Next step on the Lens Ladder...

Ok.

Currently own Canon 75-300, and it's literally "better than nothing". Not much past that point, however.

Oh, I know white lenses. I had them, and yeah, they were fun. However...

Here in reality land, I wont be getting a white lens for a long time.

The next big milestone for me, will be the 70-200 2.8 EX by Sigma. Till then (6-8 months down the road), I was thinking about getting something that will be a step up from the 75-300, both in quality and speed. Not much, as clearly with glass, you get what you pay for.

So, what do you think? Is it worth making the stop for 55-200 IS in two months, and stay there till I can get my 70-200, or should I just bite it and hold off until the 70-200 way down the road?...

If the 55-200 IS is a fiasco, I might as well save, and buy the lens I really wanted in 4-5 months instead. Thing is, I need to make money out of my lenses. 75-300 is not reliable enough at this point. Will 55-200 be a step up? or simply a step aside?

Curious.

Save till you cannot anymore

You do photojournalism with a 75-300?

55-250IS should be a step up...buy used and it'll only cost you time and maybe a couple bucks

LowriderS10 wrote in post #11940226
You do photojournalism with a 75-300?

LowRider, no. I did journalism with a 70-200 2.8 IS. Before I had to fold my business, that was.

Right now I am getting ready to do some private events, sports, and so forth. Things have changed, and I can no longer call BHPhoto and spend a week smelling New L Lens goodness.

So, I am going step by step, at a crawl, until I am where I was before. When I get an assignment I will just grab a lens from the paper, or rent one. However, for my own purposes and time, it isn't possible.

And for the record yeah, I miss my Mark III, the 40D is nice but not the same.

DreDaze wrote in post #11940252
55-250IS should be a step up...buy used and it'll only cost you time and maybe a couple bucks

Thanks for the input, DreDaze.
Figured it can only improve. Looking at the 75-300's images, is like those old corporate projectors, where you could always clearly see the RGB overlay not quite match all the time.

I did work years ago just fine with the Sigma EX Series. So my next big goal is to hit the 10-22, 28-80, and 70-200 (2.8 for all of them).

Till then, 55-200 IS will have to do as a zoom lens (yeah, my sister's old easy bake oven is much sturdier and a better product than the 75-300 he he)

the 55-250 is a great budget zoom, look in the lens archives and youll see some truely amazing photos taken with it.

Andy R wrote in post #11942132
the 55-250 is a great budget zoom, look in the lens archives and youll see some truely amazing photos taken with it.

Nice.

Thanks Y'all

Another yes to the 55-250. I kept mine even when I bought a 70-200. IQ-wise, it does a terrific job. I'd say go for it - you're unlikely to be disappointed.

I say just hold off until you can pick up the 70-200 non IS "L"...Going @ $800.00-1k used... Depending on condition...You will feel more complete with your long lost "white" friend...
Ron

As much as I like the 55-250 lens, the answer to the question below is a big NO. The problem is 2 monthes, why hold onto your 75-300 for two more month and put the 55-250 money toward something better!!!

PhotoJourno wrote in post #11940182
Ok.

Currently own Canon 75-300, and it's literally "better than nothing". Not much past that point, however.

Oh, I know white lenses. I had them, and yeah, they were fun. However...

Here in reality land, I wont be getting a white lens for a long time.

The next big milestone for me, will be the 70-200 2.8 EX by Sigma. Till then (6-8 months down the road), I was thinking about getting something that will be a step up from the 75-300, both in quality and speed. Not much, as clearly with glass, you get what you pay for.

So, what do you think? Is it worth making the stop for 55-200 IS in two months, and stay there till I can get my 70-200, or should I just bite it and hold off until the 70-200 way down the road?...

If the 55-200 IS is a fiasco, I might as well save, and buy the lens I really wanted in 4-5 months instead. Thing is, I need to make money out of my lenses. 75-300 is not reliable enough at this point. Will 55-200 be a step up? or simply a step aside?

Curious.

Both really good suggestions.

Saving for the actual lens I want seems to be the correct thing to do. What I am thinking at this point, is that until I need a lens concretely, I should continue to save. At that point, if I can stretch to a Siggy or Canon L 4.0, it would be a great purchase. However, if I do not have the means at that point, still go with a 55-200 IS and spare some shame (and shoot for more decent results).

The question remains. If I get a call today to go shoot little league at the local park in a couple hours, for selling pics to the parents, will 55-200IS give me much better results than the 75-300? Or are they the same overall quality, but in different shapes?...

I actually started with the 75-300, and got some excellent images paired with my Xti at the time. Reach will help you out at this shoot more than the 55-200. IQ wise, probably won't be able to tell the difference...
Ron

eelnoraa wrote in post #11943324
As much as I like the 55-250 lens, the answer to the question below is a big NO. The problem is 2 monthes, why hold onto your 75-300 for two more month and put the 55-250 money toward something better!!!

buying a used lens, and then selling it doesn't really cost you any money though...hell sometimes you can make money doing it....i say go for it...it'll be an upgrade(i mean you're going from what many consider to be the worst lens canon makes to a great little lens), and who knows what happens down the road...what if 2 months turns to 6 months due to some unforseen thing...upgrading to the 55-250IS after selling the 75-300mm is only going to put you out about $75 anyways...

Well, I am coming across my first few jobs, and so I went to BestBuy and picked up the 55-250IS.
And for clarification purposes, the lens I had previously (I still have) is the 70-300mm III, this is the non usm, non IS version.

The guy at the local bestbuy had both, and so I ran a few samples there. 55-250 has the plastic mount, and it did feel a bit more toyish than the 70-300. But then, who are we kidding? They were selling the 70-300 for $199, and the 55-250IS for $299.

I was able to have them match an online price, and actually got it for quite a bit less.

Will be taking some test photos today, to see if the difference really merits the upgrade or not. After seeing the 55-250 compared to the 70-200 f4 L, I know that will very likely be my next step, however a few months down the road.

Sadly, all the reviews I have found, both list these lenses as the bottom of the totem pole for Canon, and most of the info we got is "Well, these lenses are no L material, but it's better than shooting with the body cap on". While generally true, it does limit those of us on a budget, who refuse to have Amex or Visa get a nicer lens for us.

I will keep searching the web for more, and also make my own review, and who knows, perhaps it will help someone struggling as to which one to choose.

Cheers,