Jump to content


Photo

lenses


  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 armypb4

armypb4

    serious face

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,014 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 01 October 2011 - 01:11 PM

okay so right now i am still exploring dslr's, and i was looking at a package that was a t3i with a 55-250mm lense and the other is the t3i with a 75-300mm lense. so my question is, which one will end up treating me better? its only 5o extra mm of zoom right? but is that going to be a major difference? and are there any percs that come with getting the smaller lense?
thank a lot
Pain only lasts a minute. Glory lasts a lifetime
V force grillz, Dye C4 jersey,JT 08 pants, Empire hinge pack, socks and sandals, Ninja peanut tank, black BL vice with UL barrel, empire magna drive

#2 IwannaWAFFLE

IwannaWAFFLE

    Mad scientist of gun mod ideas

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,391 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Island, NYC,NY,United States, Earth, Milky Way Galaxy

Posted 01 October 2011 - 06:03 PM

Do they both have IS?

Immunity to effect, cause, internet porn.


#3 armypb4

armypb4

    serious face

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,014 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 01 October 2011 - 09:07 PM

no, the larger one doesnt the smaller does. it would appear, IwannaWaffel, you have answered my question.
but, there is a 70-300mm that does have image stablization, so will it be worth it to get that one instead or just save 400$ and get the 55-250mm?
Pain only lasts a minute. Glory lasts a lifetime
V force grillz, Dye C4 jersey,JT 08 pants, Empire hinge pack, socks and sandals, Ninja peanut tank, black BL vice with UL barrel, empire magna drive

#4 IwannaWAFFLE

IwannaWAFFLE

    Mad scientist of gun mod ideas

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,391 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Island, NYC,NY,United States, Earth, Milky Way Galaxy

Posted 01 October 2011 - 09:22 PM

I have a 55-250mm with IS, same lens that included i assume. it works fine..
also depends what your needs are, i think the 70-300 would be more of something like a wildlife thing, where you can get closer to an animal..
I say save the money, later buy some nicer lenses overall.(if you get into photography more)

Immunity to effect, cause, internet porn.


#5 Pakistani

Pakistani

    www.AliZaman.com

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,237 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Richmond, VA

Posted 02 October 2011 - 02:53 AM

if you are mainly going to be shooting sports, IS is completely and utterly a waste of money.
for sports, you'll typically be shooting so fast that the IS won't do anything.

my personal suggestion would be to pick a lens based more off of how sharp it is, rather than its focal length.
for paintball, all you will need is a 70-200mm, so anything that covers that range will work absolutely fine.

from what i've read, the 75-300 is a garbage lens in terms of sharpness. i've used the 55-200.
it wasnt a terrible lens, but considering you can get a used 70-200 F4L non-IS for not much more, the value just isnt there.

my suggestion is to shop around for a 70-200 F4L non-IS. the constant aperture will work wonders for you and its one of the sharpest lenses in canon's line up.

KPS Paintball VCU Rams Richmond Rage

If you need help with a Dye gun, PM me!





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users