Canon EF-S 55-250mm IS or EF75-300 mm: IS or the the extra 50mm?

[AlaskaMoose]

So many people on this thread are saying "wait and save your money for L glass." Just curious -- is that what you all did? You didn't buy ANY lenses until you stepped into L glass? So, no one took any pictures until they had $1500 to start for the body and the lens? Are these the same folks who say only buy the XXD series, as well. So, the only way to get started with with a 50D, 70-200 f4 IS and 17-55IS. What will that set you back? $3500?

We aren't all made of money, and the Canon consumer lenses can be "good enough." Additionally, the OP is a newbie -- they don't even know what FL they will use. I guarantee if the OP posted a new thread that said "what L lens should I buy" the responses would be "what FL do you need" and the OP won't know, because they are saving all their money for L glass!

OP -- don't be afraid to buy cheaper lenses. You can always resell them later. I've bought a sold about 3 lenses so far, and haven't lost more than $50 on any of them, and have been even on at least one of them. In fact, the lenses I bought last fall, I could resell for AS MUCH OR MORE today, because lens prices have gone up. In fact, my lens portfolio has held it's value better than my retirement fund, lol (or is it cry out loud?)

Do your research, find the best of the consumer-grade lenses (of which the 55-250 IS is the best in that focal length range at that price point), work on understanding what you shoot, and then move up to better lenses later, once you realize how you like to work. How I use my DSLR turned out to be ENTIRELY different from how I used my point and shoots. You'll need to figure that out yourself.

One other comment on lenses -- us newbies also have to learn to take care of our equipment. I'd rather make a mistake on lens cleaning, or being out in bad weather on a cheap lens than on L glass.

I posted other folks' shots earlier. Here are some of my own with the 55-250. I've learned by using the 55-250 that I really, really like the long end of the lens. Three months ago, I was thinking about wide angle, fast primes in short FL, etc. After reviewing everything I've shot over the last 6 months, I've found my favorites are at the long end, portraits, and macro. This has changed my decision on what lenses to save up for.

Don't be afraid of starter lenses. Surprisingly, they are perfect for getting started!

That's exactly what I did, and spent money on cheap glass, just because I wanted more reach out to 300mm. I could have taken my time to save perhaps $600.00, and purchased a very nice lens such as the one I mentioned before (EF 70-200mm f/4).

I purchased a Sigma 70-300mm, a Canon 35-135mm f/4.5-6 USM, and the 17-55 kit lens. All this amounts to a lot more than $600.00. I gave the lenses to my wife, and she has never used them except for the kit lens.

Keep in mind that there are a lot of Canon "L" lenses, as well as some that have excellent glass, and none cost $1,000. For example (give and take $150.00):

EF S 10-22mm ($684.00)
EF 28-70 f/2.8L ($850.00)
EF 70-200mm f/4L ($600.00)
EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye ($600.00)
MP E 65mm ($900.00)
EF 20mm f/2.8 ($400.00)
EF 24mm f/2.8 ($300.00)
EF 28mm f/1.8 USM ($400.00)
EF 50mm f/1.4 ($300.00)
EF 50mm f2.5 Macro ($300.00)
EF S 60mm f/2.8 ($400.00)
EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro ($500.00)
EF 135mm f/2 L ($900.00)
EF 200mm f/2.8L USM ($700.00)

And there are a few more lenses that aren't L, but have excellent glass, all under $1,000.
---
That said, I do agree with you in that one can do well with the cheaper lenses.

 

[ChrisBrightwell]

So many people on this thread are saying "wait and save your money for L glass." Just curious -- is that what you all did? You didn't buy ANY lenses until you stepped into L glass?

I didn't, but I wish that I had. I'm glad that I started with the kit lens and the 50/1.8, because I learned a LOT from those lenses, but I wish I'd skipped the 17-85 and the 70-300/IS, instead jumping straight to the 24-70 and 70-200/2.8.

I would've kept the 50/1.8, except that I found myself shooting in near-darkness several times a year (family gatherings on the back porch, especially), making the extra 2/3 of a stop on the 50/1.4 worth the investment. After upgrading to the 50D (from a Rebel XT I bought in 2006), the expanded ISO options give me up to 3 more stops (from 1600 to 3200, 6400, and 12,800).

Sure, the ISO settings above 1600 give me a lot of noise, but they also get the shot. I'd rather have a relatively sharp photo, even with a little noise, than no photo at all. It also lets me back off of that f/1.4 if I have some light and gives me a bit more DOF.

 

[miloblithe]

The 55-250 f/4-5.6 IS is an excellent lens for the price according to every review site I've ever seen and my own and others experience. There is little reason to but the much more expensive 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS. It does not offer much better image quality. For that money, the 70-200 f/4 L is the superior lens.

If your budget allows you to buy lenses like the 70-200 f/4 IS or other $1000+ lenses, by all means, those are superior lenses. But it's ridiculous to suggest that the 55-250 is not a good lens for someone who cannot afford lenses in the $1000 range.

However, before investing in more lenses, I'd suggest reading several photography books (check them out of your local library for free) so that you have a full understanding of the uses of different apertures and focal lengths. That knowledge combined with some thought about your photography interests should determine what lenses you buy, not advice from random people on a mac forum who have different photography needs than you.