Lens experts - advice needed

To make a long story short - my Canon EF-S 55-250 IS lens was dropped and the mount is cracked. Canon wants $200 to fix it - which is about what I can spend on a new one. The optics were not damaged - I can use a reverse mount and take incredible macro shots.

I leave for Alaska in 16 days.

I have a Canon 60D and T5i bodies that I will be taking.

I have an 18-200 lens and a 28-135 lens (both IS). I also have a 18-55 lens.

Do I want/ need more? And if so - which of the below 2 would you recommend?

EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III Refurbished

from Canon for $69.99

or

EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS II Refurbished

from Canon for $99.99

or

EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM Refurbished

from Canon for $129.99

I really don't want to spend any money right now - but I will NOT go on this bucket list vacation to end up with half-assed photos.

Please help me be assured that I'll have enough with what I have - or help me decide what I should get.

Thanks in advance.

To make a long story short - my Canon EF-S 55-250 IS lens was dropped and the mount is cracked. Canon wants $200 to fix it - which is about what I can spend on a new one. The optics were not damaged - I can use a reverse mount and take incredible macro shots.

 

I leave for Alaska in 16 days.

 

I have a Canon 60D and T5i bodies that I will be taking.

I have an 18-200 lens and a 28-135 lens (both IS). I also have a 18-55 lens.

 

Do I want/ need more? And if so - which of the below 2 would you recommend?

 

EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III Refurbished

from Canon for $69.99

 

 

or

 

EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS II Refurbished

from Canon for $99.99

 

or

 

EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM Refurbished

from Canon for $129.99

 

I really don't want to spend any money right now - but I will NOT go on this bucket list vacation to end up with half-assed photos.

 

Please help me be assured that I'll have enough with what I have - or help me decide what I should get.

 

Thanks in advance.

I'm not a canon shooter but if it helps, here's a link to our last Alaska cruise which was shot with nothing longer than 200mm.

My Sony is 24MP so some were cropped and the 70-200 was a f/2.8 Sigma, but if you are on a tight budget, I would think that you will not come back empty-handed.

http://galleries.pptphoto.com/alaska2013

Enjoy Alaska!

Dave

200mm should be fine on a crop that's equal to a 320.

If I was in your shoes, I'd just take the 60D and the 18-200. The 18-55 isn't going to gain you any significant aperture over the 18-200 or the 28-135, and the 28-135 won't gain you any significant aperture over the 18-200. If you were going to travel with anything "x-250" and now you're looking at "x-200", I think you'll be fine.

Is it worth taking all of it for backups? Maybe, but what's it worth carrying? Would you carry the spares onto the ship, and only grab them after encountering an issue? Or would you carry a second camera and two more lenses with you all the time, while using just one camera and one lens?

As far as the choices for replacements, I'd definitely skip the 75-300 options as they're not IS. The refurbished 55-250 is a nice deal compared to repairing yours, but I don't know that I'd rush my decision to get it/something for the cruise.

If I was in your shoes, I'd just take the 60D and the 18-200. The 18-55 isn't going to gain you any significant aperture over the 18-200 or the 28-135, and the 28-135 won't gain you any significant aperture over the 18-200. If you were going to travel with anything "x-250" and now you're looking at "x-200", I think you'll be fine.

 

Is it worth taking all of it for backups? Maybe, but what's it worth carrying? Would you carry the spares onto the ship, and only grab them after encountering an issue? Or would you carry a second camera and two more lenses with you all the time, while using just one camera and one lens?

 

As far as the choices for replacements, I'd definitely skip the 75-300 options as they're not IS. The refurbished 55-250 is a nice deal compared to repairing yours, but I don't know that I'd rush my decision to get it/something for the cruise.

If the 28-135 is the IS it will gain him some stops, about 4.

If the 28-135 is the IS it will gain him some stops, about 4.

The 28-135 is IS, but an older model and IIRC only good for 2-3 stops. The 18-200 is also IS, and a newer model, good for 3-4 stops.

Checking my favorite lens review site, it seems that the 28-135 is maybe 1/3 stop faster than the 18-200 at comparable focal lengths, but they both end up at f/5.6 at or before 90mm. Having owned or borrowed both, my vote's still on the 18-200.

I have an 18-200 lens and a 28-135 lens (both IS). I also have a 18-55 lens.

The 28-135 is IS, but an older model and IIRC only good for 2-3 stops. The 18-200 is also IS, and a newer model, good for 3-4 stops.

 

Checking my favorite lens review site, it seems that the 28-135 is maybe 1/3 stop faster than the 18-200 at comparable focal lengths, but they both end up at f/5.6 at or before 90mm. Having owned or borrowed both, my vote's still on the 18-200.

Fair enough I am not particularly familiar with the 18-200 as I shoot full frame and they are EF-S.

If you have an 18-200mm... I would save your money for another future lens (ie primes? f/2.8 zooms?).

I may be tempted by the 75-300 for $70 though.

I may be tempted by the 75-300 for $70 though.

Just to say you've got 300mm? A review of the USM variant includes phrases like "very soft wide open", "sharpness decreases as you zoom to 300mm", "focus speed is OK but not fast", "If you can afford no more than this lens, you can capture memories".

Save up some dough and get a 70-200 f/4, with or without IS depending on your budget and needs. You'll be a lot happier.

You all are awesome. I VERY appreciate your input.

I will go with what I have. THANK YOU!!!

Just to say you've got 300mm? A review of the USM variant includes phrases like "very soft wide open", "sharpness decreases as you zoom to 300mm", "focus speed is OK but not fast", "If you can afford no more than this lens, you can capture memories".

 

Save up some dough and get a 70-200 f/4, with or without IS depending on your budget and needs. You'll be a lot happier.

Nope because for that $$ you get 300mm of course you could just but the 300L

Nope because for that $$ you get 300mm of course you could just but the 300L

70-200/4 is $650. 70-200/4IS is $1150. 70-300L is $1350.

If all you want is memories, go for the cheap 70-300s. If you want good pictures, go with something worthwhile.

70-200/4 is $650. 70-200/4IS is $1150. 70-300L is $1350.

 

If all you want is memories, go for the cheap 70-300s. If you want good pictures, go with something worthwhile.

Or even something like my 100-400 L or the 200-400 with built in 1.4 [that I borrow off a mate], but there are still times when the smaller 75-300 is a better choice and gives results I can live with.

Also I cant pick up either of those for $70 and sometimes budget wins.

why don't you just go to Borrow Lense or Lens Rental and get a lens that will make Alaska memorable

John

Not wanting to high jack this thread, but regarding the same lenses, leaving for Canada New England cruise in a few days and was going to take my Rebel as well as the 6D so that I would have use of the 18-200 on the rebel for zoom shots. (don't have long zoom for 6D).

What do you think about getting the Canon 70-300mm EF f/4-5.6 IS USM to use on the 6D so that I can leave the other behind. It's not only saves taking the camera and lens but batteries charger etc.

I know the lens is not L quality and I could be wrong but the above lens on a 6D should be comparable or better IQ than the 18-200 on the rebel??

Also, I take raw and jpg, but the jpgs from the rebel are woeful, another reason I don't want to use the rebel. The jpg from the 6D is quite good.

Not wanting to high jack this thread, but regarding the same lenses, leaving for Canada New England cruise in a few days and was going to take my Rebel as well as the 6D so that I would have use of the 18-200 on the rebel for zoom shots. (don't have long zoom for 6D).

 

What do you think about getting the Canon 70-300mm EF f/4-5.6 IS USM to use on the 6D so that I can leave the other behind. It's not only saves taking the camera and lens but batteries charger etc.

 

I know the lens is not L quality and I could be wrong but the above lens on a 6D should be comparable or better IQ than the 18-200 on the rebel??

 

Also, I take raw and jpg, but the jpgs from the rebel are woeful, another reason I don't want to use the rebel. The jpg from the 6D is quite good.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-300mm-f-4-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx seems to compare it most to the 55-250, which would be a better lens than the 18-200 (since it's not a 10x superzoom). I'd say it's a toss-up...if you're not sure what to buy, why not rent a 70-200/4IS or 70-300L for your trip, and decide later? Maybe even contemplate selling the 18-200 and Rebel to fund something better than the non-L 70-300.

I wouldn't get the EF 75-300mm. It gets poor reviews. The EF 70-300mm is a whole different animal and could be an acceptable option.

I used a 6D (full frame) with a EF 70-200mm F4L IS in Alaska. I wished I had a longer lens for the wildlife.

The EF-S 55-250 is like a 88-400 equivalent on a crop sensor camera. The 70-300mm is like a 112-480mm on a crop sensor. Since you already have the EF-S 18-200mm, I think one of the 300mm lens options will be more different than the 200mm that you already have.

Thanks for all comments, it's appreciated.

I bought the 70-300 IS USM today. Now I can leave the Rebel at home and only take the 6D. First impression is the focus mechanism is quite noisy compared to the 24-105 and other canon lenses I have. Focus speed is quite acceptable although not as crisp as others.

I will post some pics on my return, hopefully some pics worth posting 😀