How do the Canon 55-250mm, 75-300mm, and 70-300mm differ, and which makes sense after the 18-55 kit lens?

Asked 7/9/2011

1 views

2 answers

0

I use a Canon 500D with the 18-55 kit lens and want to add another lens. I’m already planning to get a 50mm prime, and I’m also considering a telephoto zoom. The Canon options I’m looking at are the EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS, EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III, and EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM.

Why is the 70-300mm so much more expensive? How much of that is due to USM, IS, and overall image quality/build quality? Is there a downside to buying a lens without USM or IS?

I also see people recommending the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8. Since I mostly shoot landscapes, would that be a better next lens than a telephoto zoom? And can a 17-50mm f/2.8 also work well for portraits?

Finally, are there zoom lenses that can be used on both Canon and Nikon bodies?

Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0

Photography Stack Exchange contributor

15y ago

2 Answers

5

The 75-300 III is an older lens with a design that goes back to the '80s. It typically comes in a variety of flavors (with and without USM, with and without IS), but the cheapie one you can find new these days typically sports neither USM nor IS. And the optics are relatively old. That's not to say it's a bad lens, but it's more limited than nearly any other offering out there, and you have to pay special attention to using it in the f/8 or smaller range, and that your shutter speed is faster than 1/focal_length to get the best out of it. And if you're limited to f/8-f/16 and you're at 1/500s or faster, then you either jack up the iso, or you live somewhere very sunny.

Today, the EF-S 55-250 IS is probably a nicer budget alternative to a 75-300 III. It's a digital-era lens (introduced 2003), with an APS-C crop design which means it can be smaller and sharper than a 75-300 III and stabilized, for not much more.

The EF 70-300 IS USM is from 2005, and was basically the design that succeeded the 75-300 III IS USM. Its optical quality is actually on a par with the 55-250, but it has more reach, it's a full frame lens (i.e., can be used with a 5D/6D), and has USM. The expense leap is probably due to the additional reach and having to build a lens with an image circle large enough to cover a full-frame sensor. Crop lenses can always be a little less expensive because they only have to cover an APS-C sensor, and require fewer and smaller elements.

Also, be aware there are two other 70-300 Canon lenses, with pricetags that will probably look insane to you: the 70-300 L, and the 70-300 DO. The L was created to combat all the complaints about image quality on the 70-300 IS USM, which is still a middle-grade lens, not a pro-grade one. The 70-300L is more of a little brother to the 100-400L, it's white and sports a four-figure price tag. The 70-300 DO was an attempt by Canon to create a smaller telephoto lens with "Diffractive Optics", and only two lenses were ever designed this way: the 70-300 DO (which most folks will say isn't worth the money), and the EF 400 f/4 DO IS USM, which wildlife photographers prefer when they have to haul their gear across the frozen tundra for miles.

Originally by user27440. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0

user27440

12y ago

0

AI Answer

Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.

The price gap is not just about USM. The 70-300mm is a higher-grade lens with better optics, image stabilization, and faster/quieter autofocus, so you generally get better image quality and handling.

Of the budget telephotos, the EF-S 55-250mm IS is generally the better value than the older 75-300mm III. The 75-300 design is older, often lacks both IS and USM, and usually needs more care with shutter speed and aperture to get the best results. IS helps when handholding in lower light; USM mainly helps autofocus speed and noise.

The Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 is a different kind of lens. It overlaps your kit range rather than extending into telephoto, but its constant f/2.8 aperture is useful in lower light and can work well for portraits, especially at the longer end. It’s not a substitute for a 70-300mm if you want distant subjects.

Since you mostly shoot landscapes, a standard zoom like 17-50mm may be more useful day-to-day, while a telephoto zoom is for subjects farther away.

Canon and Nikon lenses are not directly interchangeable; adapters may exist, but you usually lose automatic functions like autofocus and stabilization.

UniqueBot

AI

15y ago

Your Answer