What lens to get?

[TheEugeneKam]

Well I know its another lens question. Ill try to make it as short as possible. with my choices.

I have a t1i body. I am looking for lens to shoot landscape, celectial, car shows, and some drifting action shots. A few portraits here and there and descent low light preformance. A few sport shots here and there but fairly rare. I generally like to avoid tripod, although i have one. I am not very good when it comes to lens selection so i needa little advice. I found two lenses that I like and willing to buy at the price.
The first one is canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS Lens.
Seems like a good lens for the price. And the article says that on the EOS body it equals to about 88-400mm on a 35 mm camera sensor, which looks very attractive.
Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS Autofocus Lens 2044B002 B&H Photo

The second choise i have is Canon Zoom Telephoto EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III USM Autofocus Lens

I like the price but it does not have IS, which is a minus. BUT IT HAS USM, which first one lacks. But looking at the article wouldn't the first lense be pretty much 88-400 vs the second 75-300?
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/169269-USA/Canon_6472A002_75_300mm_f_4_0_5_6_III_USM.html

Anyways i would like some advice on this. Thanks a lot :hug::

 

[burgo]

IMHO you need a wider lens for landscape than those two mentioned. If I was you get your self a 24-105mm & a 100-400mm That covers all those requirements you specified.

 

[TheEugeneKam]

Landscape personally is kind of at the bottom of the list. I life in a big city so there is not that much of that going on here. So i can do it without having capability of shooting outstanding landscapes. What are the drawbacks of 100-400mm in shots that im doing?

 

[ballr4lyf]

What kind of budget?

 

[TheEugeneKam]

200-300 max really. I know to get the best sport shots and so on i would need a L class lense with like 1.8F. But I am broke so it is what it is.
Also from the looks of it, woukd the first lens technically provide me with better zoom, seeing as it is advertised to work like 88-400 vs the second lens 70-300 ?

 

[Dao]

From what I read, the EF-S 55-250mm IS lens is optically better than the 75-300mm lens.

If I need to pick between the two, I will pick the EF-S lens because of the IS and the better optics.

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

I would take the 55-250 because it has IS and is better optically. However, if you can stretch the budget slightly, grab a used 70-300 f/4-5.6 USM IS lens. I always see them used for around $400. I think thats the best long zoom you could get for under $500. Maybe if you were super lucky you could grab a 70-200L F/4 non-IS lens for around $500, but I would rather have the extra reach of the 70-300 and the IS.

 

[enzodm]

But looking at the article wouldn't the first lense be pretty much 88-400 vs the second 75-300?

the body is the same, that is, a crop body with 1.6x factor. So 55-250 compares with 75-300, while 88-400 compares with 120-480 (on your camera). Optically, the first one is recognised as better (plus stabilization).

 

[Village Idiot]

Well I know its another lens question. Ill try to make it as short as possible. with my choices.

I have a t1i body. I am looking for lens to shoot landscape, celectial, car shows, and some drifting action shots. A few portraits here and there and descent low light preformance. A few sport shots here and there but fairly rare. I generally like to avoid tripod, although i have one. I am not very good when it comes to lens selection so i needa little advice. I found two lenses that I like and willing to buy at the price.
The first one is canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS Lens.
Seems like a good lens for the price. And the article says that on the EOS body it equals to about 88-400mm on a 35 mm camera sensor, which looks very attractive.
Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS Autofocus Lens 2044B002 B&H Photo

The second choise i have is Canon Zoom Telephoto EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III USM Autofocus Lens

I like the price but it does not have IS, which is a minus. BUT IT HAS USM, which first one lacks. But looking at the article wouldn't the first lense be pretty much 88-400 vs the second 75-300?
Canon 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III USM Autofocus Lens 6472A002 B&H

Anyways i would like some advice on this. Thanks a lot :hug::

You have to understand sensor size and field of view. Pretty much all of Canon's cameras except the 5D series and most 1D series cameras (iirc, I believe the first 1D was a 1.5 or something like that) use an APS-C 1.6x crop sensor this means that the sensor is 1.6 time smaller than a full frame equivalent sensor. This will give any lens you use on it a field of view that is 1.6 times greater than the marked focal length on the lens.

This is where is may get tricky. The focal length of the lens does not change. The focal length of the lens is based on the lens itself, just the field of view changes. The lens will appear to have the focal length of a lens that's 1.6 times longer on both ends, but the focal length of the lens does not change. Got that?

so the 75-300 and the 55-250 would both appear to act as lenses that were 1.6 times longer.

120-480 and 88-400 would be the apparent focal length of these lenses. This really will mean little to you until you have used a camera with a different crop factor. Olympus's 4/3 system has a 2.0 crop factor, Nikon's APS-C is a 1.5, Canon uses an APS-H that's 1.3 in their 1D and a 35 mm equivalent FF sensor in their 1D S and 5D along. If you had a lens that fit on everyone of those cameras, it would appear to get wider and wider as you moved to a larger and larger sensor.

 

[MWG]

honestly, i would save up until you could get a more quality lense. I know its an upgrade from your kit but you will max its limitations out so quickly that you will find yourself wanting something else VERY SOON. just my .02.

 

[TheEugeneKam]

so from feed back i understand that the first oneis better. So far my decision is on the first one. My budget is tight as it is so that would be my max. Thanks for the explanation village idiot. It all makes sense to me now. so unless i get some huge suggestion for the 300mm, I'm gonna pick up the smaller one. :-]

 

[wcc963]

i've heard good things about the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM and its the next lens on my list other than maybe a 50mm 1.8 II, but my ultimate goal is the 70-200 2.8 IS II. but due to being a broke college student that wont be happening til maybe december or early next year. so the 70-300 will hold me over til then.

IMO id go with the 70-300 over the 55-250 but thats jus tme, i shoot airshows and wildlife so the ectra reach of the 300 is nice. only down side is its about 2x your original budget (new). search cragslist i've found some amazing deals on some L lenses that i would have scooped up in a heartbeat if i had the cash at the time

 

[Studio7Four]

You have to understand sensor size and field of view. Pretty much all of Canon's cameras except the 5D series and most 1D series cameras (iirc, I believe the first 1D was a 1.5 or something like that) use an APS-C 1.6x crop sensor this means that the sensor is 1.6 time smaller than a full frame equivalent sensor. This will give any lens you use on it a field of view that is 1.6 times greater than the marked focal length on the lens.

This is where is may get tricky. The focal length of the lens does not change. The focal length of the lens is based on the lens itself, just the field of view changes. The lens will appear to have the focal length of a lens that's 1.6 times longer on both ends, but the focal length of the lens does not change. Got that?

so the 75-300 and the 55-250 would both appear to act as lenses that were 1.6 times longer.

120-480 and 88-400 would be the apparent focal length of these lenses. This really will mean little to you until you have used a camera with a different crop factor. Olympus's 4/3 system has a 2.0 crop factor, Nikon's APS-C is a 1.5, Canon uses an APS-H that's 1.3 in their 1D and a 35 mm equivalent FF sensor in their 1D S and 5D along. If you had a lens that fit on everyone of those cameras, it would appear to get wider and wider as you moved to a larger and larger sensor.

Sorry for the hijack (though it's somewhat relevant here)...VI, does this explanation apply to Canon's EF-S lenses? They are expressly designed for the crop sensor and do not overfill the sensor like the EF (or other full-frame) lenses do. I would assume, perhaps ignorantly and incorrectly, that the EF-S 55-250 on a crop-sensor body would have the same effect when at 75mm as would the EF 75-300 on a FF body when at 75mm (i.e., it's a true 75mm, not 120mm). Since the OP is deciding between an EF-S and an EF lens, we want to be sure we're talking apples-to-apples when using the crop factor math.

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

You have to understand sensor size and field of view. Pretty much all of Canon's cameras except the 5D series and most 1D series cameras (iirc, I believe the first 1D was a 1.5 or something like that) use an APS-C 1.6x crop sensor this means that the sensor is 1.6 time smaller than a full frame equivalent sensor. This will give any lens you use on it a field of view that is 1.6 times greater than the marked focal length on the lens.

This is where is may get tricky. The focal length of the lens does not change. The focal length of the lens is based on the lens itself, just the field of view changes. The lens will appear to have the focal length of a lens that's 1.6 times longer on both ends, but the focal length of the lens does not change. Got that?

so the 75-300 and the 55-250 would both appear to act as lenses that were 1.6 times longer.

120-480 and 88-400 would be the apparent focal length of these lenses. This really will mean little to you until you have used a camera with a different crop factor. Olympus's 4/3 system has a 2.0 crop factor, Nikon's APS-C is a 1.5, Canon uses an APS-H that's 1.3 in their 1D and a 35 mm equivalent FF sensor in their 1D S and 5D along. If you had a lens that fit on everyone of those cameras, it would appear to get wider and wider as you moved to a larger and larger sensor.

Sorry for the hijack (though it's somewhat relevant here)...VI, does this explanation apply to Canon's EF-S lenses? They are expressly designed for the crop sensor and do not overfill the sensor like the EF (or other full-frame) lenses do. I would assume, perhaps ignorantly and incorrectly, that the EF-S 55-250 on a crop-sensor body would have the same effect when at 75mm as would the EF 75-300 on a FF body when at 75mm (i.e., it's a true 75mm, not 120mm). Since the OP is deciding between an EF-S and an EF lens, we want to be sure we're talking apples-to-apples when using the crop factor math.

Yes, it still applies equally to both lenses. I think just for the sake of consistency, canon decided to stick with the typical system even for the EF-S series of lenses, which goes based on how the lens would "appear" on a 35mm. Depending which end of the spectrum you like to shoot on, this could be a good thing. Some people wish they could go wider, so full-frame is much more conducive to that ( aside from obvious resolution benefits ), but if you shoot wildlife, or some sports, you may be more apt to go with a cropped sensor camera even if it means a slight give in resolution because you would just end up cropping and throwing away, or dumping more money in even longer lenses. As VI mentions the 4/3rds system is a 2.0 crop factor. I was just reading about a guy who shoots wild tigers in India professionally and uses strictly a 4/3rds system ( I think it was Olympus ). because he finds the crop factor to be very beneficial to him so that he doesn't have to carry quite as large of lenses to get closer.

 

[enzodm]

Sorry for the hijack (though it's somewhat relevant here)...VI, does this explanation apply to Canon's EF-S lenses? They are expressly designed for the crop sensor and do not overfill the sensor like the EF (or other full-frame) lenses do. I would assume, perhaps ignorantly and incorrectly, that the EF-S 55-250 on a crop-sensor body would have the same effect when at 75mm as would the EF 75-300 on a FF body when at 75mm (i.e., it's a true 75mm, not 120mm). Since the OP is deciding between an EF-S and an EF lens, we want to be sure we're talking apples-to-apples when using the crop factor math.

focal length remains the same. Field size is not the only consequence of focal length: DoF and perspective are also depending on it. So, is better to know it directly, instead of equivalences purely related to one aspect.