Suitable upgrade from te 75-300

What would be a suitable upgrade from the 75-300 kit lens? I am looking at a price range of between 300 and 500 pounds. Any suggestions. I am mainly using it for motorsport, and have a 450d body?

55-250IS
70-300IS
tamron 70-300VC
70-200f4L

something along those lines...i'd go for the tamron

Hi there, why not look for a s/hand 35-350 L might just get one for the 500 mark, or look for a 300 F4 L prime(you should get one in this price band) I have had both these lens, great results before I upgraded. P.s still have the 35-350L.

paul-t wrote in post #14924998
Hi there, why not look for a s/hand 35-350 L might just get one for the 500 mark, or look for a 300 F4 L prime(you should get one in this price band) I have had both these lens, great results before I upgraded. P.s still have the 35-350L.

Thanks for the advice. Really struggling to find a 35-350, none on trademe (NZ version of ebay) or ebay, or amazon, or anywhere . How much would you be looking at for yours, would you mind posting a couple of images to give an example of what it can do. Also what are your personal thoughts on the lens, and how good is it, ie. IQ and AF etc. Anything with a max zoom of 200 would be too short, as I photograph motorsport, and it is always helpful to have more reach.

Thanks!

CaterhamF1 wrote in post #14925471
Anything with a max zoom of 200 would be too short, as I photograph motorsport, and it is always helpful to have more reach.

Don't forget that there are some instances where a cropped 200mm would still be better than 300mm... for example, the Canon 70-200 f4L at 200mm cropped to the same FOV as 300mm will eat the 75-300 for breakfast at 300mm...

chrismarriott66 wrote in post #14925781
Don't forget that there are some instances where a cropped 200mm would still be better than 300mm... for example, the Canon 70-200 f4L at 200mm cropped to the same FOV as 300mm will eat the 75-300 for breakfast at 300mm...

But I have the 450d, which isn't a crop body. Unless I get a TC, but heard they aren't that good?

CaterhamF1 wrote in post #14927205
But I have the 450d, which isn't a crop body. Unless I get a TC, but heard they aren't that good?

The 450D is a crop body - it has an APS-C sized sensor. 200mm on APS-C is equivalent to 320mm on a full frame.

chrismarriott66 wrote in post #14925781
Don't forget that there are some instances where a cropped 200mm would still be better than 300mm... for example, the Canon 70-200 f4L at 200mm cropped to the same FOV as 300mm will eat the 75-300 for breakfast at 300mm...

But not the 70-300IS. The 70-300 is a hidden gem of a lens. Same range as your other lens but optically completely different. Is shares much of the same exotic glass that L lenses have and has a very nice IS as well. Worth looking at.

The Tamron 70-300mm VC is wickedly sharp, and well within your price range.

+1 on the 70-300IS; $300.00 used, good quality, IS is GREAT!

gjl711 wrote in post #14927327
But not the 70-300IS. The 70-300 is a hidden gem of a lens. Same range as your other lens but optically completely different. Is shares much of the same exotic glass that L lenses have and has a very nice IS as well. Worth looking at.

ickmcdon wrote in post #14929329
+1 on the 70-300IS; $300.00 used, good quality, IS is GREAT!

I agree, the 70-300 IS USM is a decent lens. The IS is pretty good and it focuses quick for what it is. Be advised of what it is not. What this lens struggles with is IQ wide open at 300mm. It can be a bit soft there. I liked it everywhere else. At less the 275mm and at any aperture it is quite nice. My only beef was f/5.6 at 300mm, which is where I tended to use it most. I sold it and acquired a 100-400L. The lens in question sharpens up nicely at f/8 at 300mm.

Used 70-300, $300. New 55-250, $179. For the money, I would go with a 55-250.

CaterhamF1 wrote in post #14927205
But I have the 450d, which isn't a crop body. Unless I get a TC, but heard they aren't that good?

The 450d is a crop body, but don't worry about crop or FF, that's not what i'm talking about... I'm talking about literally cropping an image from the camera, as opposed to the field of view crop you get from the 450d.

SoCalTiger wrote in post #14927300
The 450D is a crop body - it has an APS-C sized sensor. 200mm on APS-C is equivalent to 320mm on a full frame.

The field of view is equivalent to 320mm yes, but if the OP has never used FF then these comparisons don't really mean that much imho.

gjl711 wrote in post #14927327
But not the 70-300IS. The 70-300 is a hidden gem of a lens. Same range as your other lens but optically completely different. Is shares much of the same exotic glass that L lenses have and has a very nice IS as well. Worth looking at.

Fair enough, I can't say I've used it enough to make the comparison... I was impressed with my very short experience with it though I guess the order is 75-300 -> 55-250 -> 70-300IS -> 70-200s then!

TSchrief wrote in post #14929399
.. My only beef was f/5.6 at 300mm, which is where I tended to use it most. I sold it and acquired a 100-400L. The lens in question sharpens up nicely at f/8 at 300mm.
..

No argument about the 100-400. I too went that route but the 100-400 is in a different league.

One thing I did notice is that the 70-300 at f/5.6 is a different beast on bodies capable of MFA. I actually ended up keeping mine when I upgraded to the 50D as I was able to match the lens to the body and much of the softness went away. I still use if from time to time because it is a nice relatively light travel teli.

gjl711 wrote in post #14930122
No argument about the 100-400. I too went that route but the 100-400 is in a different league.

One thing I did notice is that the 70-300 at f/5.6 is a different beast on bodies capable of MFA. I actually ended up keeping mine when I upgraded to the 50D as I was able to match the lens to the body and much of the softness went away. I still use if from time to time because it is a nice relatively light travel teli.

That nice light travel lens part is what has me considering the purchase of a 55-250. Had I kept my 70-300, I would not be considering the 55-250.

TSchrief wrote in post #14930739
That nice light travel lens part is what has me considering the purchase of a 55-250. Had I kept my 70-300, I would not be considering the 55-250.

I bought one for my dad and got to play with it a little. It is quite an impressive little lens for the cost. Optically it's very sharp and I was surprised at how quick it focused. Well worth the $$