Discussion
Having just had to return my Brother in Law's 75-300mm Cannon IS Zoom lens, I'm in the market for my own.
Looking at prices, there is a big difference (£200) between the Canon 55-250mm IS lens and the 70-300mm IS lens. So, am I likely to miss the extra 50mm zoom?
I have read a few threads on whether IS is needed or not and obviously this is something else that affects price greatly.
Are Tamron or Sigma lenses of comparable quality to Canon, as I presume they would be cheaper?
The only other lens I have is the 18-55mm kit lens.
Thanks.
Looking at prices, there is a big difference (£200) between the Canon 55-250mm IS lens and the 70-300mm IS lens. So, am I likely to miss the extra 50mm zoom?
I have read a few threads on whether IS is needed or not and obviously this is something else that affects price greatly.
Are Tamron or Sigma lenses of comparable quality to Canon, as I presume they would be cheaper?
The only other lens I have is the 18-55mm kit lens.
Thanks.
The 300 will be handy on those occasions when you want the extra zoom. You'll only miss it when you need it.
Def go IS if you can.
I don't know the spec off hand, but what are the F ratings like? Depending on what you tend to shoot this might make a difference.
IMO Tamron are generally not as good. Some of the Sigma lenses are very good, although I've never quite like liked the handling of them as much.
Best bet in terms of quality, is pop into your local camera shop with your camera and memory card and take 2 pics (one at each end of the zoom) of the same subject with the same settings. Take the pics home and see if you can tell a difference. Sometimes the results can be quite surprising.
Def go IS if you can.
I don't know the spec off hand, but what are the F ratings like? Depending on what you tend to shoot this might make a difference.
IMO Tamron are generally not as good. Some of the Sigma lenses are very good, although I've never quite like liked the handling of them as much.
Best bet in terms of quality, is pop into your local camera shop with your camera and memory card and take 2 pics (one at each end of the zoom) of the same subject with the same settings. Take the pics home and see if you can tell a difference. Sometimes the results can be quite surprising.
I'd suggest the difference between 250 and 300 mm is minimal. Go to a camera shop and try a 70-300 and zoom between 250 and 300mm. Very little difference.
As for the Sigma Vs. Canon argument - The Sigma APO lens (MUST be the APO) is very good, with excellent macro. possibly better optically than the canon. However is let down by lack of USM focusing, which swings it back to the canon.
If you can afford it I'd say canon, but the sigmas a very good, cheap alternative. Once you're up in the 70-300IS range, it's also worth considering s/h 70-200mm F2.8 glass, which is a major step on.
As for the Sigma Vs. Canon argument - The Sigma APO lens (MUST be the APO) is very good, with excellent macro. possibly better optically than the canon. However is let down by lack of USM focusing, which swings it back to the canon.
If you can afford it I'd say canon, but the sigmas a very good, cheap alternative. Once you're up in the 70-300IS range, it's also worth considering s/h 70-200mm F2.8 glass, which is a major step on.
VxDuncan said:
I'd suggest the difference between 250 and 300 mm is minimal. Go to a camera shop and try a 70-300 and zoom between 250 and 300mm. Very little difference.
As for the Sigma Vs. Canon argument - The Sigma APO lens (MUST be the APO) is very good, with excellent macro. possibly better optically than the canon. However is let down by lack of USM focusing, which swings it back to the canon.
If you can afford it I'd say canon, but the sigmas a very good, cheap alternative. Once you're up in the 70-300IS range, it's also worth considering s/h 70-200mm F2.8 glass, which is a major step on.
Agree with all that, although lack of USM is no biggy IMO, just a good bit of marketing hype by Canon.As for the Sigma Vs. Canon argument - The Sigma APO lens (MUST be the APO) is very good, with excellent macro. possibly better optically than the canon. However is let down by lack of USM focusing, which swings it back to the canon.
If you can afford it I'd say canon, but the sigmas a very good, cheap alternative. Once you're up in the 70-300IS range, it's also worth considering s/h 70-200mm F2.8 glass, which is a major step on.
F numbers are the same on both 4-5.6.
Looking at the Sigma lenses it seems they don't have IS, so Canon it is.
As for what it will be used for; not entirely sure!! Found myself using the BIL's for everything from scenery / landscapes, to moving helicopters, to wildlife, to the moon Might find myself at some trackdays or mountain bike events to take pictures as well.
My flickr page with some of them is HERE
Looking at the Sigma lenses it seems they don't have IS, so Canon it is.
As for what it will be used for; not entirely sure!! Found myself using the BIL's for everything from scenery / landscapes, to moving helicopters, to wildlife, to the moon
Might find myself at some trackdays or mountain bike events to take pictures as well.My flickr page with some of them is HERE
BTW the canon 70-300IS USM is the poverty USM which is little better than not having it, and not the full time/ring USM of the L lens's
The image quality of the 70-300IS is pretty good, measures up (almost) to the L stuff, its build and focus speed and (max)aperture is ofcourse way off.
The 55-250IS looks a decent lens too , its trick is its an EF-S lens so needs less glass (so saves money).
The image quality of the 70-300IS is pretty good, measures up (almost) to the L stuff, its build and focus speed and (max)aperture is ofcourse way off.
The 55-250IS looks a decent lens too , its trick is its an EF-S lens so needs less glass (so saves money).
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff