Canon's 75-300mm comes in quite a bit cheaper than this lens. Is there a reason to pay extra for this one?
757260
Most prices I have seen for the Canon brand is around $650. If you can get it cheaper than this tameron by all means get it. I bought this for my Nikon it's a great lens I only bought it because it was a nice lens at a cheaper cost.
757261
I looked at this exact same lens you are and I'm so glad i went with this one the you get much more like range in zoom ,I've never had a problem with this lens and it was worth it to spend a little more on a nicer lens
757262
Canon equipment overall prices are a little bit cheaper than Nikon Equipment, However Tamaron lenses are made better than the stock Cannon lens and there is a 180x300 Macro auto focus in this lens. This also is cheaper than the 70x300 Nikon made lens, for the budget minded enthusiast
757263
Is the cannon macro/telephoto? That could be a factor. Im not sure. I dont have this lens yet. Though it will be my next lens once I get this return issue with the Sigma resolved.
535931
There's also a 35mm f/2 from Canon, which can be had for around $230. But one thing to remember about the Canon non-L primes is that the back lens usually isn't coated for digital. Digital sensors are a lot more reflective than film, so unless your optics are properly coated exposures with bright light sources in the frame can receive nasty green "ghosts." This can really ruin an image. Sigma's DC lenses seem to be coated properly. Furthermore, the 35mm is just a little bit too "long" to be a normal lens. One of the great things about shooting normal is you can open both your eyes and see pretty much the same scene. You can't do that with a 35, your camera eye is too close. Finally, realize that the smaller sensor on a digital means your need a wider aperture to acheive the same depth of field effects as a full frame camera. This is the only lens under $800 that approximates the abilities of a 50mm f/1.8 on a film camera.
1936611
The 55-300 obviously has more bang for the buck. Go with the 55-300 for the savings if you don't plan to be on the 300mm end very much. It's best about 270mm. The 70-300mm is better than the 55-300mm on the 300mm end.
1582486
Brandon. It doesn't say when you asked this question but I figured the answer out. First, I just purchased the last one that a storefront had for $289, so i'm sorry if I stole the lens from you :X. Second, the price is going to be interesting on this lens from here on out. It has been discontinued due to a recently announced new model. The question is how much will this new model cost? To my knowledge that hasn't been answered. I decided to snag it at this price because if the new model is upwards of $400 then it out of my price range anyway. If the new model comes out sub $400 this older model might tank in price. Supply and demand will dictate based on that information. As for big stores, I don't see you having much luck. Most did firesales and liquidated their stock already to mitigate the price risk. I can tell you that this is my first fixed lens for general photography. It hasnt even arrived yet, but when it does I plan to test it out. If its not to my liking I can resell it to you at the price I purchased + the tax I paid + shipping. I would generally just return it but that lowers your chance of it ending up in your hands. If this was a recent post just come back to me and I can show you proof that it hasn't even arrived yet :). Take care!
1494448
the 28-300 is a full frame lens. It's bigger, heavier and more expensive. Most reviews indicate that the picture quality is almost the same. Why would you want it unless you have a full frame camera?
487011
Gray market means that this lens is not distributed officially by Canon in the USA, so you don't have warranty of Canon USA, that's why is cheaper.The lens is the same lens, so if you don't care about the warranty go for it.Good luck!
1332328
There is a silver version of the lens which can be a little less expensive. Or sony has a. 55-210mm lens which is much cheaper.
1380192
Partially in response to Paula J's answer below, I have had both lenses. The 70-300L is actually sharper in the center than the fixed 300L prime. The 300L prime is sharper on the edges and corners. If you want the F4 aperture at 300mm, then you have to go with the prime. If you don't need this, then newer 70-300L. It is lighter, more compact, has a better image stabilizer and gives you the versatility of a zoom.
91302
I love this lens, but yes... I DO think you should save up for the IS version. I wish I would have. I was just a beginner not knowing what I was purchasing at the time. I am totally kicking myself now. :( Its not terrible, but I think the IS would be much better. In my honest opinion
1640068
From what I can tell, the cheaper version is smaller and lighter. But, I don't know if that necessarily makes it a better lens. Here is the link to sigmas page for the more expensive lens: http://www.sigmaphoto.com/product/18-200mm-f35-63-ii-dc-os-hsm And here is the link to the less expensive one: http://www.sigmaphoto.com/product/18-200mm-f35-63-dc-macro-os-hsm-c I have the more expensive lens, and I have used it exclusively since I bought it. I've never shot with the other one though, so I can't accurately compare one to the other.
313060
The first two answers are spot on. I bought this lens because it is far less expensive and I use a tripod most of the time.
1749968
No, but you can get an identical third party one for about $5 by searching amazon and/or eBay. You can't beat this lense for the $. Mine was better than expected at 300mm.
43150
Not sure. I was a Canon user. IMHO one of the biggest reasons to buy this format is the smaller lens sizes. Equal quality, less size, less cost. Win win.
1671729
I used this lens on a safari in Tanzania, and was extremely, pleased with the hand held shots I took at 300mm. It is much shorter than a standard 70-300, a bit heavier, but not that much so. the quality on my shots were fantastic. I'm an amateur photographer and I'm very pleased I got this lens. I actually got it because when I wanted to buy a 70-300 IS lens there was none to be had, so I paid more for this lens and very glad I did. Hope this helps.
1809711
since the aperture (f) is the same for both, the difference is the zoom. the 75 starts magnified more and can zoom in more than a 50-250. so 75-300 starts closer to the object and ends farther
1477491
Actually I find out the the much cheaper Canon 55-250mm IS lens which is on sale today for 144 bucks does a superb job of taking portraits as well. You can set it to 100mm to get equivalent of this lens (of course you can't go down to f2.8 but for your situation you don't want to) also you get an excellent telephoto lens - just not a MACRO lens but again that's not what you're looking for. I would save my 300 bucks and get that lens instead - I can tell you as i have both these lenses.
1873699
I had the EF 75-300 mm lens before, and there is no way you can take pictures indoor with it. Even at 75 mm, it is way too zoomed in. This is a more versatile lens that can do both telephoto and wide-angle without the hassle of changing lenses each time. Also, this lens has Image Stabilization, which the 75-300 does not have.