Looking to buy a zoom/telephoto lens

So I am going to be shooting a drift event in May and I'm wanting to get a lens but I'm wanting to stay on the cheap end since I'll probably rarely use the lens.

So far I'm looking at:
Canon 75-300
Canon 55-250

Any other suggestions? Or maybe out of those two which one you would go with.

Thanks for any and all your help.

55-250IS

70-300. Or 70-200.

99sil-teg wrote in post #12097367
So I am going to be shooting a drift event in May and I'm wanting to get a lens but I'm wanting to stay on the cheap end since I'll probably rarely use the lens.

So far I'm looking at:
Canon 75-300
Canon 55-250

Any other suggestions? Or maybe out of those two which one you would go with.

Thanks for any and all your help.

55-250IS

why not rent a great lens or two for the event?

MCAsan wrote in post #12097573
why not rent a great lens or two for the event?

I actually thought about that but for the price I could just pick up a 55-250 or 75-300 and have it around for whatever. I'm actually leaning towards the 55-250 since I think I'd use it more often since right now I only have a kit lens and nifty fifty.

Renting would be roughly say 30 each event so 2 events would put me at 60 and I'm seeing some 55-250's for like 170 or so used. 75-300 is even cheaper.

99sil-teg wrote in post #12097740
I actually thought about that but for the price I could just pick up a 55-250 or 75-300 and have it around for whatever. I'm actually leaning towards the 55-250 since I think I'd use it more often since right now I only have a kit lens and nifty fifty.

Renting would be roughly say 30 each event so 2 events would put me at 60 and I'm seeing some 55-250's for like 170 or so used. 75-300 is even cheaper.

Stay away from the 75-300

Or if you want to buy one I've got a couple of them that haven't been used for years--in which case it is a WONDERFUL choice--LOL

I'm curious, whats the issue with the 75-300? A buddy that use to have one showed me some pics he took and the only thing he mentioned was that they weren't the sharpest.

99sil-teg wrote in post #12098832
I'm curious, whats the issue with the 75-300? A buddy that use to have one showed me some pics he took and the only thing he mentioned was that they weren't the sharpest.

it's considered by many reviewers to be canon's worst lens...i haven't used one...even if the I.Q. of the two lenses were the same, i think the IS is more valuable than anything offered by the 75-300mm

The 75-300 non-IS sells used at bargain prices if only occasional use and $$ enter the decision. I had two of these (from two different camera package purchases) and just recently sold one. I will keep the other as long as I continue to use Canon EOS. All the pictures I have taken thus far have been well received - sharp lens if you avoid the extreme ends of zoom and f-stops (a good practice with any lens). And an added bonus... it fits full frame cameras which is where I use it most.

The lens auto focuses accurately and rapidly every time. If used on a crop remember that 300mm becomes a very long length to handhold and IS probably would not really help. I used the tele a lot on a month long tour of China and have many excellent photos. IS is a relative newcomer and I only have one IS lens in the collection (the kit 18-55 that came with the newest Canon). So I do not base my purchase decisions on IS availability. It is also one more thing to fail over time.

I do fear that many who complain about its IQ have never used it to see for themselves in everyday photography, and base their comments on a few reviews that compare it to lens many times the cost.

I used to have the 75-300 a long time ago, the lens is not bad, yea its not the best out there, but it hold its own under the right conditions. I would still go with the nifty-250 by a mile over the 75-300

David C wrote in post #12099201
The lens auto focuses accurately and rapidly every time. If used on a crop remember that 300mm becomes a very long length to handhold and IS probably would not really help. I used the tele a lot on a month long tour of China and have many excellent photos. IS is a relative newcomer and I only have one IS lens in the collection (the kit 18-55 that came with the newest Canon). So I do not base my purchase decisions on IS availability. It is also one more thing to fail over time.

handholding at longer focal lengths is what IS is designed to do...it'd be a tremendous help...i wouldn't want a telephoto over 200mm without IS...

it's not really much of a newcomer now...AF is also just another thing that can fail over time...the chances that it fails are so small that the benefits far outweigh it...

i don't see canon introducing a lens without IS anymore...maybe a short prime...but even then i doubt it

Thanks guys for all the help, I've started my search for a 55-250.

Thanks,
Josh

99sil-teg wrote in post #12098832
I'm curious, whats the issue with the 75-300? A buddy that use to have one showed me some pics he took and the only thing he mentioned was that they weren't the sharpest.

This sounds like, "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?"

RPCrowe wrote in post #12100432
This sounds like, "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?"

I just upgraded from the 75-300 to a 70-200 f/4. The 75-300 is great outdoors in bright sunlight where sharpness is not necessarily required. It is not a sharp lens, it is not good in low light. It gets really soft at maximum aperature. It shows either barrel distortion or pincushion distortion throughout most of its range. It is most definitely not made for pixel peepers. Because I am not a pixel peeper, I have some pictures I took with that lens printed and mounted on my wall.

Conversely, it sells used for less than $100. At one time this attribute was more important to me than the others.