Lens opinion: It was recommended that a 75-300mm lens might be more effective that a 55-250mm lens and would give double the Magnification. I can buy a used lens on an apparent safe...

golfbum301

It was recommended that a 75-300mm lens might be more effective that a 55-250mm lens and would give double the Magnification. I can buy a used lens on an apparent safe website for $149.00 in excellent condition. I need some opinions.

Thanks

MikeC

Haydon

golfbum301 wrote:

It was recommended that a 75-300mm lens might be more effective that a 55-250mm lens and would give double the Magnification. I can buy a used lens on an apparent safe website for $149.00 in excellent condition. I need some opinions.

Thanks

MikeC

50 mm extra at that focal length will reap minimal magnification differences. It will not double the magnification.

SonyA580 Loc: FL in the winter & MN in the summer

A couple of red flags here ..... 75-300 is NOT double the magnification of a 55-250 and, a $149 zoom is not liable to get you the best image quality, no matter how safe the website is.

Balboa Loc: NJ

Depends on what you mean by more effective plus you will not get twice the magnification but an increase of approximately 28.5%.

bobmcculloch Loc: NYC, NY

golfbum301 wrote:

It was recommended that a 75-300mm lens might be more effective that a 55-250mm lens and would give double the Magnification. I can buy a used lens on an apparent safe website for $149.00 in excellent condition. I need some opinions.

Thanks

MikeC

Depends on what you need/want for what your shooting, are both Canon lenses? Do you really want/need the reach, I for one seldom want more than my 55-250, and when I'm out at 250 I wish it was faster, just some thoughts before you spend the bucks, Bob.

billnourse Loc: Bloomfield, NM

The difference in focal length is going to be minimal. The 75-300 and the 55-250 both sound like kit lenses. That being the case, you are not going to see any advantage other than a gain of 50mm on the big end, which is not enough to justify a different lens.

Adorama has used 75-300 kit lenses for 110.00, E-Bay for less than that. Amazon has new ones for 199 with a few trinkets thrown in.

Bill

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

golfbum301 wrote:

It was recommended that a 75-300mm lens might be more effective that a 55-250mm lens and would give double the Magnification. I can buy a used lens on an apparent safe website for $149.00 in excellent condition. I need some opinions.

Thanks

MikeC

You never gave the Brand name of the lens. Canon and Sony have 75-300mm zoom lenses, that are good kit lenses. Not great glass though. I'm assuming you have a current lens, with a lesser focal range than the 75-300mm, on your camera already. Whatever that is?. So, if that is the case. I would buy the 75-300mm. Two of lenses I own are a Nikon 70-300mm, and a 18-55mm kit lens. A 15mm gap between the two lenses. Not much to worry about. IMO.

khorinek

My recommendation, consider the canon 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM. There is the original model (Mark I)and the new model (Mark II) of this lens. The Mark I sells on ebay for $150-$250. I have this lens and use it on a 5D Mark III. It is a very good lens, especially outdoors. I've used it indoors in low light with good results.

Kameruh

The minimum focusing distance of the lenses at the long end will affect the magnification I believe, like if the 250 can focus way closer than the 300, than it would magnify more than the 300, and vice versa.

out4life2016 Loc: Bellingham, Washington

Save your money and buy better glass. Most likely your shooting Canon and the 75-300 mm lens is not a good lens and if its the original without image stabilizing, its a terrible lens. I have both and was shooting them on a T3 body and even tried them on a 6D mark ii full frame and the results are still soft images. If your shooting a Canon then save your money and buy L series glass. You can get a used 100-400 L series for about 1000 US and will be far happier with it.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

(Guessing at the 75-300 being a Canon lens) You don't need to save your money only for "L glass". If you desire a sharp lens, with excellent IS, and with excellent (fast and accurate) Autofocus at a moderate price, look at the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM. This 70-300 model will be a marked improvement in performance and image quality as compared to the 55-250, although you give up some usefulness of the 'wide' side in moving from 55mm to 70mm.

However, if you're looking for a longer focal length more appropriate for "wildlife", you need to look for lenses that will get you into the 400mm range and here the lowest prices for even used, older models start around $800 and go up to $$,$$$.

via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP

golfbum301 wrote:

It was recommended that a 75-300mm lens might be more effective that a 55-250mm lens and would give double the Magnification. I can buy a used lens on an apparent safe website for $149.00 in excellent condition. I need some opinions.

Thanks

MikeC

I'd say you get what you pay for in general when purchasing a lens of any kind, type or brand.

khorinek

Agreed, however one needs weigh the advantages of expensive glass vs. the final product. I always look at the economics of camera equipment. If a $500 lens will get you 90% of what you are looking for then will a $1500 lens be a smart choice to make up the other 10%? Just food for thought. I have an assortment of lenses, when I have to get the shot for work, I use my L glass, when out having fun or on vacation, I use my less expensive glass.

Photocraig

khorinek wrote:

My recommendation, consider the canon 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM. There is the original model (Mark I)and the new model (Mark II) of this lens. The Mark I sells on ebay for $150-$250. I have this lens and use it on a 5D Mark III. It is a very good lens, especially outdoors. I've used it indoors in low light with good results.

I have used these lenses as well. The 70-300 I is sharp, fast focusing and an all around very good lens. If a good used one is available, I suggest buying it. I also have and use the II model and it is noticeably better, faster and sharper. It is a distinct upgrade over either of the lenses you refer to.

Whenever I think about upgrading from my 70-300 I can't justify getting a 1 or 2 stop wider aperture for double or triple the price. So, I suggest you set your sights on the 70-300 and spend your money on a lens that will suit your purposes for a long time.
C

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

golfbum301 wrote:

It was recommended that a 75-300mm lens might be more effective that a 55-250mm lens and would give double the Magnification. I can buy a used lens on an apparent safe website for $149.00 in excellent condition. I need some opinions.

Thanks

MikeC

The old Canon 75-300 USM was never considered to be a great lens, I am not so sure which lens you are looking at but maybe you should slow down and do a bit more research on lenses. CHG Canon has already pointed you in the right direction, there are other lenses out there other than the 70-300 IS II that may be worthy of consideration, I understand that Tamron made a great lens in that focal length as well.