Welcome to Gaia! ::

I have that lens. It's alright. It's not the sharpest lens around and it does have some problems with chromatic and sidel aberrations however, for the price it's not like you should expect much. The lens does move if you focus, like the 18 - 55, so that can be a problem if you're using a CLP however if you're shooting portraits usually it's not THAT big of a concern, just be aware of that. It's a quite noisy lens, so if you want something that's quiet like a lens with USM, you definitely won't find it with this. This is about as loud as your 18 - 55. So if it's not a problem with that lens, it shouldn't be with this one.

Now there is a USM model, same 75 - 300 4 - 5.6 but just with usm although it's like... $40 extra I believe. It's like right under $200 if I remember correctly. But IMHO, it isn't worth it.

However if you're looking for a telephoto lens under $200 unless you buy something from someone (As in used) or have some sort of a special deal or offer you won't find anything. That's just how it is really. Because anything around that price range is, in all honesty, going to give you the same results.

At least in regards to telephotos.

You can buy a 50mm 1.8 lens for $100 and it's lovely although working with that shallow dof can be tricky at times. But it's not like you cant shoot at 5.6, but with 50mm at that dof it's really unflattering. But it's something else to consider and it's a very sharp lens as well.

And really, that's all you have in that range as far as cannon lenses go. You can try getting some lenses from other makers like tamron, sigma, etc. But they won't offer you much.

Pretty much you're stuck with that in THAT price range but it isn't a bad lens.

I know, I'm just trying to give you as much info as I could. But it's a good lens, if you're doing portraits probably the best thing you can do for that lens in particular is not to stick around the 100mm range, go past 200 or hit 300. Because f4 or 5.6 isn't very flattering but when you start zooming in you'll end up getting better results as far as the background is concerned.

I abused my 75 - 300 for a very long time and it's got chips, cracks, scratches and everything all over it, it's a good lens - for the price.

biggrin

You can't seriously be asking why someone would need a focal length over 85mm for portraits, can you? Because that's kind of a ridiculous question if you're serious.

Having a focal length of 200, 300 or even more is great for portraits. It might not always be practical but it is great. If you take a picture of 18mm and are close up to the person the background will look smaller, however if you move further back and compose the image so the subject is still like how you took it at 18mm but were at 100+mm you'll notice that the background actually becomes larger and more blurred.

So shooting at 300mm even if you're not shooting at 2.8 or whatever because you get a very nice background.

As opposed to most people who shoot wide angles and don't know how to do that properly and just get a crap load of awful photos.

50mm is fine for portraits as long as you don't suck with it. I mean if you take a portrait of someone at 50mm or wider you're going to end up getting a lot of crap in the background so unless you're shooting at 2.8 or wider you're going to get a pretty bad portrait. At least in the traditional sense of a "portrait". If you're doing more of an environmental shot, then that's fine but if you're doing like a head and shoulder... Yuck. lol

I already looked, there wasn't anything, but thats ok, because i do have a tripod that I shoot with.

I think you should really get it.

but be sure to buy the warranty just in case!


you dont need a great one right now ... just a nice good one.

if you do become a pro (which would be amazing and I don't dobt that maybe you will) then you should keep saving but still get this one and when you get enough money then you will have BOTH of them.