Upload & Sell: On
| p.1 #5 · How are the 75-300mm/18-200mm for f/5.6 and up? |
In this instance it isn't really a budget issue, it is more a cost:use ratio. If I am only using that lens to make, for instance, 300.00 worth of images in a year, I can't really justify the cost of a $1000+ lens. Especially when that money can be used on lenses in the ranges that I shoot with daily. Most lenses are fairly sharp in their mid-range aperture so that is why I was considering snagging a lesser model. It lets me get the shots without feeling like I am going to have to amortize the cost of the...Show more →
I've a friend that shoots with the 18-55 and 55-250, she uses Rebel bodies. She has shot with my 28-90 and 75-300, did so before getting the 55-250. We compared images and the 55-250 has a bit less CA when viewed at 100%, stopped down a bit the 55-250 had a slight edge in corner sharpness and it's contrast was a bit better.
The 70-300 IS non-L is a better lens then the two listed above. I shot with one for three years on my film bodies and for a few months on a 40D. I sold the lens after comparing images from it and the 70-200 f4L IS which I bought with the 40D...imho this 70-200 is stellar.
If you don't need the extra mm from 200-300 and/or IS you might look at a used 70-200 f4L. It will be around the same price as the 70-300 IS non-L, and it will have a better resale value later on if you want/need to sell it.
If you need the extra 100mm reach, get the 70-300 IS, the only very minor quibble for me was you can't just grab the focus ring and focus, there's no FTM, you must turn AF off via the switch...otherwise it's quite a nice bit of glass!