Canon lenses

What is the difference between the Canon 75-300mm III Lens and the Canon 55-250 mm IS Lens, I am trying to decide which Camera package to buy.

Biggest difference: the 75-300 sucks, and the 55-250 doesn't.

Welcome aboard!

... oh - and...
If you've seen a package with the 75-300, chances are it has an 18-55 in it too. You don't want that either. You want the 18-55 IS.

If there's a lot of other stuff like tripods, bags, filters, cleaning kits included, forget it.

If it's a kit from Sonic Cameras, forget it.

xarqi wrote in post #6282512
Biggest difference: the 75-300 sucks, and the 55-250 doesn't.

Welcome aboard!

Nice to know you can still get fair and open-minded responses, unclouded by any bias, on POTN. Not everyone is made of money, and for those people, the cheaper (by $100) 75-300 would seem to be the better alternative. That said, I'm personally saving up for a 55-250 is, but that's just me.

gregrocco wrote in post #6282861
Nice to know you can still get fair and open-minded responses, unclouded by any bias, on POTN.

Thanks!

It still sucks...well, for the most part.

mosec,
Welcome to the forum
I haven't used the 55-250 but do have the 75-300 and its a good lens for its low cost. However I suggest the 55-250 because it has IS which can really help get sharp photos with a telephoto lens by allowing slower shutter speeds for holding.

xarqi wrote in post #6282512
Biggest difference: the 75-300 sucks, and the 55-250 doesn't.

A lens is only as good as the photographer using it! The 75-300 has been good for me..

Don't bother with any of the 75-300 series. If you have to get something cheap the 100-300 is a bit useful. However with the 70-300 and the 55-250 available, I would go for one of thoses. Much better lenses.

Where are you shopping for these packages?

gregrocco wrote in post #6282861
Nice to know you can still get fair and open-minded responses, unclouded by any bias, on POTN. Not everyone is made of money, and for those people, the cheaper (by $100) 75-300 would seem to be the better alternative. That said, I'm personally saving up for a 55-250 is, but that's just me.

Im sorry but hes just telling the truth. It IS fair and unbiased. The 75-300 is not very good and if you cant afford it, I would highly suggest you simply wait a little longer, save some money, and get the 55-250. Its much better.

Sucks is such a strong term. The 75-300 has it's limitations but if you stay within it's sweet spot it can deliver some very nice pics. That said, it looks as if the operational parameters for the 55-250 is wider and delivers a better pic in general.

If you want a quality low-cost lens in that range, the Sigma 70-300 APO DG is very good. Cheap, too. But it doesn't have IS.

-js

John_B wrote in post #6282973
A lens is only as good as the photographer using it!

I respectfully, but strongly disagree.
If maximum lens quality was determined solely by the photographer, we'd all be happy using pinhole cameras, and the market for "L" lenses would be restricted to wealthy fools.

The 75-300mm is an old consumer grade telephoto zoom made for film/full frame sensor cameras. It is arguably the worst lens Canon puts out.

The 55-250mm IS is a new lens by Canon made for cropped sensors like the XSi/40D etc. It has an Image Stabilization and also much better optics.

I would recommend the 55-250mm IS lens over the 75-300mm lens. I think photozone.de has a pretty good review of both lenses.
Good luck.

I've used a great many versions of the 75-300 and lots of other lenses tele lenses from different manufacturers.
Overall the 75-300 is a good lens *except* for it's longer focal lengths where it's barely usable. I and many others here have some great shots with this lens!If you do a search here you'll find threads showing example shots.
BUT... i've never got a decent shot taken at 300mm and don't think i've seen any really good ones taken by others at this focal length either.

Sorry,ive never used the 55-250IS