rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

A $150 zoom lens is just that, a $150 zoom lens. My utility zoom lens, the EF 28-300L costs new around $2400 and there are lots of people who say it's not sharp enough. What do you think the IQ from a $150 zoom lens will be. Sure, it will work but it won't be all that good. If it's what you can afford then it is better than no zoom lens at all.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Try some lens comparison sites. You'll be using that lens long after the joy of a low price has worn off.

http://lensvslens.com/
http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/lenses
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx
http://www.diyphotography.net/this-website-helps-you-choose-your-next-lens-based-on-the-photos-you-like/
https://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM
http://lenshero.com/lens-comparison
http://www.lenstip.com/lenses.html
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare
http://www.lenscore.org/

cmaxi

If you are referring to the Canon 55-250, it is a really good, sharp lens. I won a local photography contest with a photo taken by that lens. Stick with it.

(Download)

ggab Loc: ?

MikeC,
You never quoted a mfg or price you have to work with.
If you want a light weight lens with greater reach and IQ, you may consider the sigma 100-400mm Contemporary.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1321312-REG/sigma_100_400mm_f_5_6_3_dg_os.html

or

The Canon 100-300mm USM. Here is a review

https://kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/100-300mm.htm

https://www.mpb.com/en-us/used-equipment/used-photo-and-video/used-lenses/used-canon-fit-lenses/canon-ef-100-300mm-f-5-6-l/sku-786910/?gclid=Cj0KCQiAj4biBRC-ARIsAA4WaFigd_t-aZgtM4hObnj37MMC4nh991J4FdGvvZ_SeJDdbvqI-XvKJ0QaAh8IEALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds


or

The Canon 70-300mm USM II

https://www.adorama.com/ca70300is2.html

I have or had all of these lenses.
I currently use the Sigma more. I bought the older 100-300 when I first started out and I wanted more reach. I gave it to my brother in law when I sold him my T3i.
I purchased the 70-300 USM II shortly after it came out. I work for Canon and they offered it to employees and a very low price. The focus is crazy fast with this lens.

Good luck

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

I am more familiar with the Nikon 70-300. They currently make the E and G versions. I know folks who own the E version and love it for it's image quality. Remember, glass is more important than the body in most cases. So, buy the best glass you can because in most cases you can transfer the lens to a new body. The following link will take you to those two versions of the 75-300. If you are still considering the one for $149.00, make sure it is a USA lens, if it is a gray market Nikon USA will not service it if something goes wrong.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=nikon%2070-300%20&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ma&Top+Nav-Search=

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

To double magnification, you'd need a 100-400, or better yet, a 150-600. And it won't be $150.

Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb

Too much unknown. First a cheep lens will not give the quality picture get from na good lens. Two the wider low end is more useful the the 60 at the long end. and lastly we don't know what kind of pictures you want to take with it.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

More effective, yes. But, the ONLY 70-300 lenses worth investing in are the latest Canon, Nikon and Sony full frame versions that will set you back a minimum of $400 used !

I have used a few different copies of the Tamron 70-300 - some OK, some BAD - I would stay away from the Tamron ....

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

All this discussion and dismissal of the lowly 75-300 caused me to remember a long ago UHH post: Remembrance for the EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III

https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-99398-1.html

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Hi MikeC,

Are you talking about Canon lenses?

If so, STICK WITH THE 55-250mm!

Canon's EF 75-300mm "III" sucks! It has terrible image quality at the 300mm end of the range, uses slow/noise micro motor auto focus drive and lacks Image Stablization.

The Canon EF-S 55-250mm IS STM lens is better in all respects. It has faster/quieter "stepper motor" focus drive, effective IS and has much better image quality.

$149 for the EF 75-300mm III isn't a very good deal, either. It's Canon's cheapest telephoto zoom and although it lists for $199, it can often be found for around $100.

There is a version of the EF 75-300mm III with better USM focus drive.... Sells for a little more (around $150-175 typically) but it still lacks IS and has the same optical formula and image quality issues as the cheaper version.

See for yourself... these magnified test shots compare the 75-300mm at 300mm with the 55-250mm at 250mm: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=776&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=856&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0

Use the little arrow to "switch" back and forth between the samples from those two lenses. You also can change the focal length and aperture settings there... though I think the most dramatic difference is at each lenses' longest focal length.

And a 300mm lens DEFINITELY won't "double the magnification". It's 50mm longer focal length, or about a 20% increase. Also, the 55-250mm STM is closer focusing... to under 3 feet and giving 0.29X max magnification. The 75-300mm's closest focus is just under 5 feet for a max magnification of 0.25X. So, whoever told you that you'd get "double the magnification" is full of it.

If you are looking for an upgrade, a much better bet is Canon EF 70-300mm IS USM, either the current "II" or the previous version. You won't see much difference in image quality, compared to the EF-S 55-250mm... they all have similar IS, too. However, with the 70-300mm IS USM you'll have a bit longer telephoto reach (300mm vs 250mm) and somewhat faster ultrasonic focus drive. Both versions of this lens also have focus scales, which your 55-250mm lacks. In fact, the "II" has an LCD scale readout that can be programmed to show other info, which is kind of neat. And the "II" uses the latest and greatest "Nano USM" focus drive Canon has put in a few lenses. That both fast AND nearly silent (like STM).

These two lenses do cost more, though. Where your EF-S 550-250mm IS STM typically sells for $299, the older EF 70-300mm IS USM (still avail. new) sells for $377. And the latest and greatest EF 70-300mm IS USM "II" is currently on sale for $499 ($50 discount).

Canon also previously offered an EF 70-300mm IS USM "DO" which used "diffractive optics" to be more compact than the other lenses with similar focal length. It was very pricey when new, but is now discontinued and used prices have dropped dramatically. A friend used one and she got very good shots with it.

Canon also offers a "premium" EF 70-300mm IS USM "L"-series lens that's more pro-quality build for durability, better sealed for dust resistance.... AND, perhaps most importantly, can optionally be fitted with a tripod mounting ring. Image quality, focus speed and image stabilization aren't substantially different from the two non-L versions.... the build, sealing and tripod ring are the main things that set this lens apart. It costs $1350 plus another $165 for the tripod mounting ring.

By the time you are spending that much, might as well go to the Canon EF 100-400mm IS USM.... either the original "push/pull" zoom version that's often available for around $1000 used, or the EF 100-400mm IS USM "II" that sells for just over $2000. Both are excellent in most respects. The "II" has especially good image quality and better build/sealing. It also has better image stabilization and works better with teleconverters. Both these lenses use a fluorite element which makes them exceptionally sharp and helps counteract chromatic aberration, which can be an issue with telephoto lenses. None of the other lenses above use fluorite.

Sigma and Tamron have both recently introduced 100-400mm lenses, too. They each cost around $800. Between them, I'd go with the Tamron because it can optionally be fitted with a tripod ring (sold separately, $129) and that's something I consider essential on a lens that reaches 400mm. There's no option for or even means of fitting a tripod ring to the Sigma lens. Both these lenses are also 2/3 stop or more slower than the Canon lenses... for example, the Canon "II" is an f/5 lens to about 310mm, then drops to f/5.6 for the remain focal lengths to 400mm. The Tamron is f/5 only through 180mm, then f/5.6 only through 280mm and f/6.3 the rest of the way. The Sigma is even worse... f/5 only to 111mm! f/5.6 only to 233mm and f/6.2 the rest of it's focal length range. Finally, the Canon 100-400 "II" is also quite close focusing just over 3 feet for 0.31X max magnification... The Tamron gets to just under 5 feet for 0.28X, while the Sigma can focus to 5.25 feet at best for 0.26X.

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

Ditto! The Canon 75-300 lens is considered a not great lens. I would caution you to give consideration to a 70-300mm lens with image stabilization (or whatever the repective manufacturers call it). They are more expensive than the one you asked about, but 300mm without it is difficult to use hand held.

Depending on your types of subjects, you may find a lens like the one I keep on my camera most all the time a better choice. It is a Sigma 18-300mm f/3.5-6.3 DC MACRO OS HSM. The OS means Optically Stabilized. This one lens gives you all the focal lengths of 18 to 300mm in one lens, no switching required. It is roughly the same price as a stabilized 70-300, currently $399 new. A reconditioned one might be to your liking.

khorinek

I had the sigma 18-300 f/3.5-6.3 DC Macro OS HSM lens at one time. I thought it was a bit soft at the long end. I did some research on it and that was the review on that lens as well. You must have a good copy. Also, I'm a firm believer in using like kind lenses. If you have a canon body, use a canon lens, Nikon -Nikon, etc. I'm not much on third party lenses.

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

Here is a shot I took recently. The only editing I did was to lighten it and add the credit. It seems pretty sharp to me. It was taken as a fine jpg only.

(Download)

Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb

THE TAMRON 28-300 IS A GOOD LIGHT LENS. THE 18-? IS NOT AS FAST IN FOCUSSING. I HAVE USED MY TAMRON 28-300 TO SHOOT RACES, RODIOS AND TOOK TO EUROPE A FEW TIMES.
A CANON WIDE-ANGLEAND THE TAMRON WITH A 5D IN A SMALL SIDE BAG.

Bob Locher Loc: Southwest Oregon

You don't specify the format you will be using - Full Frame? APS-C? 4/3? Anyhow, if you plan to use the lens primarily hand held, you should determine if you can hold 300 mm steady enough to take a useable picture. In my case that is a real issue at my age... I'd say if you don't need the 300 mm end of the range, don't buy it.