70-300 v. 75-300: Can someone tell me why Canon makes both?
1542987
75-300mm IS is the older version and it has been around ways back. The 70-300mm IS is the newest version which has newer technology building in. I had both of them. the 70-300mm seems like having better auto focus on my rebel xt than the older version. I guess that justified the $200 difference.
1400243
I was curious myself, so this is what I found on "Wikipedia" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EF_75-300mm_lens It looks as though there's not much difference. The "II" minimum aperture is f/45. The "III" minimum aperture is f/32 to f/45. Neither model have "IS" (Image Stabilizer) nor "USM" (Ultra Sonic Motor) which is fine for me, because I almost always use a tripod with any telephoto lens
767103
If you mean Canon 70-300 (vs. 75-300), then the answer is yes, it fits nicely. I don't know anything about a 75-300 lens.
1873695
These lens are totally different. With the 18-200 you are covering a large range of view. You easily can use it in your living room and take a family portrait and in a few seconds later go to your backyard and get a quickly close up of a bird without changing lens or exposing the camera and your lens to moist. So, if you a plan to shoot wildlife or subjects located far away you need the 75-300. Otherwise, i would recommend the 18-200. I hope this help ; )
2104518
Hi Ann! Well the main differences are that the 25 uses AA batteries and the 30 requires a proprietary battery. This means that if you run out of battery power with the 30 you either have another (expensive) proprietary battery or you wait until the battery recharges( a couple of hours) before you get to shoot again. With the 25 you just pop into your local convenience store, buy a set of AA's and you are back shooting again. Me, I carry three sets of hybrid rechargeable batteries so it is unlikely I will ever run out of power, but if I do... The RAW option is good if you like spending hours and hours behind your computer screen making the "perfect" picture. I do not so I opted for the 25( I have had three cameras with RAW and have learned that shooting and tweaking is more fun than the drudgery of manipulating and converting RAW files). The only other difference is that the 30 has a slightly larger viewfinder which would be nice if I did not have to buy the extra proprietary battery(nearly 25 percent of the cameras purchase price each-and I would need three total i.e. and extra hundred bucks) instead of the three sets of set of four hybrid AA's(way less than the price of one of the 30's batteries). So if lots of extra work-time, extra expensive back-up batteries to make sure you never run out of power on a shoot and a slightly bigger viewfinder are worth it to you then the 30 is the better camera. Oh, did I mention the 30 also costs thirty percent more to buy than the 25? So the Hs25EXR is the choice for a fun camera that will do 99 percent everything the HS30EXR will do AND it will do it for less money to buy, be less work( i.e. more fun!), cheaper to power(I get 500 plus shots per set of fully charged Hybrids-mostly using the eye-level finder). The HS25EXR is the one I bought for all those reasons and more. Either way they will both be fun and that is after all the whole point of a Super duper super zoom, right?
1418334
i would say the major difference in price is because of the build quality..i have used this dslr kit and i was really happy with everything..and the canon 70-200 should fitas you have a lot of space to move your camera body back and forth.
2022115
I haven't tried it on a 70-300, but I have used it on a Nikon 55-200 af-s lens and the pictures always come out great. The only problem, as others have mentioned is that the autofocus often gets jumpy, and in some circumstances it won't autofocus at all. If you are prepared to use manual focus you'll have no problem.
258329
I saw that also. I want to say the ones I had checked were in the 308**** range if I'm remembering right. 30** for sure. Bummer. I'm running out of summer and I've got the itch for a DSLR. I may go for the Canon T1i. But I really like the user menu Nikon uses. That and the pictures seem better.
467108
I was faced with this exact problem and chose the 700. Here are my reasons. The 700 has a longer lens but the 800 has a wider lens. For my shooting purposes, longer is definitely more useful. You should think about what kind of shots you're likely to shoot and decide based on that.The 800 has a newer sensor and higher ISO capabilities. The higher ISO enables you to shoot in dark light so if you often shoot at night, that might be something to think about. I doubt the newer sensor is worth the $80. It's not like the 700 had a terrible sensor.
1316305
Yes. They are about the same although you lose a stop of aperture with the 70-300. The maximum aperture is f/5.6 instead of f/4. The 70-300 lens is only f/4 near the 70mm end. Otherwise, optically in terms of sharpness, it's about the same.
873523
If you're going to take many photos of people you might want to go the 18-140. It is better for portraits. The 55-300 is awesome for scenery but its tough to use for close personal shots.
904825
My thanks for your comments as well. I spent and hour looking around the web for exactly the info you've provided. Olympus sure doesn't provide anything like this on their website. What I thought was really strange was that the 300M is listed as Mac compatible on the Olympus Europe site and only Windoz on the U.S. site. Anyway, you've sold another DS-30...
1069237
Sharper by a discernible amount. Lighter! Faster focusing. 70-300 maintains a significant advantage in close focusing though. I have both lenses. If you want to shoot bugs and flowers, 70-300 is the way to go. Birds, sports, the moon, 75-300.
1936610
1. 55-300 has both auto and mannual setting on it, but 70-300 has M/A and M. M/A means instant manual overwrite, M/A is pretty important feature. 70-300 is better for sports shoot.2. 70-300 has a "G" in it, which is not good : http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/nikortek.htm#g, but that is new "Norm" that Nikon decide to do.3. 55-300(309$) is 200$ cheaper than 70-300(509$) based on amazon on 07/30/2011.4. 55-300(1.2lb) is 0.4 lb lighter than 70-300(1.6lbs) due to its plastic part(mount etc)5. 55-300 is slower in focus than 70-300, and perform worse than 70-300 in 300 range, so 70-300 is better for sports shoot.6. 55-300 is DX only, while 70-300 can be used in both FX and DX camera.Owen 1. 55-300 has both auto and mannual setting on it, but 70-300 has M/A and M. M/A means instant manual overwrite, M/A is pretty important feature. 70-300 is better for sports shoot.2. 70-300 has a "G" in it, which is not good : http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/nikortek.htm#g, but that is new "Norm" that Nikon decide to do.3. 55-300(309$) is 200$ cheaper than 70-300(509$) based on amazon on 07/30/2011.4. 55-300(1.2lb) is 0.4 lb lighter than 70-300(1.6lbs) due to its plastic part(mount etc)5. 55-300 is slower in focus than 70-300, and perform... » Read More 1. 55-300 has both auto and mannual setting on it, but 70-300 has M/A and M. M/A means instant manual overwrite, M/A is pretty important feature. 70-300 is better for sports shoot.2. 70-300 has a "G" in it, which is not good : http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/nikortek.htm#g, but that is new "Norm" that Nikon decide to do.3. 55-300(309$) is 200$ cheaper than 70-300(509$) based on amazon on 07/30/2011.4. 55-300(1.2lb) is 0.4 lb lighter than 70-300(1.6lbs) due to its plastic part(mount etc)5. 55-300 is slower in focus than 70-300, and perform worse than 70-300 in 300 range, so 70-300 is better for sports shoot.6. 55-300 is DX only, while 70-300 can be used in both FX and DX camera.Owen « Show Less
92186
Hello, other than 4mm in the zoom and the nano coating on the 24-70, nothing. If u wanna get technical they are completely different parts internally but they perform almost identically. I am very familiar with both lenses and they both have their ups and downs however I am seeing a lot of the 24-70's having soft focus issues particularly wide open. This can be repaired and we do have access to fix this problem it is a hassle. The 28-70 does not have this problem. The 28-70's major flaw is the squeaky AF. But this is a easy fix. Personally I would save the money and get the 28-70.
79348
I have used a 70-300mm EF and a 55-300mm AF lens with my D5100. Though the 70-300mm EF is a higher grade lens, I think that upon looking back at my results, the 55-300mm AF lens option gave me clearer images than the 70-300mm lens does. You will, however, be happy with either one. My 55-300mm lens was stolen last summer and I replaced it with a refurbished 70-300mm EF lens. If I were going to do it again, I'd probably get another 55-300mm lens. But on the other hand, the 70-300mm lens has a larger lens aperture and so it works better under lower light conditions than the 55-300mm AF lens. Life always seems to be about choices and trade-offs doesn't it.I hope this was helpful. I have used a 70-300mm EF and a 55-300mm AF lens with my D5100. Though the 70-300mm EF is a higher grade lens, I think that upon looking back at my results, the 55-300mm AF lens option gave me clearer images than the 70-300mm lens does. You will, however, be happy with either one. My 55-300mm lens was stolen last summer and I replaced it with a refurbished 70-300mm EF lens. If I were going to do it again, I'd probably get another 55-300mm lens. But on the other hand, the 70-300mm lens has a larger lens aperture and so it works better under lower light conditions than the 55-300mm AF lens.... » Read More I have used a 70-300mm EF and a 55-300mm AF lens with my D5100. Though the 70-300mm EF is a higher grade lens, I think that upon looking back at my results, the 55-300mm AF lens option gave me clearer images than the 70-300mm lens does. You will, however, be happy with either one. My 55-300mm lens was stolen last summer and I replaced it with a refurbished 70-300mm EF lens. If I were going to do it again, I'd probably get another 55-300mm lens. But on the other hand, the 70-300mm lens has a larger lens aperture and so it works better under lower light conditions than the 55-300mm AF lens. Life always seems to be about choices and trade-offs doesn't it.I hope this was helpful. « Show Less
760144
Both as long as youre using say a 35 or a 50 mm lens. If youre using a 70-300 not so much