But I am getting ready to buy a longer lens for my Canon T1i (500D). My question is, is would you go for the EF-S 55-250mm f/4.0-5.6 IS or the EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III ? Or is there one you would prefer over one of those? I have the kit lens (EF-S 18-55mm IS)
Also, should I look into the EF 50mm f/1.8 II lens more closely? Is it something that is a must have? It seems to come up a lot.
I THINK the 55-250 is a faster lens than the 75-300 (as in, it takes less time to focus). The 'IS' also means 'image stabiliser', so there'll be less shake with the 55-250 than the 75-300. I have the 55-250 and I do love it :) I'm not much into long-distance shots though so it depends on what you're into and what you want to achieve.
Here's an example of something I took on my 55-250...
I think you need to ask yourself, first, for what it is that you want to use it. You're using a crop-frame camera so your effective focal length (due to image crop) is 1.6 times longer than the lens' stated focal length. A 300mm lens is like using a 480mm on a "normal" (35mm sensor) camera. That is really long! I used such a lens when I photographed the Moto GP at Philip Island a few years ago, and barely used the lens afterwards (so I sold it). The 55-250 is probably a more useful focal length for most circumstances, but if you want to shoot nature, the moon, or action sports (in a stadium or the like) then the extra 50mm could be a major benefit.
Quality-wise, between the two, I don't think you'd see a difference. At normal print size it is hard to tell the difference between a cheap lens and a pro lens (at the same settings, that is) when the shot has been taken under reasonably optimal conditions. And these two lenses you've mentioned are not worlds apart - the differences are already small.
The 50mm is an excellent lens, especially for the money, and especially for portraiture or a compact "walkaround" lens. I used nothing but a 50mm for three weeks when I visited Japan a few years ago, and was not left wanting for great shots. It was the slightly more expensive f/1.4 but again, I don't think the difference in quality is significant enough for most people to justify spending the extra (especially if they are not convinced they need a 50mm prime).
Out of the three, I'd go the 50mm. But I love primes, and have always found most zooms to be lacking in sharpness. But then, I'm not shooting at "optimal" apertures for sharpness, so I have to push zooms a lot harder than I do primes, and a lot harder than most people push any lens, for that matter.
if you'd like to shoot distant stars, well i mean, if you really need zoom lens.. an up to 300mm should be fine even 200mm should be fine... =)
but if you need something like for everyday use.... 50mm f 1.8 is a must have.... i have a 35mm f/ 1.8 and am loving this lens.... =) the DOF is pretty shallow though but all is good... but yeah for an everyday use, 50mm f 1.8 is a must have.. but if you like some kind of a paparazzi thingy... then a zoom lens would do.. =)
IS is handy... helps with camera shake which you will/may have with this lens in lower light... but ideally you will be shooting at that range with a mono-pod not 100% needed until the 200-300 range, but worth noting....
As to the 50mm... I never use it on digital... I don't like the crop... i don't like the 75mm(that is the equivalent 35mm length for portraits I prefer 85-135mm range)
as to a low light lens, indoors I find I have a though time getting everything in the shot, but that is me... it really depends on how you shoot.
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
Here's an example of something I took on my 55-250...
Quality-wise, between the two, I don't think you'd see a difference. At normal print size it is hard to tell the difference between a cheap lens and a pro lens (at the same settings, that is) when the shot has been taken under reasonably optimal conditions. And these two lenses you've mentioned are not worlds apart - the differences are already small.
The 50mm is an excellent lens, especially for the money, and especially for portraiture or a compact "walkaround" lens. I used nothing but a 50mm for three weeks when I visited Japan a few years ago, and was not left wanting for great shots. It was the slightly more expensive f/1.4 but again, I don't think the difference in quality is significant enough for most people to justify spending the extra (especially if they are not convinced they need a 50mm prime).
Out of the three, I'd go the 50mm. But I love primes, and have always found most zooms to be lacking in sharpness. But then, I'm not shooting at "optimal" apertures for sharpness, so I have to push zooms a lot harder than I do primes, and a lot harder than most people push any lens, for that matter.
but if you need something like for everyday use.... 50mm f 1.8 is a must have.... i have a 35mm f/ 1.8 and am loving this lens.... =) the DOF is pretty shallow though but all is good... but yeah for an everyday use, 50mm f 1.8 is a must have.. but if you like some kind of a paparazzi thingy... then a zoom lens would do.. =)
As to the 50mm... I never use it on digital... I don't like the crop... i don't like the 75mm(that is the equivalent 35mm length for portraits I prefer 85-135mm range)
as to a low light lens, indoors I find I have a though time getting everything in the shot, but that is me... it really depends on how you shoot.