Canon 75-300 slow focus?

[Gillbot]

I grabbed a camera kit from ebay as a gift for the father in law and it included a canon 75-300mm I kept for myself. With it on my T1i, it seems VERY slow focusing but manual mode everything seems just fine. I've taken a handful of shots with it and everything seems ok except for the auto focus. Is the lens junk or can it be "refreshed"?

 

[996GT2]

I grabbed a camera kit from ebay as a gift for the father in law and it included a canon 75-300mm I kept for myself. With it on my T1i, it seems VERY slow focusing but manual mode everything seems just fine. I've taken a handful of shots with it and everything seems ok except for the auto focus. Is the lens junk or can it be "refreshed"?

That lens is one of canon's worst in terms of optics and in terms of focusing speed. It is prone to hunting and will take a few seconds to cycle between close and far focus, especially at the long end of the zoom range. The T1i's AF system isn't the bet either, so that wouldn't help.

Did you try using the central AF point only? That's the only cross-type AF point on the T2i, so it may help to reduce hunting, especially with a slow-focusing lens like the 75-300.

 

[Gillbot]

I think the focus motor is "stuck" because if you nudge it it seems to go but otherwise it doesn't want to.

 

[996GT2]

I think the focus motor is "stuck" because if you nudge it it seems to go but otherwise it doesn't want to.

Return it to the seller unless you are experienced in repairing electronics and have the time to attempt a fix yourself.

With a lens like the 75-300, it's really not worth the effort to try and fix it. Return it and buy a 55-250 IS if you want to get a decent (and cheap) telephoto lens.

 

[Gillbot]

Not an option, the 75-300 was a freebie. It's no big deal really, it works fine and shoots pretty good pics in manual mode. I was just wondering if it was something simple.

 

[shortylickens]

It seems Nikon kits lenses are often much better than Canon kit lenses, especially in lower end cameras. But that changes quickly as you move over to paid lenses.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

It seems Nikon kits lenses are often much better than Canon kit lenses, especially in lower end cameras. But that changes quickly as you move over to paid lenses.

Well the 75-300 isn't really a kit lens they bundle. It's the worst of the worst. If you had a bad 55-250 I would be more ticked. That's a typical kit lens and its a $250 zoom lens. I don't even know how much the 75-300 runs but it's gotta be a sub 200 thing... Dirt cheap.

 

[angry hampster]

It seems Nikon kits lenses are often much better than Canon kit lenses, especially in lower end cameras. But that changes quickly as you move over to paid lenses.

I would say *only* in lower end cameras, even. The 24-105 as a kit lens with the 5D is brilliant. Is the 7D offered in a kit? I'd imagine it'd do quite well with a 17-55, even though I HATE the idea of EF-S lenses.

 

[shortylickens]

I would say *only* in lower end cameras, even. The 24-105 as a kit lens with the 5D is brilliant. Is the 7D offered in a kit? I'd imagine it'd do quite well with a 17-55, even though I HATE the idea of EF-S lenses.

Yeah but in higher end cameras kit lenses are often not available. You can generally buy bodies only. They expect someone who purchases such an expensive body to already have the lenses they want, or be willing to shell out lots of extra cash for the exact lenses they want.

 

[Gillbot]

Well, the lens works ok in manual as I said but my wife prefers the auto. It's no big deal, but i'll continue to grab cheap lenses as I see them regardless. I'd rather have a good assortment of "junk" lenses cheap to mess with before I shell out large $ for a "good" one.

 

[996GT2]

Well, the lens works ok in manual as I said but my wife prefers the auto. It's no big deal, but i'll continue to grab cheap lenses as I see them regardless. I'd rather have a good assortment of "junk" lenses cheap to mess with before I shell out large $ for a "good" one.

I hate to quote Ken Rockwell here, but what he is preaching really does make sense:

"[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Always put your money into your lenses."

You don't necessarily need to shell out large $ for a "good" lens. 50mm f/1.8 is a great beginner lens and it can be had for under $100. Light-years ahead of the 75-300 in terms of image quality and versatility in low light.
[/FONT]

 

[Gillbot]

I hate to quote Ken Rockwell here, but what he is preaching really does make sense:

"[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Always put your money into your lenses."

You don't necessarily need to shell out large $ for a "good" lens. 50mm f/1.8 is a great beginner lens and it can be had for under $100. Light-years ahead of the 75-300 in terms of image quality and versatility in low light.
[/FONT]

I'm not disagreeing with that, but as a newcomer to the SLR realm, I would like to play with the different lenses and get a feel for them and the distances they can shoot. Aside from that, I do plan on getting better ones once I get a feel for what I can use for what I want to do. The problem now is, I really have no clue what I want to do! 😱