What Lens?

[THiNK]

I have a Canon EOS 350D and am looking for a new Lens. I only have the 18-55mm Lens.

I need a lens that has a much bigger zoom and something that can deal with quick action shots.

Is this what i need??

75mm - 300mm

http://www.parkcameras.com/ProductDetails/mcs/productID/115/groupID/14/categoryID/68/v/f82c70df-d57c-49ec-aa1c-5f33f9229d94

Thanks,

Danny

[sickpuppy]

I bought the equivalent Sigma lens. It's not bad and was quite a bit cheaper.

[Mr Anderson]

I have a Canon EOS 350D and am looking for a new Lens. I only have the 18-55mm Lens.
I need a lens that has a much bigger zoom and something that can deal with quick action shots.
Is this what i need??
75mm - 300mm
http://www.parkcameras.com/ProductDetails/mcs/productID/115/groupID/14/categoryID/68/v/f82c70df-d57c-49ec-aa1c-5f33f9229d94

I have that one and for the money I'm very happy with it, but you can get it cheaper than what they're selling it for. I paid £175 for mine from Warehouse Express, but quite a few places have dropped their prices well below that since then: http://camerapricebuster.co.uk/prod64.html

[slaughteredlamb]

What's your budget? When it comes to telephoto lenses there are all sorts of things you need to bare in mind such as:

1. Image Stabilisation. The longer the focal length the faster the shutter speed you need in order to avoid camera shake. IS allows you to shoot on average 2 stops slower than a lens without IS which can be a very important feature

2. Max aperture. Again because you may need to shoot with fast shutter speeds the max aperture of your lens will determine the max shutter speed you can get in the available light.

3. Weight. Powerful zoom lenses can be very heavy which either makes IS vital or means you'll always need a tripod

With a budget in mind it will be easier to find the best lens you can get for that money.

[THiNK]

What's your budget? When it comes to telephoto lenses there are all sorts of things you need to bare in mind such as:

1. Image Stabilisation. The longer the focal length the faster the shutter speed you need in order to avoid camera shake. IS allows you to shoot on average 2 stops slower than a lens without IS which can be a very important feature

2. Max aperture. Again because you may need to shoot with fast shutter speeds the max aperture of your lens will determine the max shutter speed you can get in the available light.

3. Weight. Powerful zoom lenses can be very heavy which either makes IS vital or means you'll always need a tripod

With a budget in mind it will be easier to find the best lens you can get for that money.

Thanks for the tips - budget is about £200 - £250.

Danny

[slaughteredlamb]

Hmm, with that budget you don't have a lot of choice.

The Canon EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 USM mk III is widely considered to NOT be a good lens, sometimes people get lucky and get a fairly decent version of it but most times they don't. The main criticisms of this lens are build quality, soft wide open (f/4), softer again as it zooms towards 300mm and suffers from softening in the corners. The only way to regain some sharpness is by stopping down the lens but stopping down a lens that is already slow is either going to mean whacking up your ISO and getting lots of noise or using flash. If that's not bad enough the lens also suffers from chromatic abberations (purple fringing to edges in high contrast scenes like tree branches against sky) and it pincushions a bit at 300mm.

It's no surprise then that I would suggest NOT buying this lens.

Ideally I would suggest upping your budget but I understand that this is not always possible, therefore if you can't spend more I would take a look at the Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO Macro DG which you can get for £155 in the UK - brief review can be found here http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Sigma-70-300mm-F4-56-APO-DG-Macro

If you can afford to up the budget than I would look at the Canon EF 70-300mm  f4-5.6 IS USM for £359 in the UK

HTH

[THiNK]

Hmm, with that budget you don't have a lot of choice.

The Canon EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 USM mk III is widely considered to NOT be a good lens, sometimes people get lucky and get a fairly decent version of it but most times they don't. The main criticisms of this lens are build quality, soft wide open (f/4), softer again as it zooms towards 300mm and suffers from softening in the corners. The only way to regain some sharpness is by stopping down the lens but stopping down a lens that is already slow is either going to mean whacking up your ISO and getting lots of noise or using flash. If that's not bad enough the lens also suffers from chromatic abberations (purple fringing to edges in high contrast scenes like tree branches against sky) and it pincushions a bit at 300mm.

It's no surprise then that I would suggest NOT buying this lens.

Ideally I would suggest upping your budget but I understand that this is not always possible, therefore if you can't spend more I would take a look at the Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO Macro DG which you can get for £155 in the UK - brief review can be found here http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Sigma-70-300mm-F4-56-APO-DG-Macro

If you can afford to up the budget than I would look at the Canon EF 70-300mm  f4-5.6 IS USM for £359 in the UK

HTH

Thanks - really helpful.....

Danny

[Mr Anderson]

I must be really lucky as mine doesn't seem to suffer from any of those problems, certainly not anywhere near the extent that gets reported in some places. The only real issue I have is that the auto-focus hunts a bit (sometimes quite a bit) when trying to track moving objects with a neutral background, such as birds in flight. For under £150 it's worth it. If you can afford to get the 70-300 f4-5.6 IS USM then without a doubt go for that one as from what I've seen it's miles better, but if not you can still get good results with the 75-300.

[THiNK]

What about this one : http://www.cameras2u.com/Store/s70096/0/Lenses/Canon/EF-S-55-250mm-F4-56-IS-Zoom-Lens/details.aspx

its 55 - 250mm - does this 50mm difference make that much difference?

Danny

[slaughteredlamb]

What about this one : http://www.cameras2u.com/Store/s70096/0/Lenses/Canon/EF-S-55-250mm-F4-56-IS-Zoom-Lens/details.aspx

its 55 - 250mm - does this 50mm difference make that much difference?

Danny

This was the lens that, IIRC, Canon announced in August/September last year but I know of people that wanted to buy it in November and were told that Canon had delayed the launch or had trouble supplying stock to the shops. How true any of this is I can't say but what is true is that there don't seem to be much in the way of reviews of this lens available in print or on the web.

Looking at the spec I would say that £187 for a lens offering IS is very good value for money. The fact that it 'only' goes to 250mm instead of 300mm isn't that big a deal. Most of the time you will be able to make up this difference simply by taking a couple of steps forward but there will of course be times when this physically isn't possible so you MAY wish you had the extra reach for those occassions. The thing to remember though when it comes to long focal lengths is the visual difference between say 300mm and 400mm isn't as much as that between 100mm and 200mm. In other words the longer the focal length the bigger difference in focal length you need to achieve before you see a dramatic change in magnification. What this basically means is that the difference between 250mm and 300mm isn't huge, you can make this up my moving closer and when this is not possible you can crop your images to give the effect of magnification even though this will mean throwing away a few hundred pixels.

The other thing to remember is that the more powerful the zoom the more lenses are needed within the lens and the more lenses in the lens the poorer the image quality will be. the 55-250 is basically a 4.5x zoom lens, the 75-300 is a 4x zoom lens. Based on this the 75-300 should be optically superior. However the 55-250 has 12 lens elements in 10 groups whilst the 75-300 has 13 elements in 9 groups. Therefore, on paper, the 55-250 should be optically superior but it does all depend on how good those lenses are.

Personally I would expect teh 55-250 to be better than the 75-300 for the following reasons:

1. The lens coating used on the 55-250 should help to reduce the amount of chromatic abberations
2. Due to the power of the zoom and the number of elements in the lens, the types of lenses used within the lens shouldn't be too curved which should mean that the lens would be sharper than the 75-300 and not suffer as much with edge softening.
3. IS. Image Stabilisation can't be employed to work correctly with poor glass, well it can but then you get real problems trying to achieve Auto Focus. The fact that this lens does have IS SUGGESTS that the optics inside it aren't too shabby but this is no guarantee it's merely an indication. This also doesnt take into account that, if used incorrectly, IS can actually make your shots look soft anyway so only use when you need to and use it correctly - don't use IS when using a tripod unless you have one of the L lenses that actually have a tripod mode for IS.

Does that make any sense?

[THiNK]

I think you are basically saying go for this with my budget and don't step off the edge of a cliff.

Danny

[Curry]

I think you are basically saying go for this with my budget and don't step off the edge of a cliff.

Danny

Be greedy Danny and do both.

To be fair your post has helped me as I was considering a similar lens.

[slaughteredlamb]

If the money is burning a hole in your pocket then buy the 55-250 now. However if you can afford to wait a little bit then it might be worth waiting until a few of the big sites and mags have done a review of it first.

I wouldnt think that the lens would be a complete Turkey but at the same time you do get what you pay for when it comes to lenses, therefore there is no way a £180 lens is going to be as good as say a £350 lens but if all you can afford or justify is £180 then, as long as your expectations aren't too high, I would expect that you would be happy with this lens.

That said, with that same attitude you might still be happy with the 75-300 so why not go for that instead?

1. You would have a gap in your coverage of focal lengths between 56 and 74mm. These ae focal lengths that can be particulary useful for everyday photography. Personally I'd prefer to have a gap in my focal lengths at the long end of the range as I wouldnt use these focal lengths everyday whereas I probably would use somewhere around 60mm quite frequently.

2. IS. IS isn't essential but it is nice. You can always work around not having IS by chaning aperture, shutter speed, ISO, using a mono/tripod but considering the price of the 55-250 it's like Canon have just thrown it in as an added bonus.

If you had a different lens to the 18-55 I might suggest the 75-300 over the 55-250 but as it stands I think it's the better partner to it. Personally though I probably would wait to read a few reviews even if it were to just confirm my suspicions


EDIT: Found a couple of basic reviews:

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Canon%20EOS%20Lens%20Tests/45-canon-eos-aps-c/194-canon-ef-s-55-250mm-f4-56-is-test-report--review
http://www.dslrdad.com/?p=13

Basically it sounds as though it's generally considered to be a small set-up from the 18-55, the ideal match for the 18-55 and aimed at those that can't afford or justify the Canon EF 70-300mm  f4-5.6 IS USM

[samhs]

What about with a choice between the 70-300 F4-5.6 IS @ £300 and the 70 - 200 F4 L (NON-IS) @ £350. Which do you reckon is the better value for money? I'm leaning towards the L as it's already 1 stop faster at the full range, although the range is smaller... Thoughts?

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/NEW-Canon-EF-70-300mm-f-4-5-6-IS-USM-70-300-LENS-IN-UK_W0QQitemZ190189374041QQihZ009QQcategoryZ30070QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=190188252210&ssPageName=MERC_VI_RSCC_Pr12_PcY_BIN_Stores_IT&refitem=190189374041&itemcount=12&refwidgetloc=active_view_item&usedrule1=StoreCatToStoreCat&refwidgettype=cross_promot_widget

[slaughteredlamb]

I'd personally go for the L

The 70-200 being one stop faster means that you've also reduced the 'need' for IS by one stop too. Optically the 70-200 is way better than the 70-300. I own the 70-200 f/2.8 (non IS) and can say for certain that this lens is stupidly sharp, fast and has far better colour saturation than any other lens I've owned or used. From what I understand the f/4 version matches the f/2.8 in everything but the max aperture.

If you can afford to 'upgrade' to the f/2.8 (non IS version) than I don't think you would regret it. Yes it is heavier but that extra stop of light really comes into it's own in low light. Also don't forget that at f/2.8 you can use a 2X Teleconverter which still will change the lens into a 140-400mm f/5.6 lens. This means that the lens will still autofocus whereas with the f/4 version you would loose Auto Focus unless you used the 1.4x teleconverter.

[samhs]

I'd love the 2.8, but given I'm also planning a 24-105L into the deal, I might be divorced if I'm not careful so I have to be somewhat pragmatic about what I really *need*

[slaughteredlamb]

I'd love the 2.8, but given I'm also planning a 24-105L into the deal, I might be divorced if I'm not careful so I have to be somewhat pragmatic about what I really *need*

Are you sure you want the 24-105L? This really does seem to be a love it or loathe it lens. Personally, as I hope to be able to one day, I'd get the 24-70 f/2.8 L and match it with the gorgeous 70-200 f/2.8 L

[samhs]

my thinking was that if I only go out with one lens, it'd be 24-105, if 2, 24-105 & 50, if 3 24-105, 50, 70-200. But I take your point....

[Orchid]

Nothing like dragging up old postings ... but, I'm new and that's what newbie's do

Anyway, those of you with money burning a hole in your pocket, remember that bigger & expensive kit does have a drawback in some ways ... weight!!!

Those fast lenses can weigh a ton!   Amongst other kit, I've got a sigma-ex 70-200f2.8    I love it, but I do wonder sometimes whether it doesn't get as much use out of it, as it should do, because it's just heavy to log around.

Same goes for expensive bodies ...