Canon EF 75-300mm f5.6

katyjo

Hi everyone im new to this forum & VERY new to photography. Just to give you an idea of how much of a novice i am, I bought a Canon EOS 450D abt. 2 years ago have only used the 18-55mm f4-5.6 lens that came with it & automatic settings. Until 2 days ago i did not know what aperture was nor ever heard of an f stop!!!

I cant get over the price of lenses :eek: but have just seen a EF 75-300mm 1:4-5.6 for sale on ebay for €113 looked up some reviews which are very mixed. Alot seem to think its a pile of you know what & that the 70-200mm f2.8 is a much better BUT its far too expensive for me at the mo.

I take photos of my kids really not much landscape or wildlife the odd close up of a nice flower is all. Have enrolled on an online course so want a lens thats a good all rounder really.

apart from the f stop (?) being different whats so great about the 70-200mm? i would have thought the 75-300mm would be better doesnt that have a longer zoom distance???? I wont be anywhere particularly dark so would the f5.6 not be good enough?

would welcome any advice/comments, but please remember i know very little!!

KJ.

TelePaul

katyjo wrote: »

Hi everyone im new to this forum & VERY new to photography. Just to give you an idea of how much of a novice i am, I bought a Canon EOS 450D abt. 2 years ago have only used the 18-55mm f4-5.6 lens that came with it & automatic settings. Until 2 days ago i did not know what aperture was nor ever heard of an f stop!!!

I cant get over the price of lenses :eek: but have just seen a EF 75-300mm 1:4-5.6 for sale on ebay for €113 looked up some reviews which are very mixed. Alot seem to think its a pile of you know what & that the 70-200mm f2.8 is a much better BUT its far too expensive for me at the mo.

I take photos of my kids really not much landscape or wildlife the odd close up of a nice flower is all. Have enrolled on an online course so want a lens thats a good all rounder really.

apart from the f stop (?) being different whats so great about the 70-200mm? i would have thought the 75-300mm would be better doesnt that have a longer zoom distance???? I wont be anywhere particularly dark so would the f5.6 not be good enough?

would welcome any advice/comments, but please remember i know very little!!

KJ.

The price of lenses are generally a product of their functionality. In the days of film, the camera body was nothing more than a metal housing for a precision optic. I'm guessing the 70-200 telephoto was part of Canon's L series which use synthetic fluorite, and Super UD glass - they're as good as it gets and of a professional standard. The lower minimum aperture will also let you operate the lens with less light, which is quite important considering that zooms need a fast shutter speed to reduce hand-shake.

I would suggest that you look at the Canon 55-250 F4-5.6 IS EF S zoom. It features image stabilisation and seems to me to be of reasonably good quality. Another alternative would be the Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 DG Macro but I don't think it features image stabilization (useful in reducing handshake and ultimately makes for better handling in low-light).

pitachu

I have the Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 DG Macro that TelePaul mentions and I have had no problems with it at all. At the time I bought it I looked at the Canon equivelant and from what I saw the Sigma provided better value for money.

I always think that when you are starting out you don't need to spend huge amounts on lenses, those available at the bottom end of the market (sticking with the bigger brands) are perfectly fine. If you find yourself using the lens a lot then you might consider / be able to justify the more expensive model.

Pete