Canon lenses

I love my 75-300. As mentioned, when used within it's bounds it's great. Most of the horrible reviews and pics I've found are mostly due to user error. It's generally more of a 'beginner amateur' lens. Many of the "soft" image samples I see are taken at 300mm but at a speed of 1/100 or something. That is user error.

But the price of the 55-250 makes is really hard to pass up. If I had to buy one new that's the one I'd get. But if you can find a 75-300 used for cheap, I wouldn't hesitate to buy. I bought mine from a local camera shop for C$100 a few years ago and I'm quite happy with it.

picturecrazy wrote in post #6284519
Many of the "soft" image samples I see are taken at 300mm but at a speed of 1/100 or something. That is user error.

This was shot at 1/200 handheld, 300 mm f/5.6 with my Sigma 70-300 APO DG:

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

picturecrazy wrote in post #6284519
... when used within it's bounds it's great

This is true of anything, including the pinhole camera example I gave. It's the size of the overlap between the bounds of the lens, and the bounds of acceptable performance that is the issue.

I fully accept that for some users, that overlap is sufficient for their needs, however this is certainly not the case for many. In a poll I ran here a few months ago to identify the worst overall current Canon lens, the 75-300 received the most votes, narrowly, and to my surprise, edging out the 18-55.

John_B wrote in post #6282973
..A lens is only as good as the photographer using it! The 75-300 has been good for me..

xarqi wrote in post #6283088
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.

I have to agree with Xarqi, a lens is what it is and it’s parameters do not change with the photographer. However I do agree that a good photog can take a poorer performing lens and make it sparkle delivering outstanding pics and a poor photog can take the finest piece of L glass and deliver crap. But the physical attributes remain unchanged.

It’s sort of funny that the lenses being targeted to the entry market are the ones that need the most skill to use well. It is much easier to deliver an optically outstanding pic with a L than a consumer lens. It should be the other way round. Come on Canon 15-55IS as the standard kit lens.

gjl711 wrote in post #6285730
It’s sort of funny that the lenses being targeted to the entry market are the ones that need the most skill to use well. It is much easier to deliver an optically outstanding pic with a L than a consumer lens. It should be the other way round. Come on Canon 15-55IS as the standard kit lens.

Good point that,it is an odd paradox
Better lenses definitely give images that require editing less than the cheapies,wether it be contrast,colour,sharpn​ess,even bokeh,etc
In fact that's ONE OF THE REASONS some of us like using cheap lenses-for the challenge and satisfaction it gives

On that subject i think the 75-300 is a good fun lens in that way EXCEPT for the poor tele performance.No matter what i try i'm never quite happy with what i see.
Another member did PM me asking why i say this and gave some great looking example/test images showing what it can do.But to be honest i still maintain my views.In real life use this lens is simply not good enough for most users at it's long end. I still like it and use it though,but within it's best focal length/aperture envelope

Back on topic

mosec wrote in post #6282494
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.

If those are the only 2 packages you are looking at the 55-250 would strongly win it. It would appear from all the various reviews and opinions around the place that its much easier to get a good picture with the 55-250.

The difference between 250 and 300mm is very little in the real world, 55-75 is a bit more, but not an issue for most. The 75-300 seems to not work very well at 300 anyway so you might think of it as a 75-250.

If you are looking at other kits, or just buying the body and lens that suits you then the the sigma 70-300 APO mentioned (don't bother with the non-apo version) is also a good zoom. It is good at 300 @f/8, but not great wide open at f/5.6. Wide open is much better from 70-250. It does not have IS, but it can do 1:2 Macro and comes with a hood and soft case.

As you've probably picked up from the responses here, lenses tend to get highly emotional responses from posters. If you look at the reviews around the place using more scientific methods the lenses would be ranked

1. Canon EF 55-250 but most expensive (review link)
2. Sigma 70-300 APO best bang for buck, IMHO (review link)
3. Canon EF 75-300 III (review link)

I think the first 2 are tied on quality but its easier to get a good shot with the canons IS system so its easier to find good sample images from it. The price does not bother me and I went with the sigma and I'm very happy with it. Eventually it will be replace with a 70-200 f/2.8, but I'm in no rush as it does the job I need right now.