'Going Cheap on Lenses' Do They Really Make All the Difference?

[jvw2941]

I asked my friend which lens he preferred out of two Canon EF lenses and he replied "Don't go cheap on lenses, they make all the difference." I put this into consideration and I'm sure I don't want to have to buy another lens of the same category after another, but I also don't want to blow all my money on some expensive lens that could give me the same result as another. The two lenses are linked below and I would love to have some feedback from some of the more professional side of this forum. Or anyone who would like to give an honest opinion.

<a href="http://shop.usa.canon.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/product_10051_10051_169625_-1">EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS</a>


<a href=http://shop.usa.canon.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/product_10051_10051_180640_-1EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III</a>



Thanks so much!

-JVW

 

[Wolverinepwnes]

im not a canon user, but here's what i think:
when you start in photography you will be satisfied with cheaper lens, but as you get better, you will start noticing details that were not apparent to you at first! the saying "you get what you pay" applies to lens greatly! so if don't go cheap! lens is something that will stay with you while you will keep upgrading your camera! so as your friend put it, don't go cheap on lens, it makes worlds of difference in image quality!

 

[BuS_RiDeR]

From what I see here, these are two similar lenses. The EF 55-250 however does boast IS (Image Stabilization).

So, in my opinion, the decision here comes down to IS versus 50mm more telephoto...

BTW, I own the ES 75-300 4:5.6 III, (it is old and does not offer IS)and I am satisfied with it.

There are better lenses out there (L series is nice but big money...). But on a budget, the regular ES/ES-F lenses are good.

BuS_RiDeR
Canon 50D user

 

[Derrel]

Funny you should ask. About three years ago, I decided to test the theory that the lens is the single most critical element in good photographs. I took my old tripod and my better, newer, but still 20 year old tripod tripod and mounted my 20D on the older, cheaper tripod and the 5D on the better,newer tripod.

I mounted the Canon 24-105 EF lens on the 5D,and the Canon 18-55 kit lens on on the 20D and zoomed for a "roughly" equal point of view of a neat-looking ash tree in a neighbor's yard two houses distant. I set the experiment up at the crack of dawn one Saturday morning,and shot a beautiful sunrise with both cameras. I left them just siting there all day. It turned out to be a beautiful late October day. The tree was in beautiful fall colors, and about 80 feet away,both cameras at ISO 400, so I had excellent light and plenty of fine detail to compare. I went out and shot photos every hour or so until sunset.

And then, the sun went down, and all my photos looked dark and grainy and basically like c&@9,and it was then that I realized that it was actually LIGHT that was the most important thing in making good pictures. Without decent light, both cameras made ugly shots. Huh. Who'da thunk it?

 

[Mbnmac]

As someone whose going to be buying his first DSLR in the next few months this is a big question for me too.
I can really only afford the body/kit lens right now (if I want to have the thing before a big holiday with my parents visiting NZ) and I figure I'd be happy with the kit lens on the D90, then getting glass for the things I find I'm taking photos of the most, which right now is probably going to be kiting/sports stuff.
Is this really a bad approach to the whole lenses thing?

 

[citjet]

I have the D90 and recently purchased the Tokina 12-24 for it. While a fun lens, I didn't get the results I was looking for even with a CP filter on it vs the 18-55 kit lens from my D60. The pictures come out much sharper than the Tokina. So for now I wouldn't fret to much over using a kit lens when there are other lenses out there that cost thousands.
You'll be happy with the results with the kit lens and just always have a tri pod handy and a decent asortment of filters.