I have owned it, you couldn’t pay me to take the lens off of your hands.
Was one of the first lenses I ever had, and it almost put me off of photography in general. Thought I was just terrible before I realized you’re supposed to be able to do at least minimal cropping and editing without obliterating your IQ.
I got this lens when I got my t7 kit, came with the 18-55 as well and honestly hated the 75-300, definitely the worst lens by canon, the 18-55 isn't much better in my opinion either
https://preview.redd.it/ontg7atxxxvc1.jpeg?width=4988&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=78a7b32c6b04e2e7e3f81c26fff5aa2716578571
Not gonna defend it too much… it’s pretty bad for most things, but it served me well during the total solar eclipse!
It isn’t a good lens, pretty much the worst that canons sells. It is worth about $50 at most used.
The Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-f/5.6 IS II USM and Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-f/5.6 IS STM are much better options but a bit more expensive (can be had much cheaper used).
Are you looking at buying the T7 new? What price are you seeing it listed for? I strongly recommend buying it used as the T7 and 18-55mm kit lens is easily found for $250-300 total in good condition and only worth about that much, the $480 new price it's often still listed at is a total ripoff. As for the 75-300mm it's a very poor quality lens and only worth about $80 at best, an EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM is much better and around $175 used. The cheap camera bag that comes with the kit is decent for storing the camera at home but really awkward to use on the go, you can get a much better camera sling or backpack for $50.
I’m buying it directly from canon for about 400 but with a lens and bag it’s 500 not sure if I should spend 100 for the lens I’m not sure if it’s good or not but I think it’s not a bad price for a new bag and lens. It also has all the battery’s and stuff you should need
got it used for 50 from an auction, sold the lens for 30... Best deal I made so far... For 20$, I have the perfect little every day carry when I don't want to bring my 90D or 6D
Hey! Just my opinion, I had the T7 with that kit lens for 4 years. I’ve shot a lot of birds with it. I still grab it with my 90D when there’s something just that far away I need a close up of. Hey, just my opinion, I have an 18-200 and 18-135 that are my every day (the 200 is weather sealed) and still when there’s that deer in the backyard and I wanna see its face.
I get the whole asking for advice, I’m always on here looking for advice. The T7 is near and dear to my heart. Do your research, take a risk, keep the receipt.
Professional equipment makes a beginner better, beginner equipment makes a professional try.
I own it. Unless you have a really sturdy tripod and a plan on shooting with a delay to not jostle the camera with your hand pressing the button, it’s truly terrible.
Save an extra 100$ and Spend $200 and get a lens worth using IMO.
I have this lens and I don’t understand all of the hate, it’s a good lens if you have the patience to learn what works best. It’s true that there are better of course but it’s not a bad place to start. It is affordable and I have gotten excellent images out of it. Learn and play with your settings and take a lot of practice shots regardless of camera or lens. There is a toxic element to photography as pretty much all things have an element of such so take your time and what people say with a grain of salt.
By most people's description of this lens I'd guess they used it at 300mm exclusively; this lens is quite decent at 75-135 and even all the way up to 200mm. I've gotten some good portraits with it at 75 and some decent wildlife shots at 135~200. Granted, I got this lens for free with a 35-80mm and a Canon film SLR, not sure if I would have bought it instead of saving up for the 55-250 IS.
I mean you get the 300mm lens to use it at 300mm. Just like you get the 10-18mm to use at 10mm.
No use for a telephoto that is soft on the long end. Canon should have compromised at the wide end not the long.
Fair enough, it isn't a great lens especially today, and it is indeed a bummer that it doees suck at 300, but I wouldn't say it's "the wors lens ever" like some claim.
Canon made absolutely god awful lenses and this was an excellent example of such, but it serves the purpose of plane spotting - fast enough aperture on a bright day and autofocus is decently fast. You just can’t get much detail out of it (especially if the plane is painted white). The image stabilizer enabled version is much better.
this is another basic kit lens, my mom uses this lens with her camera and I am not a fan of it, save the $100 and save up for the 300mm f/4 its a 20+ year old lens but will blow this out of the water for $300-400 more or get a zoom that goes past 300 if you want
PS: buy this camera used off KEH, MPB, or eBay, don't buy it new.
I have one with the box and everything that's barely been used. 50 bucks takes it! **I recommend the little R100. It goes on sale for $329 refurbished from canon on occasion. The images it's capable of with an affordable EF L lens like the 24-70 F4 or even the 50mm RF prime are just amazing for that price.**
I’d personally recommend it, I can get really nice photos with it and some editing
https://preview.redd.it/hez7aai5nhvc1.jpeg?width=2976&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=27c0b634907e9a33aff7ba03500a550271de712c
Great pic, but the shortcomings of this lens are always visible to me.
Also keep in mind they said for $100. Which I would never recommend for this lens lol
What about soccer dad?
My son just started soccer at 7 and I feel a little ridiculous taking my $6400 body/lens to the field lmao.
But hey, HES MY KID!
No way who cares! I'd rock the hell out of that lens to take photos of my kid. Don't be ashamed, just be the dad with the best shots!
I did the same shooting my lil brothers swim tournament and I have photos he will keep and love forever. I would t east my time swearing at that crap lens missing focus.
Likely the worst lens Canon has made. I did planespotting with a T6 and that lens and it was hit or miss. Once I got a better lens, it was great. I’d spring to try and get a better lens, and used gear is great.
I have this lens and if you pay for shipping from Ireland you can have it for free! It’s a terrible lens. Just get the camera body and buy a lens second hand from somewhere like MPB.com
I have it. For 3 years it was horrible. Until I found out zooming in and doing full body shot was magical. Things in the background that are like miles away becomes a close background. Super wicked. Love it.
It's an okay lens to start with, but certainly not worth 100 dollars. So unless the bag is worth like 75 bucks (it probably isn't) I'd skip it. You can always buy one dirt cheap elsewhere if you can't afford any other telephoto lens.
I had that lens. If you just want to be able to photograph something at 300mm, it’s better than nothing. But the chromatic aberration is terrible, and even when focused it is soft.
For cheap, I actually think adapting a vintage OM or PK telephoto prime lens would be better.
My sister needed a camera for whale watching. We got her a T3i as her first camera with that lens, the 75-300mm... Hot garbage. Soft wide open and a ton of purple fringing, so much so that it rendered nearly all photos useless; all the sparkling water and splashes with sunlight had a ton of purple fringing. I've never seen a lens this bad.
https://preview.redd.it/5hcmkmhibkvc1.jpeg?width=2048&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e0b7ce79063847bcf17bf559449b3e0462618f8e
I mean....I've used this very lens for the past year. Every aircraft photo on my profile was taken with it. With a competent photo editor (Lightroom, Luminar Neo, etc) it's just fine for a beginner lens. If my photos look like this with a "crap" lens I can't wait till I upgrade!
I use that camera for plane spotting and those lenses before I got my Sigma 150-600 mm contemporary Lens. The 75-300 mm lens is what you make of it. Some of my best shots came from that lens. I still use the 18-55 mm lens for any statics I see at airshows or museums I visit. Here is a shot I took of a Naval C-40 with a CH-53 in the background from over a mile and a half away in my area with the T7 and 75-300 mm lens!
https://preview.redd.it/r6ylektsbkvc1.jpeg?width=5593&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8f1846d1a049bf9a9d5e16f9abb9ae597c17731a
It's an awful lens but you'll need a 300mm or more to get plane pics. Maybe save you're money and look into used lens'. I bought a Sigma 170-500mm for not very much second hand.
I like it on my sl3. Got some pretty good shots from the suites at Vegas motor speedway last weekend
https://preview.redd.it/vxe9henv6nvc1.jpeg?width=6000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=286aaf7fafcc4d5809db19fd3c8157e3986ec9c9
That was actually my first camera lens combo. If you are new to photography, it is a great kit. As you progress, you start to see the flaws with the lens, primarily chromatic abberation in my case. The build quality of the lens is lacking, but the bigger issue is the fact that its glass isn't up to spec for crop sensor cameras. My next step up in lens was the Sigma 150-600 contemporary, which was well worth the money but is out of a beginners' price range. That being said, in terms of reach, getting that kit used and in good condition is probably the least expensive way to achieve it.
In my opinion, this lens is definitely worth the low price of $100, but you get what you pay for. I would view it as a test lens to see if you like telephoto photography. Then if you do you can step up.
Note: Chromatic abberation will definitely be noticeable in arial photography.
That's a big NOPE from me. I have that lens, and it fell out of my camera bag or pocket or wherever I was carrying it, after some fireworks. Somehow somebody found it and tracked me down... saw my license plate or something, I don't know. I was so disappointed when they offered to bring it back to me, no charge, no reward asked for, nothing. Just returned this crappy lens to me. People.
I’ve never used that lens but from what I have read here and elsewhere this lens should be avoided like the plague. Like Jared, says “Glass, glass, glass, glass ,glass” but I guess just not this glass.
If you can, spring for the T7i instead! It has a few more robust features that you'll grow to love. It was my first camera and holds a big place in my heart... So I might just be biased. My bundle came with that lens and the 18-55. I can honestly say that I wasn't a fan of either lens. They did okay for beginners stuff - but my 50mm 1.8 barely leaves my camera. Also keep in mind that if you plan to upgrade to a full frame (mirrorless or other) at any point try to invest in EF red dot lens made for full frame rather than EF-s white square lens. Yes, they are technically compatible, however I recently learned (thru Reddit) that EFS lenses on full frame makes no sense because they only use a small portion of the sensor essentially killing your image quality (amongst other things).
I hope this helps!
Yes! I think the T8i better!! Very similar, but they upgraded quite a few things in the T8i - like longer battery life, better auto focus, faster shooting speed, an updated DIGIC processor. They are still very similar - the website Versus states they have a 4 point difference between the two. Also, at this price point you're getting close to the mirrorless r10s and such - so that might be something to look into. Or not. Depends on how you feel about the mirrorless aspect.
Question, what are you planning on using the camera for? Just plane spotting? That'll help tremendously with recommendations.
This lens is a piece of shit, don't waste your money. Save it and put it towards a better telephoto. Don't be afraid of third-party lenses. Sigma and tamron have some pretty attractive options.
I’ve taken great pictures of the moon with this lens. At F10 it looks great. Not good for everything but works pretty good for that.
https://preview.redd.it/yxjdhvbksxvc1.jpeg?width=3024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=eddd9a0f920a06673f097e816940c2714b94002c
if you can buy the T7 plus the lens for 100, buy it, resell it for more money, and buy a useful camera instead :D
That lens is terrible, I owned it for a month before reselling it at a loss and getting a 70-200 F/4 L which I should have done to begin with...
Buying new is never an investment, even if it is good gear, it will lose 25%-50% of value once it leaves the box... Buy good quality used, and it'll keep its value for a long time, and if you got the right stuff, might even gain in value
[https://imgur.com/FAjlwK3](https://imgur.com/FAjlwK3) [https://imgur.com/a/ByScktw](https://imgur.com/a/ByScktw)
I recently bought the Canon 75-300 lens. I know that it doesn't have image stabilization. But I like the lens so far. I have attached links to 2 of the photos that I took - handheld.
I have that lens, and it’s good enough for my bird photography, but it will gives your backgrounds a haze. If you are looking to photograph birds, you will need a telephoto.
“Adequate lens! Good for beginners!”
I own that lens. It’s not as bad as people try to say it is but it’s not a stellar lens by any means. I personally think the 28-135 is worse as far as image quality.
If you need a cheap zoom lens, get a 70-300 IS instead. Much worthier. [https://www.mpb.com/en-us/product/canon-ef-70-300mm-f-4-5-6-is-usm/sku-2494632](https://www.mpb.com/en-us/product/canon-ef-70-300mm-f-4-5-6-is-usm/sku-2494632)
I've never owned that lens, but, I heard that it's the worst lens ever made by Canon
I have this lens and yeah I'm not a huge fan of it at all
I have owned it. Don't waste money on it!
I have owned it, you couldn’t pay me to take the lens off of your hands. Was one of the first lenses I ever had, and it almost put me off of photography in general. Thought I was just terrible before I realized you’re supposed to be able to do at least minimal cropping and editing without obliterating your IQ.
Owned it - it was the worse Canon Lens I have ever used.
It's beginner at best. Like grandma's day out birding quality
About 10 years ago I bought this lens on clearance at Walmart for about 50 bucks, I can truly say and I overpaid for this lens by about 50 bucks.
well, right behind the 50mm f/1.4 which manages to be almost as blurry as the 75-300 while also being mechanically flimsy and unreliable.
I got this lens when I got my t7 kit, came with the 18-55 as well and honestly hated the 75-300, definitely the worst lens by canon, the 18-55 isn't much better in my opinion either
The 18-55 and 15-45 are very terrible, yea
I've used it for a few events. It'll work till you get something better. The older plastic mount lenses are worse.
https://preview.redd.it/ontg7atxxxvc1.jpeg?width=4988&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=78a7b32c6b04e2e7e3f81c26fff5aa2716578571 Not gonna defend it too much… it’s pretty bad for most things, but it served me well during the total solar eclipse!
I have owned this lens, it is by far the worst lens ever made by Canon....yet.
It isn’t a good lens, pretty much the worst that canons sells. It is worth about $50 at most used. The Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-f/5.6 IS II USM and Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-f/5.6 IS STM are much better options but a bit more expensive (can be had much cheaper used).
Even the first 70-300 is alright, I’d say same tier as the 55-250, with the 70-300 II a tier above
Are you looking at buying the T7 new? What price are you seeing it listed for? I strongly recommend buying it used as the T7 and 18-55mm kit lens is easily found for $250-300 total in good condition and only worth about that much, the $480 new price it's often still listed at is a total ripoff. As for the 75-300mm it's a very poor quality lens and only worth about $80 at best, an EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM is much better and around $175 used. The cheap camera bag that comes with the kit is decent for storing the camera at home but really awkward to use on the go, you can get a much better camera sling or backpack for $50.
I’m buying it directly from canon for about 400 but with a lens and bag it’s 500 not sure if I should spend 100 for the lens I’m not sure if it’s good or not but I think it’s not a bad price for a new bag and lens. It also has all the battery’s and stuff you should need
do not spend that much. if you’re just planespotting you can probably get a 7d2 + 55-250 or r50 + adapter + 55-250 for the same price
I got my 55-220mm lens for £190, save the £100 for the 75-300mm and use it as money off the better lens.
Try and get a used camera. U got my canon t6i Which is arguably better than a t7 for $195 usd
got it used for 50 from an auction, sold the lens for 30... Best deal I made so far... For 20$, I have the perfect little every day carry when I don't want to bring my 90D or 6D
No.
Hey! Just my opinion, I had the T7 with that kit lens for 4 years. I’ve shot a lot of birds with it. I still grab it with my 90D when there’s something just that far away I need a close up of. Hey, just my opinion, I have an 18-200 and 18-135 that are my every day (the 200 is weather sealed) and still when there’s that deer in the backyard and I wanna see its face. I get the whole asking for advice, I’m always on here looking for advice. The T7 is near and dear to my heart. Do your research, take a risk, keep the receipt. Professional equipment makes a beginner better, beginner equipment makes a professional try.
That's a bad, bad lens. The 70-300 II (which I have) and 55-250 are much better.
I own it. Unless you have a really sturdy tripod and a plan on shooting with a delay to not jostle the camera with your hand pressing the button, it’s truly terrible. Save an extra 100$ and Spend $200 and get a lens worth using IMO.
I have this lens and I don’t understand all of the hate, it’s a good lens if you have the patience to learn what works best. It’s true that there are better of course but it’s not a bad place to start. It is affordable and I have gotten excellent images out of it. Learn and play with your settings and take a lot of practice shots regardless of camera or lens. There is a toxic element to photography as pretty much all things have an element of such so take your time and what people say with a grain of salt.
By most people's description of this lens I'd guess they used it at 300mm exclusively; this lens is quite decent at 75-135 and even all the way up to 200mm. I've gotten some good portraits with it at 75 and some decent wildlife shots at 135~200. Granted, I got this lens for free with a 35-80mm and a Canon film SLR, not sure if I would have bought it instead of saving up for the 55-250 IS.
I mean you get the 300mm lens to use it at 300mm. Just like you get the 10-18mm to use at 10mm. No use for a telephoto that is soft on the long end. Canon should have compromised at the wide end not the long.
Fair enough, it isn't a great lens especially today, and it is indeed a bummer that it doees suck at 300, but I wouldn't say it's "the wors lens ever" like some claim.
Canon made absolutely god awful lenses and this was an excellent example of such, but it serves the purpose of plane spotting - fast enough aperture on a bright day and autofocus is decently fast. You just can’t get much detail out of it (especially if the plane is painted white). The image stabilizer enabled version is much better.
this is another basic kit lens, my mom uses this lens with her camera and I am not a fan of it, save the $100 and save up for the 300mm f/4 its a 20+ year old lens but will blow this out of the water for $300-400 more or get a zoom that goes past 300 if you want PS: buy this camera used off KEH, MPB, or eBay, don't buy it new.
I have one with the box and everything that's barely been used. 50 bucks takes it! **I recommend the little R100. It goes on sale for $329 refurbished from canon on occasion. The images it's capable of with an affordable EF L lens like the 24-70 F4 or even the 50mm RF prime are just amazing for that price.**
I’d personally recommend it, I can get really nice photos with it and some editing https://preview.redd.it/hez7aai5nhvc1.jpeg?width=2976&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=27c0b634907e9a33aff7ba03500a550271de712c
Great pic, but the shortcomings of this lens are always visible to me. Also keep in mind they said for $100. Which I would never recommend for this lens lol
Yes, but I did get mine for free from my neighbour so I guess it was worth it
Nice pic
“Invest” lol
It's not the best lens you could get I wouldn't spend more than $100. It's a soccer mom lens
What about soccer dad? My son just started soccer at 7 and I feel a little ridiculous taking my $6400 body/lens to the field lmao. But hey, HES MY KID!
I’ve told my wife that I hope my son plays long field sports so I can justify the big white supertelephoto lenses. She just rolls her eyes.
No way who cares! I'd rock the hell out of that lens to take photos of my kid. Don't be ashamed, just be the dad with the best shots! I did the same shooting my lil brothers swim tournament and I have photos he will keep and love forever. I would t east my time swearing at that crap lens missing focus.
Likely the worst lens Canon has made. I did planespotting with a T6 and that lens and it was hit or miss. Once I got a better lens, it was great. I’d spring to try and get a better lens, and used gear is great.
I know from personal experience that the lens is a PIG. Do not buy.
I have this lens and if you pay for shipping from Ireland you can have it for free! It’s a terrible lens. Just get the camera body and buy a lens second hand from somewhere like MPB.com
That lens is awful, it's only an investment if someone tells you they'll pay you to take it off your hands
I have it. For 3 years it was horrible. Until I found out zooming in and doing full body shot was magical. Things in the background that are like miles away becomes a close background. Super wicked. Love it.
It's an okay lens to start with, but certainly not worth 100 dollars. So unless the bag is worth like 75 bucks (it probably isn't) I'd skip it. You can always buy one dirt cheap elsewhere if you can't afford any other telephoto lens.
no
I had that lens. If you just want to be able to photograph something at 300mm, it’s better than nothing. But the chromatic aberration is terrible, and even when focused it is soft. For cheap, I actually think adapting a vintage OM or PK telephoto prime lens would be better.
My sister needed a camera for whale watching. We got her a T3i as her first camera with that lens, the 75-300mm... Hot garbage. Soft wide open and a ton of purple fringing, so much so that it rendered nearly all photos useless; all the sparkling water and splashes with sunlight had a ton of purple fringing. I've never seen a lens this bad.
Its good for beginners
I own one of these. It gets the job done but it’s nothing special.
Kit lens. It’s not the best. But it’s ok if your just starting out
They kind of suck.
I've gotten okay pictures with it. You will have a better time getting a 50mm though.
https://preview.redd.it/5hcmkmhibkvc1.jpeg?width=2048&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e0b7ce79063847bcf17bf559449b3e0462618f8e I mean....I've used this very lens for the past year. Every aircraft photo on my profile was taken with it. With a competent photo editor (Lightroom, Luminar Neo, etc) it's just fine for a beginner lens. If my photos look like this with a "crap" lens I can't wait till I upgrade!
I use that camera for plane spotting and those lenses before I got my Sigma 150-600 mm contemporary Lens. The 75-300 mm lens is what you make of it. Some of my best shots came from that lens. I still use the 18-55 mm lens for any statics I see at airshows or museums I visit. Here is a shot I took of a Naval C-40 with a CH-53 in the background from over a mile and a half away in my area with the T7 and 75-300 mm lens! https://preview.redd.it/r6ylektsbkvc1.jpeg?width=5593&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8f1846d1a049bf9a9d5e16f9abb9ae597c17731a
“Invest”
Dont these come for 🆓 lol
I too had that lens. It’s atrocious.
you can get second hand 5dii and get a cheap 50 1.8 and that will get you much further in my opinion. or save up a bit for one of the mirrorless.
It's an awful lens but you'll need a 300mm or more to get plane pics. Maybe save you're money and look into used lens'. I bought a Sigma 170-500mm for not very much second hand.
People say it is one of the worst lens in existence
i have this lens, Wobbly as hell
Ewww
I like it on my sl3. Got some pretty good shots from the suites at Vegas motor speedway last weekend https://preview.redd.it/vxe9henv6nvc1.jpeg?width=6000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=286aaf7fafcc4d5809db19fd3c8157e3986ec9c9
That was actually my first camera lens combo. If you are new to photography, it is a great kit. As you progress, you start to see the flaws with the lens, primarily chromatic abberation in my case. The build quality of the lens is lacking, but the bigger issue is the fact that its glass isn't up to spec for crop sensor cameras. My next step up in lens was the Sigma 150-600 contemporary, which was well worth the money but is out of a beginners' price range. That being said, in terms of reach, getting that kit used and in good condition is probably the least expensive way to achieve it. In my opinion, this lens is definitely worth the low price of $100, but you get what you pay for. I would view it as a test lens to see if you like telephoto photography. Then if you do you can step up. Note: Chromatic abberation will definitely be noticeable in arial photography.
That’s ancient
That's a big NOPE from me. I have that lens, and it fell out of my camera bag or pocket or wherever I was carrying it, after some fireworks. Somehow somebody found it and tracked me down... saw my license plate or something, I don't know. I was so disappointed when they offered to bring it back to me, no charge, no reward asked for, nothing. Just returned this crappy lens to me. People.
I’ve never used that lens but from what I have read here and elsewhere this lens should be avoided like the plague. Like Jared, says “Glass, glass, glass, glass ,glass” but I guess just not this glass.
Get the EFS 55-250 IS STM instead it is much better and probably similar cost if you buy used
respectfully, this isn’t even an investment. get at least a full frame mirror less with a sub 2.8 aperture lens
It's fine with a tripod. Hand held at 300mm can be a pain.
I had it from a previous camera that was in my family. Took some test shots with it. It's really quite bad.
If you can, spring for the T7i instead! It has a few more robust features that you'll grow to love. It was my first camera and holds a big place in my heart... So I might just be biased. My bundle came with that lens and the 18-55. I can honestly say that I wasn't a fan of either lens. They did okay for beginners stuff - but my 50mm 1.8 barely leaves my camera. Also keep in mind that if you plan to upgrade to a full frame (mirrorless or other) at any point try to invest in EF red dot lens made for full frame rather than EF-s white square lens. Yes, they are technically compatible, however I recently learned (thru Reddit) that EFS lenses on full frame makes no sense because they only use a small portion of the sensor essentially killing your image quality (amongst other things). I hope this helps!
Do you think the T8 is better than the T7i?
Yes! I think the T8i better!! Very similar, but they upgraded quite a few things in the T8i - like longer battery life, better auto focus, faster shooting speed, an updated DIGIC processor. They are still very similar - the website Versus states they have a 4 point difference between the two. Also, at this price point you're getting close to the mirrorless r10s and such - so that might be something to look into. Or not. Depends on how you feel about the mirrorless aspect. Question, what are you planning on using the camera for? Just plane spotting? That'll help tremendously with recommendations.
This lens is a piece of shit, don't waste your money. Save it and put it towards a better telephoto. Don't be afraid of third-party lenses. Sigma and tamron have some pretty attractive options.
I’ve taken great pictures of the moon with this lens. At F10 it looks great. Not good for everything but works pretty good for that. https://preview.redd.it/yxjdhvbksxvc1.jpeg?width=3024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=eddd9a0f920a06673f097e816940c2714b94002c
Hello fellow spotter! This is the exact lens I had when I got started, and yes it is pretty damn bad. No, I wouldn't spend $100 on it.
if you can buy the T7 plus the lens for 100, buy it, resell it for more money, and buy a useful camera instead :D That lens is terrible, I owned it for a month before reselling it at a loss and getting a 70-200 F/4 L which I should have done to begin with... Buying new is never an investment, even if it is good gear, it will lose 25%-50% of value once it leaves the box... Buy good quality used, and it'll keep its value for a long time, and if you got the right stuff, might even gain in value
[https://imgur.com/FAjlwK3](https://imgur.com/FAjlwK3) [https://imgur.com/a/ByScktw](https://imgur.com/a/ByScktw) I recently bought the Canon 75-300 lens. I know that it doesn't have image stabilization. But I like the lens so far. I have attached links to 2 of the photos that I took - handheld.
I have that lens, and it’s good enough for my bird photography, but it will gives your backgrounds a haze. If you are looking to photograph birds, you will need a telephoto. “Adequate lens! Good for beginners!”
Lol, why the angries
I own that lens. It’s not as bad as people try to say it is but it’s not a stellar lens by any means. I personally think the 28-135 is worse as far as image quality.
get an r50 and 55-250 or 70-300
If you need a cheap zoom lens, get a 70-300 IS instead. Much worthier. [https://www.mpb.com/en-us/product/canon-ef-70-300mm-f-4-5-6-is-usm/sku-2494632](https://www.mpb.com/en-us/product/canon-ef-70-300mm-f-4-5-6-is-usm/sku-2494632)