Canon lenses

D

Duncan_P

Messages
353
Name
Duncan
Edit My Images
Yes
Looking at buying a new lens for my camera but I'm not really sure what to get. I have been looking at a 70 - 300mm lens but there's a massive choice and they go up in price rapidly. I've seen one new for around £110 but I would imagine it would be basic. Then the next on up is £160 ish with USM, and another is quite a bit more but has IS. I'm not going to spend a fortune for one but I was just wondering if it really makes that much difference. So confused, help would be appreciated!

Should have added that all I have is a 1000D with the standard 18-55mm
 
Last edited:
Are you sure the one at £110 wasn't the 75-300mm lens?

These lenses are quite good at up to 200mm but get quite soft after that.

The one to go for for reasonable quality and sharpness is the 70-300mm IS USM lens.

The IS denoted Image Stabilisation and frankly, in my opinion, is almost essential in any telephoto or zoom lens.

You would be surprised at how easy it is to introduce a small amount of shake into a zoom lens.

.
 
If on a tight budget try the 55-250 is. May do what you need on a budget!


Cheers

Rob
 
petersmart said:
Are you sure the one at £110 wasn't the 75-300mm lens?
.
Click to expand...
It could well have been that lens, but was only writing from memory.

petersmart said:
The one to go for for reasonable quality and sharpness is the 70-300mm IS USM lens.

The IS denoted Image Stabilisation and frankly, in my opinion, is almost essential in any telephoto or zoom lens.

You would be surprised at how easy it is to introduce a small amount of shake into a zoom lens.

.
Click to expand...

Thats just over £400, and is quite steep for how often I use my camera. Is it really worth that kind of money? Thank you for your response!
 
petersmart said:
The IS denoted Image Stabilisation and frankly, in my opinion, is almost essential in any telephoto or zoom lens.
Click to expand...

Um, I've got plenty of telephotos and zooms and have never needed IS :) If you know how to shoot to conditions (alter ISO, aperture etc.) then you'll be fine without it. And if you're shooting on a tripod (highly recommended for wildlife etc.) then it should be switched off anyway ;)

Just my 2p ;)
 
Last edited:
daugirdas said:
Avoid 75-300mm at all costs. Unofficially it is the worst lens presently made.
Click to expand...

In actual fact I have pictures which prove this just isn't so.

As I said up to 200mm it's quite good, it's only after that that the sharpness starts to fall off.

If you look on it as a 75-200mm lens then it's very reasonable.

.
 
I'd love to see full frame pictures from the 75-300.
 
Im also looking to buy a 70-300mm IS USM lens.

Cant afford one at the moment but would rather wait till i can than buy something cheaper now.
 
I have a Canon 70-300mm IS USM and optically it's good but if you are looking for something a little easier on the wallet Tamron do a 55-200mm that costs under £100 new and it's had great reviews, no IS though.

I find IS very useful and I think that all lenses would benefit from it in at least some shooting situations so if the budget allows I'd definitely recommend going for a lens with IS.
 
Canon 55-250 IS. Super little lens, brilliant value :thumbs:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top