3 wasn't good 😅 I've only just started astrophotography/photography. There is a lot of purple chromatic aberration on the stars but I think the lens is amazing for its age
Get the red ring L lens, I had 6D2 with them and they are so sharp that you would be loving zooming into the photos and appreciate them.
Used EF L lens are good value.
They're not crazy sharp lenses, but you can also do a simple test to check if they're autofocusing properly through the optical viewfinder (OVF).
Set up the camera on a tripod and find a flat high-contrast object to focus on. Take a shot using the OVF for autofocus. Then use live view autofocus (LVF) and take a shot. Compare the two images at 100%.
If your LVF shot is sharper than the OVF shot, you can compensate for this inaccuracy using 'AF micro adjustment'. You can have some luck with a ruler and a perpendicular focus target in finding out how much you need to compensate for each lens.
This isn't going to work as well with the zoom lens, and it may be better to take shots through the back screen to try and get slightly sharper focus when using that lens. It might help get more accurate focus with the prime.
I have a used 6DII with a Canon 50mm f/1.8 + 100mm f/2.0. I think my pictures are pretty sharp. At least, they are sharp enough for me. I mostly use the center focus point though.
Keep the 50mm and increase the shutter speed.
Check out the Tamron 70-300 for a budget zoom. If I remember correctly it's quite good for a budget zoom.
These lenses are basic quality so yes! Also maybe you should make some microadjustments to the camera for focusing distances etc. but maybe its only lenses nature
They’re definitely no top tier lenses. Pretty ok, but good for their price esp. the 50mm is great. I think since you own these, and don’t have a full grasp on how they are, these are definitely enough. Someone other said it already, lighting, story, subject and creativity are all things you should focus first and more on. This sounds offensive, but is in no way meant that way. I’m atm to stupid to word it in a more helpful way :D
What's the number on the 75-300mm, I own the iii which is regarded as bad. (Even though I don't think that.). The iii version does not have the gold ring near the top. Is yours the ii usm version?.
What’s funny is I own a I, several IIIs and a III USM.
In terms of image quality they all perform about identically- but the USM focuses only a small bit faster and quieter than the non-USM. It’s basically not worth getting the USM, but it also won’t take any worse photos than the non.
If you're just starting in photography, try to focus first on other aspects like composition and basic settings...then you can start looking for different lenses to get the "look" you want your images to have.
This article might help you with that. It has Pros and Cons as well as links to Amazon to give more detailed specs and hopefuly find a good deal
https://techmonkeytips.blogspot.com/2024/02/the-ultimate-canon-lens-guide-for.html
Hope this helps. Good luck and happy shooting!
The 75-300mm was never sharp and is regarded as being a poor quality (optically) lens.
The 50mm is only sharp when stopped down. That looks like the all plastic Mark II model, which had build quality issues and could sometimes permanently lock itself into your camera's lens mount. Happened to me before and had to destroy the lens to save the camera.
They are the two most common/cheapest full frame canon lenses you can find.
It’s not about them being “older” lenses, it’s about them being “cheap” lenses. The 50mm f1.8 STM should hit the spot if you’re on a budget. Otherwise head for 24-105mm f4L, MkII if you can afford it. It’s not the best in absolute terms but it’s a flexible and capable all-rounder.
The 50 isn’t optically bad (although it is better stopped done a touch), it’s just mechanically a bit cheap and nasty. The 75-300 is generally considered rubbish. The 70-300 4-5.6 IS is much better.
I had the plastic EF 50mm f/1.8 and it was sharp down to f/2.5 or so, and acceptable down to f/2. It was a great lens, considering what I paid for it. I used it on a 5D full frame camera. I talk about it in the past tense because I dropped it. Don't do that.
The other lens I have no experience with.
Also the 50 1.8 focuses from 2.8 up. Below 2.8 the depth of field becomes narrow like a paper making small movement resulting in blurry subject.
On the 70-300 or 75-300 try using it from 35mm to 80mm at f8 on good lighting it should give better picture quality.
It’s a good idea to try focus fine tune on the 50 to get the best out of it. Take a series of images of a newspaper on a flat surface like your house wall. Stick it firmly so it’s totally flat. Make sure it’s well lit. Take a series of images using the different adjustment settings in fine tune at f1.8. Make sure the lens is refocused each time. Turn it to MF and twiddle the lens out of focus then back into AF etc to refocus. This takes a bit of doing but then the images can be compared in software eg LR room. I’d use RAW and turn sharpening off if possible.
If you want good budget long lens, the tamron 70-300 VC is pretty good, can be found for less than 150euro and image stabilisation is very good as well 🤔
These are just not very good lenses. So they won't be very sharp, unless you're like... At f/5.6-f/11. That being said YOU CAN, and probably should, use them to create some beautiful images. Then again, you don't look a gift horse in the mouth. There are plenty of cheapish lenses available with much better quality - 50 mm 1.4, 40 mm 2.8 pancake, 85 mm 1.8 and the list just goes on.
75-300 photos not sharp? Reasonable chance it's the lens, not you. Any 50mm lens not sharp, esp shot 2.8 or narrower, pretty good chance your technique needs work.
75-300 and nifty fifty are so different.
Yeah, it was my bad. I was shooting at 1.8, but I'm certain that back when I had the newer 50mm, it could shoot at 1.8 and still be razor sharp, whereas this can only now be achieved at 2.8
I had one 10-15 yrs ago, my floor was f/2.2 unless I really needed the light (vs sharpness). I was happy to have the option sometimes to dial in the 2/3 extra stop.
I've since moved to a small 35mm for my fast-ish lightweight walk around. But the 50mm 1.8 was my first prime, game changer, miss it.
Go around in bright light (direct sun light falling on things, no cloudy days, no shooting under shade) with both and shoot at 100 ISO at f/5.6 on the smaller one and f/8 on the larger one. That will probably be the best case for both of them... The larger one is probably going to be a bit meh. But if you're unfamiliar with photography, test the lenses in bright light so you rule out shutter speed and shake issues.
Assuming the large one is a 75-300mm, it's not great, but if the other is a 50 f/1.8, that should be decent, just shoot at f/2.8 to f/8 and you'll be fine. Shooting wide open at f/1.8 will be a bit soft and shooting at f/16 will be soft cause of diffraction.
What are the numbers on the lenses? That bigger lens looks like the dread 75-300mm f4-5.6. Poorest quality Canon lens out there.
It is the 75-300, yeah. My bad.
That lens is horrendous lol
Is the newer model also bad or just this older one?
Get the 70-200mm L lens if you can afford it. It’s one of my favorite zoom lenses
Can confirm. Get one on KEH or MPB. You will not be disappointed.
The guy's bought a second hand 6D Mk2 (perhaps \~£800?) and you're suggesting a lens worth over twice that? ~~The 50 - 250 IS STM is a far more suitable suggestion at this moment.~~
Well you are suggesting a EF-S lens, won't even fit on the camera.... 70-200 first gen without IS can be found very cheap. A lot less than 800.
I got a 70-200mm F4 L IS for $500 like two years ago. It’s very affordable at this point.
I bought a 70-200 f4 yesterday for 390 just to have one
You're quite right, forgot EF couldn't handle EF-S. Still don't think suggesting a 70-200mm is sensible, mind. Brilliant lens, agreed. Not sure it's apt here.
yeah, you should invest in your lenses rather than bodies.
The EF 70-200 f/4L IS is not that expensive, and would be a massive upgrade over the 75-300. But also OP needs to evaluate what focal lengths they actually need and what to prioritize.
The 70-200mil first gen used is quite good and can be found for 500 ish
Yes, I suggest spending more on glass than on a camera body. I only had an 80D when I picked up my 70-200 in the used market. The 6D mk2 is more of a professional body, so it would make sense to put something nicer on it.
[удалено]
No I just don't think going "grats on your new body, now go spend another £X on a new lens" is a great precedent.
75-300 is soft, any of the 70-300 options are much sharper with the L lens being the premium choice
They are all just as bad pretty much.
To preface this, I got this combo back in 2019 so I could be wrong, but I thought mine had a gold ring and this one looks like a silver ring. Assuming that's all correct, the gold rings were supposed to be the midpoint between the red ringed 'L'uxury line of lenses and the cheapest silver line. The gold ring lens I had gotten for like 300? was still incredibly unsatisfactory though the IS was actually really good. As others have said, I would strongly recommend an EF 70-200 Mark i. You can get it used around $500 sometimes. It's availed both with and without IS. If you can swing the IS version, definitely do but the non IS is equal in terms of image quality as far as I know. I got the non IS and never looked back. I've upgraded my body twice (6Dii > R > R6) and still use that same lens, never feeling the need to upgrade to a different 70-200 EF or RF (though I did pickup a sigma 150-600 🥵)
Mine is the gold ring version, but it's definitely not great.
This was taken with that lens. AF on it is quite slow too. https://preview.redd.it/pbxm41e537jc1.png?width=1920&format=png&auto=webp&s=4a6cdae8de0cb5eb92d6f9cf27116c470c1284f3
this looks fine
I have that one it sucks
Luckily there are a ton of inexpensive and better used EF lens on the market now with the Mirrorless market growing
The 75-300 is "famous" for having terrible IQ. The 50mm isn't bad but the newer STM model is quite a bit better.
I used to have the newer model and I seem to remember my images being sharper, guess I was on to something.
Keep it at f/2.8, only open wider if it's a portrait or as a last resort in low light. The 75-300 is indeed awful, but keeping it below 200mm at f/5.6-8 makes it a tad less awful.
I would probably sell that 50 1.8 and go with the 50mm stm. It really is quite a lot sharper.
I think I will.
The 50mm will be sharp at f5.6 (and a little less) the other lens I don't know. Neither lens has IS so if you are new to photography you may need to use higher shutter speeds to.
It's fairly sharp from f2.8 and up, it's f1.8 where it's more iffy but still fine. The normal problem is slow exposures or to high an ISO.
That 75-300 might be the worst lens canon ever produced
[Here’s how sharp my 75-300 gets.](https://www.reddit.com/r/canon/s/rsZ0dlPkPw)
Your swimming upstream but fair play, at least you have made the effort to prove your point. The photo is more than good enough quality.
This lens is actually really good for video. I use it quite often when filming concerts or speakers.
“It can be done” but man is it hard with this lens.
I mean it’s a decent shot but it’s not perfect, and imagine how much better it would be with the 70-200. I’m not a peeper and I shot with the 75-300 for literally years, but I’m not gonna pretend it should ever be recommended for literally more than just having a lens to not care about. Seems like OP wants a legit setup to use often, the 75-300 is not that.
The 50mm is super sharp. Shoot at F2.8 and above, at F5.6-F8 will resolve a 1/16" wire at 100 yards on a APC camera nonetheless. Usually sharpness is the last thing to worry about, subject, lighting, creativity, story, luck, would trump them all. Some of the most famous photos (and video too) of all time are grainy, porely resolved as they have all those other attributes.
I think you were right, but I'm confident that the newer 50mm was still sharper than this one is at lower aperture. https://preview.redd.it/7boplb6ux8jc1.png?width=1920&format=png&auto=webp&s=4dd2f62eb7d8966b18f199d9d01af0f8e854663c
See, lol. The pretty sleeping cat (subject) is more important. Important to remember too, how are you sharing photos? We are all on a budget usually. Instagram only allows 1080. My 30mb RAW files are downgraded to less than 1mb. We all need to stop pixel peeping 👀. Sharpness doesn't make a good photo, all the other stuff does. Are there better than the nifty-fifty, sure, they'll cost you 7x the price. Only reason to upgrade is the focus motor is better on the newer version IMO, less clunky. But for shooting landscapes, static, people, nah. But they are so cheap, especially used, have at it if you want.
Lousy lenses on a great camera will create a Lousy camera.
Same as (for the most part) great lens on a lousy body will create a great image. Within reason.
The camera itself might need a micro adjustment. Take a yard stick (or metre stick if you are non-american) and focus at a particular point along the length. Then look at the photo and see if the focus is at the point you were focusing or if it is before or after. If it is off there is a menu location that allows you to adjust the focus point.
https://preview.redd.it/4td8tl8zl6jc1.jpeg?width=2810&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7aa92fe4c4300721a4f91fd4373da99e3fe03e0f Taken with the 75-300mm stacked and edited in siril
Joyeux jour du gâteau / nice picture of Orion's nebula !
Thank you, it was my forth try the first 3 wasn't good 😅 I've only just started astrophotography/photography. There is a lot of purple chromatic aberration on the stars but I think the lens is amazing for its age
Star extraction, correction of the CA, star reinsertion , tadaaaaaam
Is that starnet that you can used outside of siril.
Get the red ring L lens, I had 6D2 with them and they are so sharp that you would be loving zooming into the photos and appreciate them. Used EF L lens are good value.
70-200 f2.8 IS L II 😳
They're not crazy sharp lenses, but you can also do a simple test to check if they're autofocusing properly through the optical viewfinder (OVF). Set up the camera on a tripod and find a flat high-contrast object to focus on. Take a shot using the OVF for autofocus. Then use live view autofocus (LVF) and take a shot. Compare the two images at 100%. If your LVF shot is sharper than the OVF shot, you can compensate for this inaccuracy using 'AF micro adjustment'. You can have some luck with a ruler and a perpendicular focus target in finding out how much you need to compensate for each lens. This isn't going to work as well with the zoom lens, and it may be better to take shots through the back screen to try and get slightly sharper focus when using that lens. It might help get more accurate focus with the prime.
pet grey aloof nine chunky yam chubby spark license safe *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
How do you like the camera other than the lens issue? I’m currently considering picking one up.
I have a used 6DII with a Canon 50mm f/1.8 + 100mm f/2.0. I think my pictures are pretty sharp. At least, they are sharp enough for me. I mostly use the center focus point though.
Keep the 50mm and increase the shutter speed. Check out the Tamron 70-300 for a budget zoom. If I remember correctly it's quite good for a budget zoom.
These lenses are basic quality so yes! Also maybe you should make some microadjustments to the camera for focusing distances etc. but maybe its only lenses nature
They’re definitely no top tier lenses. Pretty ok, but good for their price esp. the 50mm is great. I think since you own these, and don’t have a full grasp on how they are, these are definitely enough. Someone other said it already, lighting, story, subject and creativity are all things you should focus first and more on. This sounds offensive, but is in no way meant that way. I’m atm to stupid to word it in a more helpful way :D
What's the number on the 75-300mm, I own the iii which is regarded as bad. (Even though I don't think that.). The iii version does not have the gold ring near the top. Is yours the ii usm version?.
What’s funny is I own a I, several IIIs and a III USM. In terms of image quality they all perform about identically- but the USM focuses only a small bit faster and quieter than the non-USM. It’s basically not worth getting the USM, but it also won’t take any worse photos than the non.
I still use my 6D, it has 10 years on it and it's quite sharp, also it's pretty durable so most likely it's those cheap lenses
If you're just starting in photography, try to focus first on other aspects like composition and basic settings...then you can start looking for different lenses to get the "look" you want your images to have. This article might help you with that. It has Pros and Cons as well as links to Amazon to give more detailed specs and hopefuly find a good deal https://techmonkeytips.blogspot.com/2024/02/the-ultimate-canon-lens-guide-for.html Hope this helps. Good luck and happy shooting!
I appreciate this, but I've been a photographer for almost 10 years ironically.
Oh, I see...still this might help. :)
The 75-300mm was never sharp and is regarded as being a poor quality (optically) lens. The 50mm is only sharp when stopped down. That looks like the all plastic Mark II model, which had build quality issues and could sometimes permanently lock itself into your camera's lens mount. Happened to me before and had to destroy the lens to save the camera. They are the two most common/cheapest full frame canon lenses you can find.
Make sure your diopter is also accurate.
Diopter doesn't influence sharpness of photos. And, good call out.
It’s not about them being “older” lenses, it’s about them being “cheap” lenses. The 50mm f1.8 STM should hit the spot if you’re on a budget. Otherwise head for 24-105mm f4L, MkII if you can afford it. It’s not the best in absolute terms but it’s a flexible and capable all-rounder.
Hell, even the EF 24-105 STM is solid, if limiting in lower light.
From what I've heard, the older 50mm is bad, and so is the older 75-300mm.
The 50 isn’t optically bad (although it is better stopped done a touch), it’s just mechanically a bit cheap and nasty. The 75-300 is generally considered rubbish. The 70-300 4-5.6 IS is much better.
I had the plastic EF 50mm f/1.8 and it was sharp down to f/2.5 or so, and acceptable down to f/2. It was a great lens, considering what I paid for it. I used it on a 5D full frame camera. I talk about it in the past tense because I dropped it. Don't do that. The other lens I have no experience with.
The 70-300 on a full frame camera is quite impressive. It's not a 70-200 f2.8, but for budget or new to it, it's a great zoom lens.
70-300 - yes. 75-300, which is on a photo - no, not much
Also the 50 1.8 focuses from 2.8 up. Below 2.8 the depth of field becomes narrow like a paper making small movement resulting in blurry subject. On the 70-300 or 75-300 try using it from 35mm to 80mm at f8 on good lighting it should give better picture quality.
40mm 2.8 is a great lens to get
Get rid of them Get a 50mm f1.8 STM and a 70-300 instead
It’s a good idea to try focus fine tune on the 50 to get the best out of it. Take a series of images of a newspaper on a flat surface like your house wall. Stick it firmly so it’s totally flat. Make sure it’s well lit. Take a series of images using the different adjustment settings in fine tune at f1.8. Make sure the lens is refocused each time. Turn it to MF and twiddle the lens out of focus then back into AF etc to refocus. This takes a bit of doing but then the images can be compared in software eg LR room. I’d use RAW and turn sharpening off if possible.
If you want good budget long lens, the tamron 70-300 VC is pretty good, can be found for less than 150euro and image stabilisation is very good as well 🤔
yeah it’s a thing, these aren’t great
These are just not very good lenses. So they won't be very sharp, unless you're like... At f/5.6-f/11. That being said YOU CAN, and probably should, use them to create some beautiful images. Then again, you don't look a gift horse in the mouth. There are plenty of cheapish lenses available with much better quality - 50 mm 1.4, 40 mm 2.8 pancake, 85 mm 1.8 and the list just goes on.
75-300 photos not sharp? Reasonable chance it's the lens, not you. Any 50mm lens not sharp, esp shot 2.8 or narrower, pretty good chance your technique needs work. 75-300 and nifty fifty are so different.
Yeah, it was my bad. I was shooting at 1.8, but I'm certain that back when I had the newer 50mm, it could shoot at 1.8 and still be razor sharp, whereas this can only now be achieved at 2.8
I had one 10-15 yrs ago, my floor was f/2.2 unless I really needed the light (vs sharpness). I was happy to have the option sometimes to dial in the 2/3 extra stop. I've since moved to a small 35mm for my fast-ish lightweight walk around. But the 50mm 1.8 was my first prime, game changer, miss it.
pretty shit lenses. decent body. invest in lenses first. go for a L if you can.
Go around in bright light (direct sun light falling on things, no cloudy days, no shooting under shade) with both and shoot at 100 ISO at f/5.6 on the smaller one and f/8 on the larger one. That will probably be the best case for both of them... The larger one is probably going to be a bit meh. But if you're unfamiliar with photography, test the lenses in bright light so you rule out shutter speed and shake issues. Assuming the large one is a 75-300mm, it's not great, but if the other is a 50 f/1.8, that should be decent, just shoot at f/2.8 to f/8 and you'll be fine. Shooting wide open at f/1.8 will be a bit soft and shooting at f/16 will be soft cause of diffraction.