Looking into a new lens

plaid_avenger

TPF Noob!
Joined
Jan 14, 2013
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Location
VA
Can others edit my Photos
Photos NOT OK to edit
Hi!

I currently own a Canon T3i and I only have the kit lens. I want to take more long range shots so I came across these two lens.

Canon EF 75-300mm

or

Canon EF-S 55-250mm

I am wondering which will be best for long range candid shots of people at events and I am also going to try to take some long range shots at sporting events. Lastly, I want to know how important is IS for those types of shots

thanks!
 
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
While the focal length capabilities of both lenses can be used for long range candid shots of people at events and sporting events, the real issue is light. In 20 words or less, neither lens will provide enough light onto the sensor to freeze motion when shooting indoors without an external flash. These are both considered as 'slow' lenses, meaning the shutter has to be open for longer periods of time to capture sufficient light to result in an acceptable exposure.

It all revolves around the exposure triangle. Aperture, shutter speed, and ISO speed can be combined in many ways to provide the proper exposure. The issue is which of the 3 must be at necessary settings to capture what is desired. Taking pictures of people, especially indoors, the biggest issue is shutter speed. A general rule of thumb is shutter speed must be at least 1/focal length to 'stop' subject movement. I typically try for 1/125th and faster to stop motion...of both the subject and my hands. Athletes in motion require an even faster shutter speed to 'stop them'. With that shutter speed requirement, either the aperture must be increased (lower f-stop number) and/or the ISO speed must be increased to result in the correct exposure. With a 50mm f1.8 lens, increasing the aperture to f1.8, for example, will likely produce an acceptable exposure, but at the cost of a thin depth of field (area in focus), which may or may not be desired. Increasing the ISO speed past some point will result in too much noise (multi-color dots, especially in darker areas).

One solution is to have an external flash to make up for the slower lens (smallest aperture available). Some venues allow this, some don't. For example, although some churches allow the use of flash at wedding, during the vows, it would be way too distracting to everyone, especially the B & G. And forget the built-in popup flash...it'll light up the first 10 feet or so, and that's it. Using a flash at sporting events may also be distracting to the players, as well.

Bottom line, if you want to get decent indoor shots of individuals, your best bet is a 'fast' lens. Typically f2.8 or faster (lower f-stop numbers). That will allow a fast-enough shutter speed to stop subject movement. In some situations, a decent flash such as a 430EX II would be a good choice, also.

As for image stabilization, it's there to stop minor photographer hand movement while clicking the shutter. 40 years ago, I had steady hands. Not any more. While Canon and other lens makers claim that IS will allow hand held photography a couple of f-stops smaller (or slightly slower shutter speeds for inanimate objects), IS only stops camera movement, not subject movement. If the subject is alive and breathing, it's probably moving...just enough to blur a too slow shutter speed picture.
 
Last edited:
The 75-300 is probably the worst lens Canon currently makes. It offers nothing to recommend it for someone who is even somewhat serious about photography. I would avoid it. The 55-250, while a better lens, still falls in the category of "consumer" glass. What the reality is, is this; to get the shots you're envisioning, you need (note I said "need") to spend $$$. Fast primes and zooms aren't cheap, but they are the tool you need for the type of photography you wish to do.

As far as IS, this is easily one the most misunderstood concepts in lens function. Bratkinson pretty much nailed it, but to further explain, if you need 1/250 for your SS to stop motion, and the fastest you can get is 1/60, even with IS, your shutter will still be open for 1/60. This will give you a pic that is tack sharp, except for your subject.
 
The more money you can put down the better. But not everyone can put up $2000 for a 70-200 f/2.8 IS.
I used to own the 70-300 f/4-5.6 and it was a pretty damn nice lens. Gave it to my brother and he is loving it. Its the in between the kit 55-250 and the 70-200. Think retail is about $700 or so
 
For consumer grade quality and price, I will pick the 55-250mm lens instead of the 75-300mm. That is based on what I read from various review sites.
 
Try to save money and buy a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L IS instead, I personally wouldn't buy any of these, they suck!
I haven't used any of above mentioned lens, so I can't say what to buy!

 
Sarmad said:
Try to save money and buy a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L IS instead, I personally wouldn't buy any of these, they suck!
I haven't used any of above mentioned lens, so I can't say what to buy!

Sarmad said:
Try to save money and buy a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L IS instead, I personally wouldn't buy any of these, they suck!
I haven't used any of above mentioned lens, so I can't say what to buy!


Whoa! Suck is quite the strong word, if you so not mind me saying! I have personally used a 75-300 for a good number of years, and it is a fantastic lens for anything in good light! Sharpness is on par from what you would expect for the $$$, and as for the 55-250 for an amateur just getting into the swing of things for outdoor sports and such is a great alternative as well! Although neither will hold up when compared to a 70-200L, that should be expected. :) Not to mention, a good friend of mine has had his 75-300mm For 22 odd years and still works like a champ!

Anyway, I agree with the "Save and buy the 70-200 2.8L IS"; Although if you do not mind purchasing used/second hand you could find an IS I (Yes, the first version with IS) for a substantially cheaper price, still with great optics. If that is still too much, and don't require IS (Which for sports makes 0 difference, I have shot professionally with glass with IS/VR and it always is off. I have found no need for it other than for panning with sports like cycling or NASCAR - though with the NASCAR reference I have never shot one of those races so my knowledge on that subject should be taken with a grain of salt if ever given.) the 70-200mm F2.8L Non-IS is a great option! Can be had used for about half the price of the IS II lens new. Just my $.02!

I am in fact new to this forum, but I figured what better way to get acquainted with members by joining in on the fun?!

Cheers!
- Austin
 
AKirkland said:
Whoa! Suck is quite the strong word, if you so not mind me saying! I have personally used a 75-300 for a good number of years, and it is a fantastic lens for anything in good light! Sharpness is on par from what you would expect for the $$$, and as for the 55-250 for an amateur just getting into the swing of things for outdoor sports and such is a great alternative as well! Although neither will hold up when compared to a 70-200L, that should be expected. :) Not to mention, a good friend of mine has had his 75-300mm For 22 odd years and still works like a champ!

If its absolutely(!) all you can afford, than I agree that it's a deal. And if you shoot in JPEG with sharpening the 75-300mm is fine.

But when I first got my first DSLR (1D Mark II), which doesn't have a very advancement in-camera editing system even for JPEGs, I was sorely disappointed in the lens. I almost sent it to Canon because it was so soft that certain scenes almost looked out of focus. Then I found out that this is a basic characteristic of this lens unless you stop down the aperture.

I would recommend buying the 70-300mm version if anything. It's more expensive but it's worth it, I think.

I have a sore relationship with that bargain Telephoto. I really wish that Canon would just stop selling such a shoddy lens.
 
rexbobcat said:
If its absolutely(!) all you can afford, than I agree that it's a deal. And if you shoot in JPEG with sharpening the 75-300mm is fine.

But when I first got my first DSLR (1D Mark II), which doesn't have a very advancement in-camera editing system even for JPEGs, I was sorely disappointed in the lens. I almost sent it to Canon because it was so soft that certain scenes almost looked out of focus. Then I found out that this is a basic characteristic of this lens unless you stop down the aperture.

I would recommend buying the 70-300mm version if anything. It's more expensive but it's worth it, I think.

I have a sore relationship with that bargain Telephoto. I really wish that Canon would just stop selling such a shoddy lens.

Spot on assessment! I agree completely, now that I think think about it, I believe the lens may have been the 70-300 IS lens that still works like a champ after so long, not the 75-300. None the less; I agree.
 
I have the 75-300 4.0 5.6 and in daylight it's fine for general photography. I also have a 70-200 f4 l so guess which I use most. If you look and get lucky you might find a clean 70 200 f4 l and pick up a 1.4 television and you won't be sorry. Prices are in the 400 450 range for used ones once in a while. Or you can get a new one for 600 or a tad bit less.
 
Not sure if anybody has mentioned it, but the Tamron 28-300 I think, is a good lens for the money!
 
Two really nice affordable options are Canon 300 f4is and Canon200 f2.8 primes. Both lenses are extremely sharp, fast and great bargains! High quality stuff.

If your stuck on a zoom. Canon 55-250 is STM. make sure it's the STM.
 
thread-necromancy-thread-necromancy-demotivational-poster-1271554886_zpsoswlovu3.jpg
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top