Help on Getting a Telephoto Lens for Canon 500D

[aneek]

Hello Shutterbugs,

I am a amateur photographer. I generally go here and there and take snaps. One year ago I bought a canon 500D. With that I got a kit lens (18-55). Now, after one year of getting used to it, I feel that I need to buy a tele lens for my camera. So here my confusion comes. Can you all help me please,

I have done some study on the following,

1. EF75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM
2. EF70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
3. EF70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM

In canon website, I have also done a comparison.
Please visit this link to see,
Product Comparison - Canon India - Personal
From this comparison EF70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM is definitely out of my budget. So then my search is filtered to 2 lens. In this case can you suggest me for which I should go for.
Also, as I go here and there, as an example I go for trek, my lens has do withstand a lot of dust and other things. Sometimes I do handle the lens roughly. So in that case should I buy a cheaper one? Once I am used to it I should go for a more priced one? But I can consider this one and can handle the tele lens carefully if the quality is concerned.

An extra bit of information,
Can you please tell me, what will be the price of EF75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM & EF70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM in Kolkata in Gray Market ?

Thanks in Advance. Waiting for your valuable thoughts.

 

[MLeeK]

The L glass is always going to be the best, sharpest glass out there. The IS is nice to have, but there was great photography long before there was IS/VR/OS... whatever. It's always worth saving a little money to get the L glass. They are also sealed better against the dust issue you are worried about as well as being a metal build whereas the cheaper EF-s lenses are plastic. L glass lenses are definitely more durable

You don't mention anywhere there the 70-200 f/4L and 70-200 f/4L IS which are a quite a bit less expensive. The difference between that 300 and 200 isn't so much that I'd compromise on a lesser quality lens.
The 70-200 f/4L runs about $650 US and the 70-200 f/4L IS about $1150 US.
The cheaper lenses aren't going to handle the rough handling as well as L lenses are either.
The 75-300 is not a very well loved lens in any way-which is why it's so incredibly cheap. It's a plastic build, not going to hold up and not going to give you the quality images. Most people who get it toss it in a drawer because it's kind of... well, you get what you pay for.
The Canon 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM is definitely better. It's still not L glass so the quality will be different. It's build is similar to the 75-300 although it is said to be a bit better. It does have zoom creep if you are holding the camera pointing down-Gravity will pull the zoom out to 300mm. If you can't get the L glass this one would be my choice. There is not much difference in price from the NON IS 70-200 and this one.

 

[Dao]

For consumer grade telephoto zoom lens, I will consider these instead.

Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
Canon 70-200mm f/4 L
Tamron 70-300mm f/4-5.6 VC SP

Optical performance wise, the 70-200mm Canon is better overall.
Tamron and Canon's 70-300mm lens is about the same. In some area, the Canon is better while in other area, the Tamron is better. But one thing about the Canon 70-300mm IS lens is the front lens element rotates when focus. In normal situation, it is fine, however, if you are using a CPL filter, it maybe annoying.

 

[belial]

If budget is so important go with the 55-250 is. It's a better performer than the 75-300 for not much more. It isn't a great lens, but it's a decent value for its money