Printable View
Hi
I have a Canon 500d. I like to take wildlife, flowers, seascape, animals.
I can get a new 55-250mm IS on Amazon for £146 or a second-hand 75-300mm IS for £200. Or Sigma 50-200 F/4-5.6 DC OS HSM
Which of these two has the best image quality, or is there another lens that would be better. It has to have IS and no more than £200.
I would rather have a lens that I didn't have to keep changing, but they seem to be so expensive.
Thank you for your help, much appeciated.
;)
The 55-250 is a far better lens than the 75-300, its only problem is it has no metal fitting but its image quality is really good punches well above its weight
hi spirit
i use a 500D i brought it as a deal with 2 lens the 18 - 55mm and the Tamron 70 - 300mm f4.0 f5.6 with no IS. Now this lens brand new costs just over £100. Since 09 ive shot sports with it wildlife took photos of lots of people and the last big thing i did with the lens was shoot a whole morning of one of my friends doing a Tandem Parachute Jump. As the saying goes you only get what you pay for but out of all the lens i own up till last week my Tamron spent more time on my cam then any of my other lens. Its light weight not very fast when trying to focus on things that are moving fast so i all ways used to use manual focus so if your looking for a cheap every day lens with some reach for £100 its not to bad. Like people say on the forum about buying good lens they are right ive just got my self a sigma 70 - 200mm F2.8 lens still with no IS and i can see right away the difference in the quality of my images ive taken so far with this new lens but like most people it takes time to build up lens and buy better ones
if you want to see the quality of this lens the Tamron heres a link to the photos i shot on this day of the Parachute Jump they only add a bit of work in post-processing using Adobe lightroom before i added them to my Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/blitz-p...th/5419309585/ after that with a bit more work in post-processing i made a 100 page photo book for my friend and using the same photos and a £100 lens this was the out come http://www.flickr.com/photos/blitz-p...7626934681524/ the first 10 photos were not taken with the lens in this set the other 90 photos were
hope this helps you out & can show you that you can get good images with cheaper lens just have to work that little bit harder :D
all the best any way
Russ :)
Hi Spirit
Go for the 55-250mm IS Canon Lens, the quality of the images is really good at all levels of zoom range a great lens for blurring the backgrounds in portarits , I have one on my 500D all the time .Go for it.
John
Hi there, the lenses you mention do not provide for any decent wide angle views, a lens which is nearly always on my camera is a 18-200mm, which gives a useful wide angle coverage and also a decent zoom of 200mm, and also has image stabilisation. This was my only lens for 2 years and I still enjoy using it, but then I was able to add to my lens collection for different purposes like macro and sports etc. I would always advise on having a lens which covers wide angle and a good zoom as well. All the best. Mike.Quote:
Originally Posted by spirit
I owned the 55-250 Canon lens at bargain price & it never disappointed me. Even though the build isn't that tempting but the price/performance ratio is far better... :cool:
I've got the 55-250 IS love it but I've tried the 75-300 IS USM which was very good.
I have the EF-S 55-250mm IS 11, got it brand new of amazon for £139 the seller advised in the add its an import also got 2 year warrenty as he is a dealer, Its identical to my mates lens of the same and Highly reccomended.
The 75-300 IS really isn't that good, and I wouldn't recommend it at al - the 55-250 is a much better lensl. The 70-300 IS is a very decent lens, though.