Canon EF 75-300 and 50 1.8 for $179 at Adorama

Add the bundle to the cart and the price goes from $324 to $179. Pretty good price for those in the market for two lens for the price of one of the lenses.

http://www.adorama.com …er&utm_source=r​flaid62905

why pay $179 for a 50mm f1.8...

DreDaze wrote in post #15665021
why pay $179 for a 50mm f1.8...

It includes both the 75-300 lens AND the 50mm 1.8 lens. I noticed after I posted that it is an ad on here as well. So not really a surprise to anyone. I just thought I would share since some people may be looking for by one or the other, or something similar.

sirquack wrote in post #15665083
It includes both the 75-300 lens AND the 50mm 1.8 lens. I noticed after I posted that it is an ad on here as well. So not really a surprise to anyone. I just thought I would share since some people may be looking for by one or the other, or something similar.

I think his tongue in cheek point was that most of us wouldnt wish a 75-300 on a friend. So why pay the extra for a lens bundle where you wouldnt want to use the second lens. It really is the worst non-kit lens canon makes.

I think you are right, but for people on a budget, having something is better than nothing.

sirquack wrote in post #15665536
I think you are right, but for people on a budget, having something is better than nothing.

Not necessarily. In this case, if you have "nothing", then you're still holding the cash.

Which could be better spent.

In this case I think the Mods should move the posting to the Marketwatch section so we can start slamming Adorama for overcharging for a 50 f/1.8 lens.

Even Helen Oster will have a tough time justifying this one.

gonzogolf wrote in post #15665129
I think his tongue in cheek point was that most of us wouldnt wish a 75-300 on a friend. So why pay the extra for a lens bundle where you wouldnt want to use the second lens. It really is the worst non-kit lens canon makes.

I used to have a 75-300 IS and all these remarks are spot on. Yes, I got quite a few good images with it, but anything beyond about 250 mm or so was junk. It was also soft when wide open. A much much better alternative is the EFS 55-250.

groundloop wrote in post #15666192
I used to have a 75-300 IS and all these remarks are spot on. Yes, I got quite a few good images with it, but anything beyond about 250 mm or so was junk. It was also soft when wide open. A much much better alternative is the EFS 55-250.

This offering isnt even the IS.

sirquack wrote in post #15665536
I think you are right, but for people on a budget, having something is better than nothing.

Having once owned the 75-300 I can say that it is better to have nothing then that lens. That $80 is better spend just sitting around till it had more company and someone can afford the 55-250

Coca-Cola still sells the the old style Coke in bottles. The bottom of one of these bottles is a great substitute for the 75-300mm lens.

If someone goes used, the 55-250 and 50 together can be had for just marginally more than the $179. If the budget is really that tight, the best option would be to get the lens that is needed most first, as either the 55-250 or 50 can be had for much less than $179 , and then save for the second.

Thorrulz wrote in post #15666087
In this case I think the Mods should move the posting to the Marketwatch section so we can start slamming Adorama for overcharging for a 50 f/1.8 lens.

Even Helen Oster will have a tough time justifying this one.

As my Dad used to say: "...better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick.." (sub: better than a slap in the face with a wet herring; better than a stab in the shin with a rusty nail; better than a thump on the back with a stone.....)