Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM Lens £109.97 @ Tesco Direct - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HotUKDeals, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HotUKDeals app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit
320Expired

Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM Lens £109.97 @ Tesco Direct

£109.97 @ Tesco Direct
Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM Lens, great price for the USM version. (currently £249 @ Jessops and £229 @ warehouse express) Free cleaning kit worth £4.97 Read More
UK_Deals Avatar
6y, 21h agoFound 6 years, 21 hours ago
Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM Lens, great price for the USM version. (currently £249 @ Jessops and £229 @ warehouse express)

Free cleaning kit worth £4.97
Deal Tags:
More From Tesco Direct:
×
Get the Hottest Deals Daily
Stay informed. Once a day, we'll send you the deals our members voted as the best.
Failed
UK_Deals Avatar
6y, 21h agoFound 6 years, 21 hours ago
Options

All Comments

(33) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
#1
Crap lens, you'll be crying if you buy this, get the 55-250 canon IS lens instead, its only a few quid more.
#2
I agree with mikeleslie, the 55-250 is a belter, and it's got a 4 stop image stabilizer.
Read reviews of both and then decide.

PS. I did vote hot as it's a good price.

Edited By: inspectorblakey on Jun 22, 2011 18:12
#3
Good price, but agree with above.
#4
it is an 'ok' price. you can get it on ebay for about the same. but, it's a crap lens. i'm a fan of the 18-200 canon is which goes for about $500 and is extremely versatile.
#5
Nice price, unsure about the quality of this lens however, but gotta be good as a starter zoom lens.
#6
Thanks for the info guys.
What you think if the 16-85 ?
#7
Not Tesco's after the 60D debacle (!)
I've voted hot as already have it.
Only tend to use it with mono/tri-pod.
2 Likes #8
sold this lens in favour of the Sigma 70 - 300 DG APO Macro
but they both need a tripod for anything but bright sunlight.
#9
This is not a bad lens, and for the money, its superb. Yes the 55-250 is better, but the extra 50mm makes this one a winner for shooting far away!
1 Like #10
The 55-250mm with 4 stop IS currently £154 at Tesco Direct - brilliant lens for the price, use mostly for portraits.
>>http://direct.tesco.com/q/R.207-1661.aspx
#11
not a bad price, but better the 55-250mm is a much better lens.
No IS so you would need a tripod, etc. - personally I'd look at the
2nd hand market for the little use it may get. Those serious about
shooting 300mm would only find this as a stop gap until you decide
for an L
1 Like #12
aircanman
This is not a bad lens, and for the money, its superb. Yes the 55-250 is better, but the extra 50mm makes this one a winner for shooting far away!


Blurry images or walk 20% closer, I know which I'd prefer.
#13
If you know about photography you don't get blurry images....Anyway that is not a bad price for an usm lens....and 55-250mm lens is better lens than this....
mikeleslie
aircanman
This is not a bad lens, and for the money, its superb. Yes the 55-250 is better, but the extra 50mm makes this one a winner for shooting far away!


Blurry images or walk 20% closer, I know which I'd prefer.
#14
mikeleslie
aircanman
This is not a bad lens, and for the money, its superb. Yes the 55-250 is better, but the extra 50mm makes this one a winner for shooting far away!


Blurry images or walk 20% closer, I know which I'd prefer.


Agreed, or crop also!
#15
Soft as dog do when wide open. Perfectly adequate when not. I've taken probably 10k shots with one of these. Paid £65 from a mate though so mustn't grumble. Looking to replace with the 55-250 now.
#16
Good price, nearly posted this myself a couple of days ago, but read the reviews first. It's cheap, and cheap for a reason. Image quality referred to as mediocre.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-75-300mm-f-4-5.6-III-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Worth a look.
#17
Junk lens, don't waste your money.

Go for the 55-250mm instead.
1 Like #18
Sometimes you can't walk closer and have a tripod and can shoot at f8, then it's ok ish
but the bottom line is that it's a cheap lens at a great price for the budget sensitive
still hot
#19
Dunno if these are still available or not as the site is down but might be a better bet if you can suffer the loss of 100mm but gain OS

http://www.hotukdeals.com/deals/sigma-50-200mm-f4-5-6-dc-os-hsm-nikon-canon-fit-99-99-collected-instore-pnp-for/946456

Edited By: Rich44 on Jun 23, 2011 00:10
1 Like #20
I have to agree with everyone who favours the 55-250mm over this - well worth the extra.

Get this 75-300mm and I guarantee you will be disappointed....
#21
I have the 55-250 is, but this deal still voted hot as its a great price, roughly 20quid cheaper than even ebay.
#22
I have one of these lenses, bought about 6 years ago when I got my EOS300D .. it's a crap lens! In very bright light (eg. outdoors, daytime, bright day) you can get decentish shots, still not with much contrast. Anything else - forget it! It also weighs 500g it's a pain to lug about, and the wide end 75mm is still a telephoto (especially once you factor in the 1.6x crop) so not useful for anything else.
#23
This is a good price for this lens, and as such, I've voted hot. However, as others have suggested, the 55-250mm *is* a better lens, and if I were in the market for a telephoto zoom, I'd very much try to justify the extra £50 on that one.
#24
Don't forget the 70-300 is an EF lens.
The 55-250 is an EF-S.

So for a DSLR you're probably going to get around 100-450 out of it and only 55-250 out of the EF-S. (for those confused, you get a bit more zoom for your money)
(If I remember rightly it's a *1.6 on zoom from EF -> EF-S???)

I have an EF 70-300 IS on a DSLR and at maximum zoom it can be a bit soft.
I never noticed the gap in zooms between the 18-55 EF-S and the 70-300 EF you can compensate for that with a short walk.
#25
max_lan
Don't forget the 70-300 is an EF lens.
The 55-250 is an EF-S.

So for a DSLR you're probably going to get around 100-450 out of it and only 55-250 out of the EF-S. (for those confused, you get a bit more zoom for your money)
(If I remember rightly it's a *1.6 on zoom from EF -> EF-S???)

I have an EF 70-300 IS on a DSLR and at maximum zoom it can be a bit soft.
I never noticed the gap in zooms between the 18-55 EF-S and the 70-300 EF you can compensate for that with a short walk.


the 70-300mm is a different and much better lens than the 75-300 (and 55-250), don't mix them up.
#26
This lens sucks. Get a 55-250 IS for £150~. This lens is worth, at most, around £75 and frankly should be discontinued.
#27
max_lan
Don't forget the 70-300 is an EF lens.
The 55-250 is an EF-S.

So for a DSLR you're probably going to get around 100-450 out of it and only 55-250 out of the EF-S. (for those confused, you get a bit more zoom for your money)


Canon doesn't calculate in crop factors. All focal lengths are the full frame equivalents be it an EF or EF-S lens. So both the 70-300 and 55-250 will get a 1.6 multiplier on a APS-C camera.

So the 55-250 will be 88-400, and the 70-300 will be 112-480 relative to a full frame camera. The reason a lot of people think that Canon do this on their EF-S line is because Nikon does...

Canon decided a long time ago to use the same scale on both so they can be easily compared. You know that a X-Y lens can be 1:1 compared to any other X-Y lens no matter what the lens frame.

If you want a cheap zoom, get the 55-250, if you want an EF 70-300, then get the new (Dec' 2010) Tamron SP 70-300 VC. It is a far more modern, and frankly better, lens than the Canon 70-300 IS. All three lenses are better than this hori-bad 75-300, which you'll find in the clearance bins at most photography stores.
#28
I have the 55-250 and it's fab - would recommend paying a bit extra (£157 on Amazon).
I had to buy a new one because I had problems with my Sigma EF lens - the camera (550D) kept complaining that there was a fault communicating with the lens, which works perfectly well on my old EOS650. Anyone else had problems with EF lenses? Though to be honest I was glad for an excuse to ditch the old clunker.
#29
Cold. £103.35 at Amazon.
#30
ashok
If you know about photography you don't get blurry images....Anyway that is not a bad price for an usm lens....and 55-250mm lens is better lens than this....
mikeleslie
aircanman
This is not a bad lens, and for the money, its superb. Yes the 55-250 is better, but the extra 50mm makes this one a winner for shooting far away!


Blurry images or walk 20% closer, I know which I'd prefer.


If you know about photography you wouldn't buy this lens.
#31
I'm confused, which lens is better?
1 Like #32
qwerta369
Cold. £103.35 at [url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.co.uk%2FCanon-75-300mm-4-0-5-6-III-Lens%2Fdp%2FB00005K47Y%2Fref%3Dsr_1_2%3Fie%3DUTF8%26s%3Delectronics%26qid%3D1308827454%26sr%3D8-2]Amazon[/url].


That's a different lens without USM, a much nastier lens all together, this USM one is far better
1 Like #33
qwerta369
Cold. £103.35 at [url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.co.uk%2FCanon-75-300mm-4-0-5-6-III-Lens%2Fdp%2FB00005K47Y%2Fref%3Dsr_1_2%3Fie%3DUTF8%26s%3Delectronics%26qid%3D1308827454%26sr%3D8-2]Amazon[/url].

My appologies, Amazon is very confusing

The lens is described as "Canon EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III Lens " ie no USM
But the image shows a USM model

Hmmm I don't know what Amazon are selling.

I'd guess they would sent you the cheaper "Canon EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III" rather than the "Canon EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III USM" and claim the photo is for illustration purposes only ?

It's a bit sloppy

Edited By: gmcoates on Jun 24, 2011 10:19

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Top of Page
Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!