canon EF 75-300mm 1:4-5.6 III USM vs EF-S 55-250mm F4.0-5.6 IS STM

[techrtr]

Hey everyone, first post here.

I got all gung ho about buying a new camera but then I started thinking that maybe I should just upgrade some of my lenses. I'm using an EOS Rebel XT circa '95 and a couple of kit lenses including the EF 75-300mm 1:4-5.6 III USM.

Pretty much everyone says that it's a pretty bad lens. Would the EF-S 55-250mm F 4.0-5.6 IS STM be a good replacement or should I be looking at a much better, and much more expensive lens to make the swap more worthwhile? I don't want to replace one mediocre lens with an equally mediocre one.

Thanks in advance for any advice.

 

[jaomul]

What camera are you using?

 

[techrtr]

Rebel XT

 

[jaomul]

I think the 55-250 lens is better.

Have you a budget, cameras have come on a bit since the rebel xt, it's still capable, but better can be had for not huge money

 

[Cortian]

Wow, the reviews of that lens are pretty bad. Not one of Canon's better efforts, looks like.

So I'd suggest that lens has got to go, either way. As for where to go: If you're looking for a good, general purpose/walking about lens I'd suggest you might want to look at the Canon Zoom Lens EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS NANO USM. (Ken Rockwell's review. All the reviews of this lens I've read have read pretty much the same.)

I imagine you'll hear things like "that 1995 body is pretty old," and I guess it is. In fact (no Canon expert, am I), it may be that to use any of the newer lenses you'll have to upgrade the body. Dunno.

As for that 55-250mm: Again, no expert, here, but I suspect 55mm is a bit long for general purpose use, except on a full frame body?

 

[techrtr]

I think the 55-250 lens is better.

Have you a budget, cameras have come on a bit since the rebel xt, it's still capable, but better can be had for not huge money

I hear you - that was the original plan - buy a decent body and use my existing lenses. But then I started to wonder if that was kind of pointless - using cheap kit lenses with a new camera. I started to think maybe I should start out with decent lenses and then get a new body in a year or two. I'm very pragmatic and tend to use things until they fall apart and can't be used anymore. I've also always thought that lenses are the most important part of any camera outfit.

Who knows, maybe I'll just end up buying the body and then worry about lenses if I'm not happy with the results I'm getting with my existing lenses. Like anything, cameras and lenses are pretty subjective.

 

[photoflyer]

I believe I have both of these and the 55-250 has image stabilization. If that is the lens you are referring to and you have decided not to upgrade the body then I would suggest getting the 55-250. It is very good value and IS is very compelling.

I have two camera bags: pro and consumer. The pro bag has a full frame body and L series glass. The consumer bag has a T5, the 50-300, 55-250 and the 18-55. I use the consumer bag when the risk of damage or loss is great. The 70-300 almost always stays home.

However, if your body is really circa '95 (8 megapixels?) spending a little more for a T7i or 80D might get you better results even with the 70-300.

I will be interested to hear what others think.

 

[jaomul]

I might be inclined to upgrade both. It's good you use things for a long time. Would a canon 200d and the lens be in budget, you could probably get a little from selling the 75-300

 

[ac12]

I would sit down, think and write down what you want the camera and lens for.
What this will do is help you to define the requirements of the gear.
Examples

• A 18-55 is a nice compact lens, but is way too short to shoot football from the bleachers. But that lens may be perfect for typical family party pictures.
  
• Surfing shots at 200-300 yards out needs a LONG LONG lens.
• Shooting night football/soccer requires a fast lens and or a camera with high ISO capability. Things get tricky for night games.
  
• Shooting flying birds may require a long lens on a gimbal head on a tripod.

The devil is in the details.

Failing that, a nice GP setup is a T7i (or similar), with an 18-135 lens.
This is what the school yearbook students use, and it has worked out well, for them.

BTW, for any long lens 200mm or longer, I HIGHLY recommend that you get it with IS (Image Stabilization). Today, it makes no sense to get a long lens without IS. The only reason they sell lenses without IS, is to be able to make a LOW COST package, or advertise something at LOW COST.

 

[SuzukiGS750EZ]

I've owned both and only use the 55-250 still. If that tells you anything. That lens is tons better and you don't lose much in the focal range. But from canon refurbished.

 

[daveo228i]

My first Canon autofocus was the new, at the time, EOS 3. I had been using F-1 and T-90s. Available lenses were slim pickings. I settled on three, 28-105, 3.5-4.5 ultrasonic, a 100 f 2 ultrasonic and a 100-300 5.6 L. As long as there is decent light, the 5.6 L does a beautiful job. This was back in the late 1980’s remember. I still have the camera and lenses.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro