Upgrading my EF 75-300 IS USM (Canon's first IS lens)

I own the original EF 75-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM lens (the first ever Canon IS lens) and have been considering replacing it with something better (sharper and better IS).

I don't use my telephoto lens that much, but it does see occasional use for wildlife and travel photography. Lack of use is the main reason I don't want to spend alot on a tele-lens upgrade, but if I had a better one then maybe I'd use it more. I'd be comfortable spending $400-500 plus whatever I get for my old lens (maybe $300 max).

My understanding is that the EF 70-300 IS USM that replaced my 75-300 is sharper at 300mm and has better IS. Is it worth switching to the 70-300 IS or is my money better spent elsewhere?

Should I consider the EF-S 55-250 IS at all? I assume the IS is better than mine, but I'd lose 50mm at the long end and doubt the 55-250 is any sharper at 250mm than my 75-300.

Another ption is to go the L route (70-200 f/4L IS + TC or 100-400L IS) but that is probably more than I want to spend right now.

I'm open to non-Canon suggestions as well. I haven't researched those yet, but I'll bet there are some good ones.

I own a Rebel XT, and don't plan to buy a FF body so I'm open to lenses that don't work on a FF body. I also have a Promaster 1.7x teleconverter, but I don't know if it's worth using.

I would have thought that the 70-200 F4 (non IS) would be worth considering if budget is tight, although if you don't fancy carting a monopod about then the IS would be a better bet. Both should work well with a decent teleconverter.

Phil

Yeah, I do like IS and would rather not give it up for my next telephoto lens.

Anyone else have an opinion? I'm hoping to get suggestions on Sigma/Tamron/Tokina lenses to check out.

Thanks!

I had both the 70-300 IS and the 55-250 IS for a while, and chose to sell the 70-300 and and keep the 55-250. The IS on the 55-250 is awesome. I've got some really good shots at 250 mm in poor light. I use this lens for backyard wildlife, trips to the zoo and the park, and as my travel telephoto. It performs well for all these uses. The aspect that many consider to be a disadvantage of the lens - its lightweight build - is an advantage when you travel, and despite its build my lens has withstood snowstorms, windy beaches, being dropped by my kid, being licked by my dog and all kinds of other stuff. It's plenty robust enough for a hobby photographer like me.

I bought the Sigma 70-200 because I wanted a faster lens for sports photography, and my intention was to sell the 55-250. However, I just couldn't bring myself to do it. So I now have both. The Sigma is awesome for sports, but it's big and heavy and I can't see myself slinging it around my neck to walk around the zoo or the park with my kid. Or, for that matter, to go sightseeing with the family. So I kept my 55-250 for all these things.

Based on your post, I'd definitely suggest that you have a look at the 55-250. It would be an inexpensive solution for you, and would probably serve you well for the uses you mention. The 70-300 is twice the price of the 55-250, but in my experience it certainly isn't twice the lens.

I bought a refurbished 55-250 IS from Adorama for $199. I just couldn't pass it up, and I'm glad I got it. For the price, size, and weight, the 55-250 IS is a great lens for travel and hiking. I immediately liked it more than my 18-55 IS.

I took some shots at the zoo with both the 55-250 IS and 75-300 IS. I didn't miss the extra 50mm that the 75-300 IS has at the long end. I think the only thing I missed was being able to use a teleconverter with the 55-250 IS. I have a Promaster 1.7x TC and it would not fit an EF-S mount lens. Not that big a deal since the consumer grade tele lenses don't produce the best IQ when using a TC and MF is required. I think there may be a 100-400L in my future, but that will probably be a long way out. For now, I'm happy with the 55-250 IS and will sell the 75-300 IS if I end up not using it which seems pretty likely.