Recommend me a good Canon telephoto lens...

[mrrman]

I currently have a 75-300 telephoto lens and do not find it that good. What is a better lens up to $300. I find that the distance is not quite there to see. I was told to look at the 55-250mm lens. Thoughts Thanks

 

[KeithTalent]

Try this: http://forums.anandtech.com/forumdisplay.php?f=36

KT

 

[mrrman]

Try this: http://forums.anandtech.com/forumdisplay.php?f=36

KT

Thanks...

Can this post be moved there?

 

[KeithTalent]

Thanks...

Can this post be moved there?

Yes. ^_^

KT

 

[mrrman]

Should this not go under digital and video cameras? Please move if so. Thanks

 

[TridenT]

I currently have a 75-300 telephoto lens and do not find it that good. What is a better lens up to $300. I find that the distance is not quite there to see. I was told to look at the 55-250mm lens. Thoughts Thanks

What? Are you wanting MORE zoom? If so, you're going to have to shell out a lot more money. I don't think people really go past 300mm all that often.

But, if you need the zoom: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/find/n...l-L-Lenses.jsp

 

[AkumaX]

what camera are you using?

the reason why your 75-300 is lackluster is because it is missing IS
the 55-250 is good because it has IS. however, it is an EF-S lens, so it will only work on crop frame cameras
you can upgrade to the 70-300, that one has IS. could be found for around $300 (wish you found me before I returned mine )
I also have a 55-250 if you're interested..

 

[JohnnyRebel]

I currently have a 75-300 telephoto lens and do not find it that good. What is a better lens up to $300. I find that the distance is not quite there to see. I was told to look at the 55-250mm lens. Thoughts Thanks

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM. The Image Stabilization will help a lot with shots on the long end. Plus, it's a better lens. Save a $100 and get the refurb from Adorama. Pay an extra $7.95 for VIP and add a year warranty to this lens plus anything else you buy for the next year.


http://www.adorama.com/CA70300ISNR.html - $439.

 

[Gintaras]

"Today's images were taken by palemale.com's backup photographer."

"Her name, believe it or not, is Bird."

http://www.palemale.com/march192010.html

 

[Gintaras]

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM. The Image Stabilization will help a lot with shots on the long end. Plus, it's a better lens. Save a $100 and get the refurb from Adorama. Pay an extra $7.95 for VIP and add a year warranty to this lens plus anything else you buy for the next year.


http://www.adorama.com/CA70300ISNR.html - $439.

Canon 70-300 gives you 480mm reach, while Olympus 70-300mm give you 600mm reach because of crop factor 1.6 Canon vs 2.0 of Olympus.
Olympus lenses doesn't have IS because Olympus camera body has IS....

Np matter what brand will you buy, it takes a time to get better use of long range of telephoto lense - handheld or with tripod.

So far, I've almost never used tripod for all pictures I've taken with 70-300

 

[mrrman]

thanks...Ill look for the 75-300mm IS lens...have a few going on Ebay right now...I have the XTi Rebel

 

[AkumaX]

thanks...Ill look for the 75-300mm IS lens...have a few going on Ebay right now...I have the XTi Rebel

make sure its the 70-300 IS

 

[mrrman]

make sure its the 70-300 IS

right....it was a typo....thanks

 

[gevorg]

Alternatively, there is a Tamron 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di VC USD SP for $350 AR.

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1339/cat/23

 

[Paladin3]

I still don't get what the OP dislikes about his zoom lens? Not long enough? Fast enough? AF speed? Image quality?

"...distance is not there to see." <---What does that mean? You want to be able to zoom in more on your subject from a distance?

Without understanding exactly what the OP finds lacking in his current lens (maybe it's just me) it's hard to recommend anything.

 

[SAWYER]

I have owned both the 55-250 and the 70-300 and imo the 70-300 is not worth nearly double the price. You can regularly get the 55-250 for 120-150

 

[twistedlogic]

Without understanding exactly what the OP finds lacking in his current lens (maybe it's just me) it's hard to recommend anything.

+1

Just adding IS to a lens will not get him further reach or help in low light where the subject is moving.

 

[RagingBITCH]

I have owned both the 55-250 and the 70-300 and imo the 70-300 is not worth nearly double the price. You can regularly get the 55-250 for 120-150

The 55-250 is horrible though. Canon can't give those away with DSLR purchases fast enough.

 

[SAWYER]

Horrible? Really?

 

[fralexandr]

the 55-250mm IS is widely reported as superior to the 75-300 kit lens :S, I suppose if you're comparing to canon L glass, you could say the 55-250 is horrible, but then you're paying out ~600-$1k+...
The 55-250mm IS is pretty light compared to the other mentioned lenses, making it easier to carry around (390g).

Another option in the ops price range is the 70-300mm VC from tamron. It's currently available for $350 AMIR ($100) so it should be available for less than the canon IS, if you're interested. There are cheaper 70-300mms that are great if you want macro, but otherwise are probably subpar to the 55-250 IS.
http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-70-300m.../dp/B003YH9DZE

pictures taken with the 70-300 VC
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3228881#forum-post-41910308

-----
that said, it could just be motion blur that the OP is refering to, which would be reduced by proper shooting technique and sufficiently fast shutter speed.
The 75-300mm should be capable of decent shots. And as a general rule of thumb on non image stabilized shots, keep the shutter speed at or above 1/(focal length*1.6). 1.6 multiplier is for canon APSC crop factor. So if shooting the 75-300mm, 1/480 or 1/500 should be your slowest @ 300mm.

A helpful guide to "shooting" with a DLSR , the main thing is to find something comfortable and stable, various stable forms are discussed that can improve your usable shots when you need to shoot with a slower shutter.
http://www.pentaxforums.com/reviews/long-exposure-handhelds/introduction.html

 

[mrrman]

I still don't get what the OP dislikes about his zoom lens? Not long enough? Fast enough? AF speed? Image quality?

"...distance is not there to see." <---What does that mean? You want to be able to zoom in more on your subject from a distance?

Without understanding exactly what the OP finds lacking in his current lens (maybe it's just me) it's hard to recommend anything.

I find that the distance to zoom onto a subject is not that good. I do not have the IS on my 75-300 and it was recommended that I buy the 70-300mm IS lens. I dont want a huge telephoto lens ( I am not a professional). I dont mind spending a few hundred on a used lens to see if I like it, if not I can resell it.

 

[ElFenix]

I find that the distance to zoom onto a subject is not that good. I do not have the IS on my 75-300 and it was recommended that I buy the 70-300mm IS lens. I dont want a huge telephoto lens ( I am not a professional). I dont mind spending a few hundred on a used lens to see if I like it, if not I can resell it.

seems like you're saying the lens isn't long enough. if 300 isn't long enough you're looking at a very large lens for an SLR to get much longer.

 

[JohnnyRebel]

I still don't get what the OP dislikes about his zoom lens? Not long enough? Fast enough? AF speed? Image quality?

"...distance is not there to see." <---What does that mean? You want to be able to zoom in more on your subject from a distance?

Without understanding exactly what the OP finds lacking in his current lens (maybe it's just me) it's hard to recommend anything.

I'm pretty sure he means that his shots are not clear/sharp enough. Else, why would he be considering a shorter lens?

 

[fralexandr]

I find that the distance to zoom onto a subject is not that good. I do not have the IS on my 75-300 and it was recommended that I buy the 70-300mm IS lens. I dont want a huge telephoto lens ( I am not a professional). I dont mind spending a few hundred on a used lens to see if I like it, if not I can resell it.

something is being lost in translation, we kind of need a more lengthy explanation of what is wrong.
What is the subject? and what is not that good about it?

If the 75-300mm isn't long enough any other 300mm will be about the same length (there are some inaccuracies in reporting focal length, but only up to ~10%)

If the lens doesn't "magnify" enough, you want the tree to appear bigger and cropping it isn't enough.
get a 2x teleconverter.
the 2x teleconverters can be had for cheap to expensive depending on if you want autofocus and stuff.

If you mean you can't focus close enough on small objects (small insects, flowers, coins, etc), you need a macro lens.
the relatively cheap tamron/sigma 70-300mm macro have 1:2 reproduction, or you could spend on a dedicated macro prime (i.e. 50mm or 100mm f/2.8 macro) lens
http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-70-300mm...00+macro+sigma

 

[NAC]

FYI, the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS is $500 new from Amazon.
IMO, better to buy new for $60 more than the refurb model at Adorama.

From reading reviews online - that appears to be an excellent lens, much sharper than the 55-250mm. I've learned that with photography equipment, you don't know what you were missing until you have something better. So the 55-250 might be an okay lens, nothing really wrong with it. And it is much cheaper, so depending on your budget it might be the only way to go. But once you have a better lens like the 70-300, your photos will be much sharper and you'll learn to always notice the difference between photos taken with the old vs. the new lens.

I learned the hard way - took years of photos with an inferior Tamron, never paid close attention. Now I'm paying attention and realize that while most photos look okay at 25% to view full screen, most pics are not clear at all when viewed at 100% (sometimes even at 50%).