Comparing entry level Canon Zooms

Jonesgj

Jonesgj

Messages
112
Name
Graydon
Edit My Images
No
Hi all,

What is your experience or your thoughts when comparing these:

Canon EF S 55-250 IS
Canon EF 75-300 IS USM
Canon EF S 70-300 DO IS USM

Thanks in advance.
 
You missed our the 70-300mm IS USM.
In order of quality they are, lowest first:-

75-300mm IS USM
55-250mm IS
70-300mm IS USM
70-300mm DO IS USM
 
Thanks Gordon,

So if I read this correctly: the DO is probably the best option to go for. I wondered whether, because of its size, there was any compromise in quality despite its price.
 
Just another thought,

Are there any 3rd party (Sigma/Tamron etc) comparable models to consider in the sub 450 price bracket?

Thanks in advance for your help.
 
I think the optical quality of the 70-300mm and the 70-300mm DO are similar. I think the extra money just gets you a smaller size. They are both a little soft at 300mm, but the Canon DPP software soon sorts that out. The 70-300mm IS has got a very good reputation and although I have other lenses that cover this length I will never sell it.

As far as I know none of the third party lenses can match the 70-300mm IS for optical quality.
 
By the time that you pay for a 70-300mm DO IS USM you can get a 70-200 f/4 IS L lens which is far better and leave you with £100 change....

For a reasonable review of the DO lens, see The Digital Picture
 
As said earlier from what I've read on here apart from the price there is little difference between the 70-300 IS USM and IS USM DO. I used to love my IS USM and it is a cracking lens.

If your limiting the search to the lenses in the origninal list would recommend looking at the non DO (unless size is a factor) and as also suggested may well be worth dropping Kerso a line. I've just ordered a lens of him for 14% cheaper than the cheapest equivalent on Camera Price Buster.
 
I'd have said 70-200 F4 IS + 1.4x converter will be much better than the DO lens unless having a smaller lens is critical.

Phil
 
I thought this thread was about comparing entry level Canon zooms! :shrug:
 
Strangways said:
I thought this thread was about comparing entry level Canon zooms! :shrug:
Click to expand...


Well 70-200 F4 is entry level compared to the 70-200 F2.8 IS L MKII!!
 
Also the 70-200 F4L is frankly a bit of a bargain, especially compared to the mad money on the DO. IMO that is.
 
topcatproduction said:
I wouldn't have called the 70-300 entry level either?? Maybe the 75-300 and 55-250... Even the 70-300 is about 3 times as much as people will spend on a decent compact!
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm just a snob but I'd never consider any 70-300 professional whereas a lot of 70-200s are. Why do you think ALL of Canon's 70-200s are Ls, and none of their 70-300s are?
 
trencheel303 said:
Maybe I'm just a snob but I'd never consider any 70-300 professional whereas a lot of 70-200s are. Why do you think ALL of Canon's 70-200s are Ls, and none of their 70-300s are?
Click to expand...

I didn't say professional- but if I were just getting into photography I wouldn't be thinking that a £400 lens was "entry level". The 75-300 that cost me about £80 on the other hand, I would.

The 70-200 was designed to be an L, the 70-300 wasn't, I don't think Canon just knock out lenses then decide after whether or not to put a red ring on it and call it an L :p

Also- like for like an f4 70-200 with IS costs over double the 70-300 with IS. Cant deny there is a difference between the 2 in terms of IQ, but dont forget one is a lot more expensive too and not entry level!
 
Strangways said:
You missed our the 70-300mm IS USM.
In order of quality they are, lowest first:-

75-300mm IS USM
55-250mm IS
70-300mm IS USM
70-300mm DO IS USM
Click to expand...

You also missed off all the nasty 75-300 USM's too. Purple fringed nightmares the lot of them!

Assuming physical *length* is not the issue (note not WEIGHT!), forget the DO's. A bit of a cul de sac of Canon development there...

The 55-250 IS is excellent value for money if you don't need fast focus (its not USM driven) or if you want to shoot fast things, the 70-300 IS is really excellent value and delivers superb results.

I always say you'd have to spend a lot more to get only marginally better results than the 70-300 IS will deliver and staggering amounts more to get truly noticeably better IQ.
 
Doesn't the EF 70-300 have micromotor USM (as opposed to ring USM) too? That would definitely strike it off the list for me. Not having any of this phony-USM nonsense :nono:;)
 
The 70-200 F4L is cracking, just get it. With a 2x tc it won't auto-focus though (as it will be F8).
 
pearce_jj said:
The 70-200 F4L is cracking, just get it. With a 2x tc it won't auto-focus though (as it will be F8).
Click to expand...

Ignore the 2x TC. It'll turn your cracking lens into a crap one. the 1.4 works, the 2x doesn't.
 
I have the 70-200 f4is just get it you will love it dont know about the 2xtc as Ive never used them
Bob
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top