55-250 VS 75-300 Lens

Okay, so! I've FINALLY decided on:

 

- 400D (18-55mm kit): I was going to get the Body only, but my local store are

doing an offer on the Kit at the same price as the body, so I'm going to sell

the lens on eBay. :0)

 

- Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4.0-5.6 IS USM Lens: I "um'd" and "ar'd" about this over

the 18-55mm IS lens, but I decided, although its more, I do want the Range.

I've been using the 18-55mm kit lens that came with my 350D (now giving both

Body and lens to daughter as birthday present, hence new camera etc) and its

just not long enough, I want a bit more.

 

I am also planning on getting the "Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Lens" and a good

Macro later on in the year. Perhaps in the fall.

 

Now, I what I need help with, I can't decide on:

 

- Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS

 

or the

 

- Canon EF 75-300 III F4-5.6 USM Lens

 

I like the "55" range on the 55-250mm, but I'm not sure if the "250" is long

enough? Hence the "75-300". Now if they done a "55-300" I'd be laughing! lol.

 

I like to shoot Wildlife/Horses/Pets, so that's why I wanted the Range.

 

Any input would be greatly appreciated.

Get yourself the 70-300 Image Stabilised lens. The 75-300 isn't up to the standard. I can't comment on the 55-250...

My experience of the 75-300 was years ago. It was the only lens I ever traded within a few

weeks of buying it - very soft at the long end and poor contrast. If you want a Canon in

that range I'd strongly suggest the 70-300 IS which is a much better lens than the 75-

300, and has IS which is really useful at the long end.

 

If the 70-300 IS is out of budget, go for the 55-250 IS which is not quite as good, and not

quite as well built, but is still rather more than adequate.

 

On your 400D a 250mm long end is equivalent to 400, while a 300mm long end is

equivalent to 480mm - both lengths that begin to approach super telephoto, and neither

of which are likely to be disappointing unless you're planning a safari, or bird shooting.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-55-250mm-f-4-5.6-IS-Lens-

Review.aspx

Here's a good write up on those lenses...

 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-300mm-f-4-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

 

 

Personally, I would get he 70-200mm f4 for about $70 more than the cost of the 70-300mmIS. Benefits are constant f4 aperture, much sharper IQ and IS is limited anyway. You can always get a teleconverter to reach to 280mm and still get sharper performance!

Given either the choice of the 55-250 and 75-300, i think this is a no brainer. The optical quality combined with the IS of the new 55-250 makes it a superior choice for any cropped sensor body. It is also lighter!

 

The 70-300 IS and the various 70-200 F4's are all good options as well but at significantly more expense. I think if you need a $300 zoom for a crop body, the 55-250 is a slam dunk.

or consider a Tamron 70-300. Very close in sharpness to 70-300 IS (for 1/4th the price) and Macro focusing to boot. No IS, of course.

Having had a chance to play with all the lenses listed above aside from the tamron (my exp. is that the 3rd parties just don't focus as fast as the canon glass) I'd say that the 55-250 is the no brainer. At half the price of the 70-300 it has equal IQ and is 30 percent lighter...

The 75-300 (both versions) should be discontinued as they are both awful and while the merits of IS in shorter lenses have been argued extensively I don't think anyone would argue that having the stabilizer on a 400 - 500 mm equivalent lens is not a smart move...

Okay, so its the 55-250mm! Thanks for all of your help guys! I can't wait to get my new gear :0D

Yes what Christian said. The 55-250 IS is excellent value for money and a far superior buy than any 75-300 zoom. I have one and it compares quite well with far more expensive lenses. The 70-300 IS is potentially a better choice mainly for its longer reach but it costs much more and is bigger and heavier.

 

250 mm is a fair bit of reach on a Canon 1.6 crop camera.