Which of these 2 zoom lenses please

P

P-Chan

Messages
429
Name
Ramon
Edit My Images
Yes
My budget can afford either of these 2 lenses for zoom.

They are very similar in price but my lack of knowledge tells me that the slightly more expensive one is better then the other.

Is it the case or they are practically the same thing and shouldnt bother?

Should I really pay the slight more for a visible better camera?


The cheaper one

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-75-30...6?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1258742920&sr=8-6


The more expensive one

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-75-30...8?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1258742920&sr=8-8

its also going 1 sterling up a day so better of I had to choose I choose now before it goes outta my budget.




Smaller zoom by more expensive. Whats the catch? Is it worth it more then the 2 on top?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-55-25...2?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1258742920&sr=8-2



My camera is a 500D Canon. Im mostly for scenery, birds, remote control cars (very fast they are) and not slightly interested in sports.

Which should I get of the 3? They look so alike to me
 
The secret to comparing lenses is learning what all the letters and numbers at the end mean. Unfortunately it's not as easy as picking the length you want and going with it.


The first two lenses are very similar, both with a maximum aperture at the wide end of f4 moving to f5.6 as you zoom it. The difference is the addition of an Ultra-Sonic Motor (USM) for the focussing motor - USM lenses are quicker and quieter to focus.

The last lens has the same maximum aperture range as the others but it's an EF-S mount so only suitable for crop-bodies (the xxD and xxD range). The big difference is the addition of Image Stabilisation (IS) which should help avoid the effects of camera shake and potentially allow you to shoot around 2-stops slower than you would otherwise be able to, making the lens more comparable to 'faster' models although you still don't get the very shallow depth of field these also give.

For the price, I'd go for the last one. You're only going to lose 50mm of lens length but you gain IS which will help you shoot at slower shutter speeds or lower light. Remember that for wildlife photography especially, IS doesn't help if your subject moves, only if the camera does!
 
Of those 3 lenses, I'd choose

3rd one (55-250 IS) over the 2nd one (75-300 USM) and then the other 75-300 non usm if budget is tight.

Personally, if you need the 300mm I'd save up some more and look at the 70-300 IS lens :thumbs:
 
ouch the 70-300 IS is over 400 sterling way outta my budget and id have to wait months to get it. I like it while it still hot.

Plus whats the advantage having the IS if it wont help me with wildlife if I understood well enough

But the 55 250 IS is still good for my 500D right?
 
P-Chan said:
ouch the 70-300 IS is over 400 sterling way outta my budget and id have to wait months to get it. I like it while it still hot.

Plus whats the advantage having the IS if it wont help me with wildlife if I understood well enough
Click to expand...

It provides stabilisation so you can shoot handheld at shutter speeds down to about 1/30 or 1/15.

For a lot of general photography it's a fantastic addition and can negate the need for a tripod in some situations.

If your subject is going to move too much in that fraction of a second then it's maybe not for you.
A lens with a wider maximum aperture can give you the extra light to allow faster shutter speeds but these are very expensive.


With that in mind maybe the middle of the two would suit you - the USM focussing will be useful with a fast moving subject so I'd forget the first option.

What you might want to think about is increasing your ISO to allow you to get faster shutter speeds from the lens - if you find this produces noise then the money you've saved on the lens could be put towards NoiseNinja or something similar (or you can download the free Community Edition to have a play with it). An increase from 100 to 200 ISO will give you an extra stop (halve the shutter speed you need), going to 400 gives another and 800 another...
 
If you want 300mm then you could consider the Sigma 70-300 f/4-5.6 APO (make sure it is the APO version) Though you would be losing IS.
 
P-Chan said:
ouch the 70-300 IS is over 400 sterling way outta my budget and id have to wait months to get it. I like it while it still hot.

Plus whats the advantage having the IS if it wont help me with wildlife if I understood well enough

But the 55 250 IS is still good for my 500D right?
Click to expand...

Yes, unfortunately, not cheap, but you should be able to pick a good 2nd hand one up cheaper if you are happy buying 2nd hand.

And :agree: with incapete re IS etc
 
2nd hand on such delicate things scare me :(

Thats why Id go new but have to go cheap new thus 1 of the 3.

If the last one IS is too slow for birds (they have the bad habit of moving alot) Ill give it the skips. After all the zoom lens I want it for that primary reason.

The USM is a fast auto focus and is needed for birds. Gues ill go for the 70 300 USM unless some one can piont me in the right direction for a 250 USM which takes clearer pics at the same price :)


But lest face it Im a noob and the kit lens that came with my camera, the smae one many of u claim its the weakest cheapest and not much good, pretty much blasted me off my shoes with the pics it took :love:
 
Birds are rarely close enough, so I'd agree with the 70-300 - you'll find you'll often be at 300mm and wishing for more!
 
P-Chan said:
But lest face it Im a noob and the kit lens that came with my camera, the smae one many of u claim its the weakest cheapest and not much good, pretty much blasted me off my shoes with the pics it took :love:
Click to expand...

Heh, not so, the opinion of canon's newer 18-55 IS is a lot higher than the older non-IS that came with the 400D or older. The IS version is very good, it just lacks wide apertures and fast auto-focusing.
 
My 2p on 75-300 v 70-300 - read reviews such as slrgear.com.
The 70-300 is a much higher quality lens than it's price suggests and it is worth saving up for. Your images will have more zing as there will be more detail and contrast across the whole image. The 70-300 is good enough that it wont need replacing until you feel the need for uber-expensive f2.8 telephoto lenses whereas as soon as you start looking critically at A3 prints from image taken with the 75-300 you will be wishing for a better lens. Always buy the best glass you can afford.

Another 2p - I think IS is very useful (perhaps essential) on any long lens where you are not routinely working with a tripod and cable release. Using the 1/focal length rule for hand-holding and taking the crop-factor into account you get 1 / (300 * 1.6) = 1/500s; You will be struggling to get shutter speeds that high in the UK without ruining the image with high ISO.
 
A final 2p - most of the images in my LRPS panel were taken with the original Canon kit lens on a 20D - it was plenty good enough for the job. Here's one from my panel - the kit was more than adequate. The big challenge is the learning process itself, not the kit!

The kit you should buy to get is really about whether you are exploring photography or feel that you are in photography for the long term. If it's the former then get the lens you can afford ASAP while you feel inspired; if it's the latter then save up and get kit that will reward you in spades as your technique improves.

Looking back at my A3 LRPS prints I can immediately spot the technical problems caused by the kit lens. In the image linked in above the whole bottom edge of the image is soft; that's the lens, not DoF problems - my image gets away with it, just....
I had a non-IS 75-300 and while it introduced me to telephoto it never delivered anything good enough to still be proud of.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top