Canon 55-250 IS or 75-300 USM

hi , i planning to buy one of two canon lens which is Canon 55-250 and 75-300
those lens basically is a tele lens , but i heard 55-250 has a IS and 75-300 has no IS but has USM faster auto focusing , i've been thinking of it and still no asnwer , anyone can give some suggestion , at least which is better lens , any comment would be appreciated ....

Two thing we need to know to assist you, what’s your budget and what is your intended use for the lense.

The 70-300 has both but cost a bit more. If you are going to be taking sport shots in well-lit day time the IS is ideal. If you just were playing around in well-lit daylight and doing landscaping and flower watching the cheaper 75-300 would be fine.

However, if you needing to take shoot in lesser lighting conditions say at night time sports or indoors then you may have to move away from the darker lenses and start looking at some of the faster 70-200s with 2.8 AV.

You don’t want to get something you’re not going to be able to use or be disappointed with.

hi big ..... thank's for quick reply
yup that's right , usually i use for landscape , wildlife but sometimes to take a person too
i'm planning to buy one of those lens , my friend told me that 55-250 IS better than 75-300 USM because 55-250 has an IS to reduce shaking when taking a photo ....

The 50mm extra might be a plus for wildlife, but he image quality of the 55-250 is much better then the 70-300. I don't think the 50mm makes much of a difference, but theres been times that extra 50 would be nice.

I've heard the sigma 70-300mm DG macro is better then the canon 70-300.

Refer to this thread:
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=905603

Crimzon wrote in post #10593912
The 50mm extra might be a plus for wildlife, but he image quality of the 55-250 is much better then the 70-300. I don't think the 50mm makes much of a difference, but theres been times that extra 50 would be nice.

I've heard the sigma 70-300mm DG macro is better then the canon 70-300.

yup i'm gonna seems to buy 55-250 with IS lens , but what about the 50mm ? is that wide lens ? i mean that lens is to take wide angle or can be used for any condition ? such as taking photo of flower or small reptile maybe ?

turkleten wrote in post #10593914
Refer to this thread:
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=905603

thank's for the link pal .... but can you give some suggest about those lens ? in your opinion off course ....

55-250, by far.

75-300 is worth more melted down as scrap plastic.

There is no contest. The 55-250 IS is by far the better buy.

The 50 mm referred to is the difference in the maximum focal length between the two lenses. It isn't that big a deal, especially since the 75-300 is as soft as butter beyond 250 anyway.

If it were a 50mm lens that was being discussed, which it wasn't, then no, that would not be a wide angle lens on your camera, but a short telephoto. If you want a lens for small flowers, you should consider a macro lens, although the 55-250 IS can do a decent job, giving a magnification of about 1:3.2.

I had both and the 55-250mm gives you a significantly better IQ even if you crop the photo to get the same FoV you would get with 300mm. The IS on a telephoto lens is a HUGH help. It's often the difference between using the ISO200 as opposed to ISO1600. Though I wouldn't say the 75-300mm is useless (it's quite sharp in the 75-150 range, when stopped down to f/8) there is no question that the 55-250 is significantly better and well worth the money.

+1 on the 55-250. Friend of mine has both lenses, the 75-300 rarely ever gets played with.

Shadowblade wrote in post #10594113
55-250, by far.

75-300 is worth more melted down as scrap plastic.

simple answer ....

xarqi wrote in post #10594215
There is no contest. The 55-250 IS is by far the better buy.

The 50 mm referred to is the difference in the maximum focal length between the two lenses. It isn't that big a deal, especially since the 75-300 is as soft as butter beyond 250 anyway.

If it were a 50mm lens that was being discussed, which it wasn't, then no, that would not be a wide angle lens on your camera, but a short telephoto. If you want a lens for small flowers, you should consider a macro lens, although the 55-250 IS can do a decent job, giving a magnification of about 1:3.2.

yup i heard that , 55-250 can take a small part of flower or insect .....

dsvilko wrote in post #10594234
I had both and the 55-250mm gives you a significantly better IQ even if you crop the photo to get the same FoV you would get with 300mm. The IS on a telephoto lens is a HUGH help. It's often the difference between using the ISO200 as opposed to ISO1600. Though I wouldn't say the 75-300mm is useless (it's quite sharp in the 75-150 range, when stopped down to f/8) there is no question that the 55-250 is significantly better and well worth the money.

nice answer pal , but which is longer beetwen 55-250 and 75-300 views from the body ?

asamimasa wrote in post #10594444
+1 on the 55-250. Friend of mine has both lenses, the 75-300 rarely ever gets played with.

still good 55-250 isn't it ?

antique wrote in post #10594778
nice answer pal , but which is longer beetwen 55-250 and 75-300 views from the body ?

I no longer have the 75-300mm but I would say that the 55-250 is both smaller and lighter. I can carry my 1000d, 18-55mm, 55-250mm and 50mm 1.8 in a camera bag that couldn't fit the 70-200mm f/4 alone It's an excellent prepared-for-anything travel kit.

55-250mm...the USM on the 75-300mm is not a true ring USM...so it's really debatable if it's even that much faster to begin with...the IS could actually help more...

Crimzon wrote in post #10593912
The 50mm extra might be a plus for wildlife, but he image quality of the 55-250 is much better then the 70-300. I don't think the 50mm makes much of a difference, but theres been times that extra 50 would be nice.

I've heard the sigma 70-300mm DG macro is better then the canon 70-300.

you're forgetting the 5...

antique wrote in post #10593941
thank's for the link pal .... but can you give some suggest about those lens ? in your opinion off course ....

Lol. I typed my suggestion in that thread already so here's the link:
https://photography-on-the.net …p?p=10586987&po​stcount=24

Let me know if you have any more questions.

antique wrote in post #10594778
nice answer pal , but which is longer beetwen 55-250 and 75-300 views from the body ?

Which is bigger: 250 or 300?