EF-S 55-250mm or EF 75-300mm for a first tele lens?

[Ruostunut kokis]

Alright... So I've been wondering whether should I buy either the EF-S 55-250mm lens or the EF 75-300mm lens for a tele lens? This would be my second lens to own (first one being the obvious kit lens), but it's a bit difficult to decide which one should I buy.

 

I somewhat prefer the 55-250mm lens more, as for around the same price (more or less than 100€ as used, both of those lenses can be had at around that price around here), it's possible than a used 55-250mm lens with IS is being sold (note: maybe is being sold, doesn't necessarily will) while at the same price the 75-300mm one lacks it. Plus I probably stay at the crop sensor DSLRs (currently using a Canon 1000D), so I like it that 55-250mm lens shows the accurate focal length equivalent, and not being multiplied by 1,6 on EF lenses ((?) so for a APS-C sensor DSLR the 75-300mm would be more like 120-480mm equivalent? Or would it be like that?)

 

However the extra reach of the 75-300mm lens sounds nice, and, again; would it be like 120-480mm equivalent for crop sensors or the exact 75-300mm like it is for Full frame? I'm a bit confused about what the actual focal length equivalent would really be...

 

Oh... And for those saying I should buy the cheap "nifty-fifty" first, I'll buy that later, but not now.

[Fate]

Anything after like 250mm on the 75-300 is just ridiculously unsharp unless you do not crop AT ALL and even then it's still not the best quality. At other lengths the lens does pretty well. I personally haven't used the 55-250 but I've heard it's much better so I would say go with the 55-250. 

 

Also if you're doing any type of video without IS, well, good luck because it's going to be ridiculously shaky.

[Ruostunut kokis]

Anything after like 250mm on the 75-300 is just ridiculously unsharp unless you do not crop AT ALL and even then it's still not the best quality. At other lengths the lens does pretty well. I personally haven't used the 55-250 but I've heard it's much better so I would say go with the 55-250. 

 

Also if you're doing any type of video without IS, well, good luck because it's going to be ridiculously shaky.

Not gonna be shooting videos (yet at least): 1000D lacks video mode (also the live view is in manual focus only, as it lacks contrast detection AF...)

[ZetZet]

70mm on crop is so much zoom while 55mm is still usable in closer distances I would go with that.

 

 

Not gonna be shooting videos (yet at least): 1000D lacks video mode (in fact live view is in manual focus only, lacks contrast detection AF too...)

 

no one films with af on dslrs though.

[Ruostunut kokis]

70mm on crop is so much zoom while 55mm is still usable in closer distances I would go with that.

 

 

 

no one films with af on dslrs though.

Umm... The latter statement is a bit false: inexperienced shooters record videos with AF. Otherwise everyone goes full manual.

[ShadowCaptain]

On my old SLR (400d) I keep a Sigma 18-200mm f3.5-5.6 OS lens should cost a similar amount to the Canon you are looking at

 

there are VERY few reasons for you to need like 480mm, you will need a tripod to get anything useable, and with it lacking the low end you will be constantly swapping lenses as soon as anything comes close

 

If you want to get into telephoto there are much better options IMO getting a prime telephoto yields much better results as its much faster lens in general

 

Maybe look into selling your kit lens and getting something like that I recommended, means you haven't got to carry a bag of lenses everywhere,

and get the nifty fifty for your shallow depth of field shots or shots that you need to be extra sharp

 

If you want to see some shots from that lens from me, I can put some up later?