Canon T3i lens question

I am looking to buy this camera and right now there are many stores that have bundle deals. Can someone help explain the difference in a EF 75-300mm f/4 5.6 111 telephoto lens and a 55-250 f/4 5.6 IS optical stabilizer telephoto lens. Thank you so much!

I am looking to buy this camera and right now there are many stores that have bundle deals. Can someone help explain the difference in a EF 75-300mm f/4 5.6 111 telephoto lens and a 55-250 f/4 5.6 IS optical stabilizer telephoto lens. Thank you so much!

The 55-250 is a stabilized lens which will really help keep your pictures better focused , especially when zoomed in for a close up shot at distance. I'd say go with the IS lens.

Is this a decent zoom lens? I currently have a Canon SX40 with a 35x zoom. Would this be better? Thanks for your response!

Is this a decent zoom lens? I currently have a Canon SX40 with a 35x zoom. Would this be better? Thanks for your response!

You will have more zoom with your current camera. The advantage of the SLR is the quality and the ability to add a variety of upgraded lenses - if you want to. Your camera is 12 mp and the T3i 18 mp . The lenses in question are light and decent enough to get some good results. These two pictures were taken with the lenses that you are looking at.

If you don't have you heart set on the T3i , you may want to consider the SL 1 that I have reviewed here :

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=1958377

I have an SX-40 and an 18-270 IS lens for my Canon DLSR. The SX 40 has a more powerful zoom. It is something like the equivalent of 840mm. However, the DLSR will give you more control and the other advanced features of the DLSR. 250mm will cover most of your zoom needs. However, I have to say that the SX-40 is great to take pictures from ship to shore. For example, I took the following picture from about 10 blocks away with the SX-40

http://i1233.photobucket.com/albums/ff386/mmkbx75/IMG_0197.jpg

No way my 18-270 gets that close. I guess my bottom line is that everything has its purpose and it depends what you want to use the lens for.

Thanks everyone! I am just starting to try to get off auto on my camera. We are going to Alaska in May. I get a little confused on my SX40 but I may be just as confused with a DSLR but seems like more classes want a dslr. Any advice appreciated!

The 75-300mm is rumored to be the worst lens Canon has ever made.

There is a reason the 75 - 300 can be sold in a package for $75. I would go with the IS lens.

I am looking to buy this camera and right now there are many stores that have bundle deals. Can someone help explain the difference in a EF 75-300mm f/4 5.6 111 telephoto lens and a 55-250 f/4 5.6 IS optical stabilizer telephoto lens. Thank you so much!

you would probably be better off with the 55-250 lens, both are average quality. The 55-250 would be a bit lighter and more compact and match up nicely with the 18-55 kit lens. you can look for some reviews on the lenses in question at different sites online if you want to read user's experiences with them. check the reviews on fredmiranda.com or on theimagingresource.com has good reviews also.

Is this a decent zoom lens? I currently have a Canon SX40 with a 35x zoom. Would this be better? Thanks for your response!

It depends on your definition of decent. I've been building photography as a plan B career for 6+ years now, and the 75-300 f/4-5.6 III lens would probably be considered "poo" to me while the 55-250 f/4-5.6 IS lens would be considered "eh", but I've got higher standards/expectations AND I'm willing to carry heavier gear. That said, the 55-250 is a good value and a reasonable performer as long as you have modest or better light. It probably won't do well indoors unless you don't zoom in.

Technically speaking, the 75-300 or 55-250mm refers to the focal length. 50mm is considered by many to match what the human eye can see, though on the Rebel series Canon DSLRs, the two-digit Canon (60D/70D models), and the 7D, 30mm is effectively closer to what the human eye can see. Therefore, the 75-300 can zoom in to about 10x narrower than what you see, whereas the 18-55mm kit lens can zoom out to about 1.5x wider than what you can see. There's a 10-22mm lens that'll go much wider.

The f/4-5.6 means at the wide end of the range, the aperture can be as big as f/4, which is a modest size. The 5.6 means that "fully zoomed in", the aperture can only be as big as f/5.6, which isn't a lot of light. It's expressed as f/ to make it relative across certain variables. Your camera needs a certain "quantity" of light to get a proper picture - changing the ISO adjusts that quantity needed, but otherwise the only two ways to fill up the virtual light bucket is the size of the lens opening and the time that the shutter is open. However, as you zoom in, you need the shutter to be finished quicker to avoid a blurry shot.

The 55-250mm lens adds Image Stabilization, which drastically improves the amount of time that you can keep the shutter open without getting a blurry shot (unless you've had too much coffee or you aren't trying to hold steady). That's the IS on the end of the model. The 75-300 has a III because it's the third edition. Frankly, I can't believe they've updated it twice, as it's still "poo".

Take a look at great sites like http://www.the-digital-picture.com if you're interested in reading reviews about the lenses, and http://www.lensrentals.com if you might be interested in renting a lens for your trip. That can be a great way to have something for your trip that you can't otherwise justify, or to try something out before buying. I'm renting the Canon 200-400 f/4 with built-in 1.4x TC this weekend so I can become familiar with it before our July Alaska cruise. I'm considering it for the cruise, so this way I can try in on a shorter adventure and see if I like it.

Originally Posted by kjeanne2001

 

Is this a decent zoom lens? I currently have a Canon SX40 with a 35x zoom. Would this be better? Thanks for your response!

You will have more zoom with your current camera. The advantage of the SLR is the quality and the ability to add a variety of upgraded lenses - if you want to. Your camera is 12 mp and the T3i 18 mp . The lenses in question are light and decent enough to get some good results. These two pictures were taken with the lenses that you are looking at.

If you don't have you heart set on the T3i , you may want to consider the SL 1 that I have reviewed here :

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=1958377

I am looking at the SL1. Thanks for the link to your review. It appears it can do everything the T3i can but since I am a novice can you tell me what it can't do that the T3i can? Thanks!

I am looking at the SL1. Thanks for the link to your review. It appears it can do everything the T3i can but since I am a novice can you tell me what it can't do that the T3i can? Thanks!

Good question kjeanne2001. To me the thing that I liked better with the T3i is the articulating screen. It's handy for "selfies" and taking a picture around a corner or holding it above a crowd and still see the photo that you are taking in the screen.

Peety... an EXCELLENT write up.

I had the 55-135mm that came with my 60D and wanted something better. I was very tempted by the 70-300mm because of the price. But in the end, I bought the 55-250mm IS. Why?

- it has the IS - which really does help you shoot slower shots. I've taken 1/10 sec handheld without blur.

- you get what you pay for... less than a $100 lens is "poo"

- I don't have to change lenses as often. It avoids the time to swap lenses (that whale will be gone by the time you swap them, even if you're fast). And it avoids opening your camera body to dust, dirt, and water.

The difference between 250 to 300mm is minimal on a 18mp camera. Unless you are looking to print 11"x14" or larger or are professional. You can crop the shot to zoom in that difference. And since you're not a pro, you have a better chance of having something fast moving be in your frame with it set wider.

The 75-300mm is rumored to be the worst lens Canon has ever made.

This is basically a universal truth. The 75-300 is the type of lens that you use for absurdly stupid stuff until it breaks and you turn it into a coffee mug.

The 55-250 is regarded as one of the better budget options if you are looking for a zoom telephoto and aren't looking to spend a lot of money. However, if you can stretch your budget a bit more, the 70-200/f4L IS can be found for under $1000 on ebay or used. The 70-200F4 is regarded as one of the hidden gems in the canon roster due to it's fantastic price-to-performance ratio.

That said, if you can avoid the 75-300, do it. The 55-250 has been a popular tele-zoom for entry-level photographers for a while now for a reason: it's not too bad for the price and covers a fairly useful range.

I am looking at the SL1. Thanks for the link to your review. It appears it can do everything the T3i can but since I am a novice can you tell me what it can't do that the T3i can? Thanks!

The SL1 is slightly newer than the T3i, which should improve image quality a bit (manufacturers are constantly trying to improve across their entire product family in a big competitive race). It's got a little better frame rate, and a little better buffer for continuous shooting. There's no optional battery grip available, so your only option to keep shooting beyond one battery is to swap batteries when needed (a grip holds two, so you can go twice as long before battery swaps and it offers an easier grip for vertical shooting); this also means if you rent or buy some of the larger (and heavier lenses), you'll find the combo to be hard to hold/balance comfortably.

I'd encourage you to visit a Best Buy or camera store and touch these. Also, T3i is about two generations old (replaced by T4i and then T5i); I recommend buying either a current model or at most one generation old. The newer units are becoming much more responsive, which is hard to measure in a spec but I'd say is fundamental to the enjoyment of the camera.

There are lots of good photo sites out there. Do a Google search to find reviews of each lens. That should help you a lot.

DON

Well what started out as a question about lenses turned into me seriously looking at a SL1. I am going this weekend to look at it and have found the best deals for my area. You really helped me a bunch...but watch out because if I get this new camera I am sure I will have a lot of questions. :)

Well what started out as a question about lenses turned into me seriously looking at a SL1. I am going this weekend to look at it and have found the best deals for my area. You really helped me a bunch...but watch out because if I get this new camera I am sure I will have a lot of questions. :)

Happy hunting kjeanne ! Good advice to look and handle the camera in person. You may want to think of questions in advance to ask the sales person. There are some good videos on you tube also . Here's one that helped me some.

On our European Cruise I had a new T4i with a 18-135MM IS STM lens. I shot the whole trip with that one lens and never had any problems. IS lenses make better pictures for those of us that cannot hold the camera steady or use a tripod which is a real pain. The T3i is now 2 generations old and the T4i will be soon. All of the manufacturers come out with new goodies to keep the market hopping. Best Buy or a local Photo Professional shop is a good place to do Hand's On check outs of the various cameras. Just never settle for Digital Zoom!

IS lenses make better pictures for those of us that cannot hold the camera steady or use a tripod which is a real pain.

A quick word of warning: IS is definitely a benefit, but depending on how much light you have, it's easy to let IS "move" you from the world of blurry PICTURES to the world of blurry SUBJECTS. It's not a solution for fast motion, so HS/collegiate sports are probably dependent upon good aperture and/or good ISO capability, and the same goes for some wildlife.

The T3i is now 2 generations old and the T4i will be soon.

Definitely a good point. I tell people to get either a current model or no more than one generation old; there's just so much improvement (beyond basic specs) that it's not worth the old stuff.

Definitely a good point. I tell people to get either a current model or no more than one generation old; there's just so much improvement (beyond basic specs) that it's not worth the old stuff.

Realistically, especially for a beginning photographer, the performance difference between the T3i and the T4/5i (and let's even throw the T2i in) is marginal at best. The T4/5i has slightly better ISO performance whereas the T3i has better color depth and DR. Most of the real benefits/upgrades come in the form of features. The T3i has a flip out screen, while the T5i adds touch to that. The T5i has in-camera HDR. The T3i is cheaper (leaving more money for a better lens like the 17-55 or a telezoom like the 55-250), but it really depends on what you value.

Honestly, it's kind of a toss up when it comes to the 3 digit canons. If you want every bell and whistle available, go for the T5i. If you aren't sure if you want/need that many things going on, go T3i. The camera will not hold you back, and by the time it does, it really doesn't matter whether you got the T5i or the T3i....because your next upgrade is going to be the same :P

Realistically, especially for a beginning photographer, the performance difference between the T3i and the T4/5i (and let's even throw the T2i in) is marginal at best.

If you re-read the post you quoted, you'll see that I said newer cameras have a lot of upgrades ASIDE from specs and such. They're more responsive, the menus are sorted in an easier format, the buttons are shifted to more logical and anatomical positions, there's more customization. Screens are brighter, with more pixels and better contrast. Custom exposure "presets" are more usable. IMHO, all of this matters to the DSLR buyer.