what is the "standard" lens that it comes with? I'm leaning toward the 55-250mm but don't want you to get two lenses that are close to the same, you know!
better will still be 50mm f/1.8.. it's handy and not pricey... can make fake macros hihihihihi ^____^ but it all depends to where u use the lens often... if u need some power zoom lens that'd be 75-300mm but i think it's too expensive, i think.. just some thoughts...
I'd have to say the EF-S 55-250. The reason being, that gives you a seamless transition from the 18-55 to the 55-250 without skipping a beat in focal length. If you were to opt for the 75-300, since that is just an EF lens, that actually means it's a 120-480mm lens (due to the 1.6x crop factor)
So, by going with that lens you'd be completely missing the 55-120mm focal range, which IMO is pretty important if you're doing your typical shooting.
Unless you have a very specific need for telephoto beyond 300, I wouldn't bother with the 75-300. With the other lens you'll be covered from 15mm all the way to 250mm between two lenses, and that should do you just fine.
@marubozo hmmm that is a very good point, although the 60D has a very high resolution so i can always crop down to what i want to see later, cause i would prefer to be able to zoom very far, any idea about the IS on the 55-250, or just which lens would take better quailty images and has a better feel?
While the 60D does have high resolution, that doesn't mean pictures taken with a zoom lens will be any better. In fact, since you're zooming in and recording less of the lens' effective view due to the crop sensor, you're going to see even more adverse properties of a lens.
Neither lens is all that great in terms of absolute image quality, but given the choice you'll likely see far better results from the 55-250 since it does have IS and that is quite helpful if you are doing hand held shots and not using a tripod.. And again, that means you will be able to shoot anything from 18mm all the way to 250mm without a break. If you go for the other lens you're basically rendering 55-120mm completely useless since you don't have a lens that can cover that focal length yet.
I agree with Jeremy. I personally would prefer the 55-250 because of the IS, it's a great feature to have and you can always pick up a greater zoom at a later date. That's just what I would do, but I understand that you might want to zoom in more too. But I have a 75-300 and I rarely use it.
@imagesbysofia@marubozo yeah i was thinking the 55-250 because of the IS, but some people told me to go with the 70-300, so yeah i think ill go with the 55-250, thanks guys :)
I have used the 70-300 and don't think a lot of it, optically. The 70-300 DO lens is good, but the standard-issue, not so great. I've heard the 55-250 is reasonable. Not great, mind, but serviceable.
If I were you I'd consider looking for the 70-300 DO IS second-hand, or if you're feeling like splurging, a 70-200 f/4 L IS (second hand, you should be able to get either for a good price, perhaps under $1k for the DO lens, and maybe $1.2k for the L). The 70-200 is obviously less zoomy, but it is superbly sharp and the maximum aperture is constant. I'd get the L, but I rarely need 300mm (and when I do, I need at least 400mm).
You have plenty of pixels, and essentially the same engine and sensor as the 7D, so you can afford to crop, but only if your image is as sharp as a tack. And that means you need good glass on the front. If you put cheap glass on there, you'll just get terrible images if you crop in.
@jinximages the 2 lenses at the top are my only choices that come with a really cheapo package, i dont want to spend any real amount on lenses at this point in time, upgrading from my like 4 -6 year old olympus e-300 should satisfy me for now :)
@vikdaddy i agree with you, but i don't want to spend money, and that lense is $600 more than what im getting the standard lens and one zoom lens for :P
@stoksy Having said that I have used the 55-250mm for a week or so a while back and was pleasantly surprised. In reviews it is generally considered to be the best of the two, and a nice companion to the kit lens as there is no gap in your range.
@vikdaddy i think i will be getting the 55-250 just because its cheap, and it comes in the package, im upgrading from a cheap, 6 year old olympus with a standard lens so i dont think im gonna have a any complaints. i dont want to be paying alot of money at this point in time ( i dont have any :3 ) so these should keep me going for quite a while
@marubozo that doesn't make sense; the 18-55mm range on the kit lens is also affected by the crop factor. So, it's the equivalent of 28.8-88 and the 75-300mm is the equivalent of 120-480. By my simple math I'd work that out to be a missing range of 32mm, not a whopping 55-120mm as you describe.
Hmmm, when I got my 450D I had the 18-55 and the 75-300 and wasnt really impressed with either of them. I'm not sure if thats because I just didnt know how to use them or what, but i was very unimpressed. I've since bought a 24-105 L lens and love it. I use it 99% of the time and dont have a problem. But... its a little pricey
@stoksy Yes and no, in the sense that the lens itself is what it is but the 'crop factor' of the 60D's sensor increases the range. Basically any range for any lens you buy to use on the 60D, the rebel bodies or even my 7D is multiplied by 1.6.
So, the kit lens and the telephoto lens you're interested has the equivalent ranges of:
18-55mm: 28.8-88mm
55-250mm: 88-400mm
Another example; I use the 10-22mm and 15-85mm lenses on my 7D. They work out to be 16-35.2mm and 24-136mm respectively. Does that make sense?
@vikdaddy ohh yes, perfect sense, i didn't know that was how it worked, thanks for that info, should be very helpfull, ive been long at what camera to get and finding the best price for this camera for like 2 days and nowhere has told me that
EDIT: Never mind. I was told the EF-S mount moves the lens closer to the sensor and therefore gives you the true focal length stated on the lens, but that does not appear to be the case. Sorry for the misinformation!
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
So, by going with that lens you'd be completely missing the 55-120mm focal range, which IMO is pretty important if you're doing your typical shooting.
Unless you have a very specific need for telephoto beyond 300, I wouldn't bother with the 75-300. With the other lens you'll be covered from 15mm all the way to 250mm between two lenses, and that should do you just fine.
Neither lens is all that great in terms of absolute image quality, but given the choice you'll likely see far better results from the 55-250 since it does have IS and that is quite helpful if you are doing hand held shots and not using a tripod.. And again, that means you will be able to shoot anything from 18mm all the way to 250mm without a break. If you go for the other lens you're basically rendering 55-120mm completely useless since you don't have a lens that can cover that focal length yet.
If I were you I'd consider looking for the 70-300 DO IS second-hand, or if you're feeling like splurging, a 70-200 f/4 L IS (second hand, you should be able to get either for a good price, perhaps under $1k for the DO lens, and maybe $1.2k for the L). The 70-200 is obviously less zoomy, but it is superbly sharp and the maximum aperture is constant. I'd get the L, but I rarely need 300mm (and when I do, I need at least 400mm).
You have plenty of pixels, and essentially the same engine and sensor as the 7D, so you can afford to crop, but only if your image is as sharp as a tack. And that means you need good glass on the front. If you put cheap glass on there, you'll just get terrible images if you crop in.
Just so you're not misinformed Tom!
So, the kit lens and the telephoto lens you're interested has the equivalent ranges of:
18-55mm: 28.8-88mm
55-250mm: 88-400mm
Another example; I use the 10-22mm and 15-85mm lenses on my 7D. They work out to be 16-35.2mm and 24-136mm respectively. Does that make sense?