55-200 vs 75-300

Tom Estrella said:

Posted this on Lens forum..thought I'd put it here also.

Folks,

As a new D300 owner...I'm in the market for a decent zoom lens.
I've read everything I can online...including looking at seemingly
100's of online galleries!

My local camera shop got some of the new 55-200 Canon's in
stock...so I grabbed my Rebel and borrowed the 55-200 and the Canon
75-300.

My methodology was simple...set the camera in P mode....shoot a set
of photos with both lens...one after the other....shooting the
exact same material with both lens.

I took two exposures of each shot with the 75-300...one at the 200
setting and one at 300. I thought the 200 would give me a more
valid comparison to the 55-200.

I took signs...foliage........moving cars....people....and birds.

Got home....loaded them up.....wow. No comparison...the 55-200 was
dramatically better in each and every shot. Sharper...better
contrast...more vibrant colors. This was comparing the 75-300 at
its 200 length. The 300mm shots were even poorer.

I emailed a few of the comparison shots to a photog friend (...very
serious about still photography)...I coded the pics...didn't tell
him which was which.

He was 100% on the money...the 55-200 pics are crisp, colorful and
vibrant. He was actuall impressed by what it could do.

Of course...I could have had a bum 75-300...but it is not that it
produced bad pics...they look OK...but the 55-200 just looked so
much better in comparison.

Just thought I'd throw this out there for consideration.
Unfortunately I am not subscribed to anyone databases so I can't
postthe pics....but I'm considering giving Pbase a try.

Tom

Click to expand...

mike bustad said:

Tom Estrella said:

Posted this on Lens forum..thought I'd put it here also.

Folks,

As a new D300 owner...I'm in the market for a decent zoom lens.
I've read everything I can online...including looking at seemingly
100's of online galleries!

My local camera shop got some of the new 55-200 Canon's in
stock...so I grabbed my Rebel and borrowed the 55-200 and the Canon
75-300.

My methodology was simple...set the camera in P mode....shoot a set
of photos with both lens...one after the other....shooting the
exact same material with both lens.

I took two exposures of each shot with the 75-300...one at the 200
setting and one at 300. I thought the 200 would give me a more
valid comparison to the 55-200.

I took signs...foliage........moving cars....people....and birds.

Got home....loaded them up.....wow. No comparison...the 55-200 was
dramatically better in each and every shot. Sharper...better
contrast...more vibrant colors. This was comparing the 75-300 at
its 200 length. The 300mm shots were even poorer.

I emailed a few of the comparison shots to a photog friend (...very
serious about still photography)...I coded the pics...didn't tell
him which was which.

He was 100% on the money...the 55-200 pics are crisp, colorful and
vibrant. He was actuall impressed by what it could do.

Of course...I could have had a bum 75-300...but it is not that it
produced bad pics...they look OK...but the 55-200 just looked so
much better in comparison.

Just thought I'd throw this out there for consideration.
Unfortunately I am not subscribed to anyone databases so I can't
postthe pics....but I'm considering giving Pbase a try.

Tom

Click to expand...

--
Tanglefoot47

Click to expand...

mike bustad said:

Tom Estrella said:

Posted this on Lens forum..thought I'd put it here also.

Folks,

As a new D300 owner...I'm in the market for a decent zoom lens.
I've read everything I can online...including looking at seemingly
100's of online galleries!

My local camera shop got some of the new 55-200 Canon's in
stock...so I grabbed my Rebel and borrowed the 55-200 and the Canon
75-300.

My methodology was simple...set the camera in P mode....shoot a set
of photos with both lens...one after the other....shooting the
exact same material with both lens.

I took two exposures of each shot with the 75-300...one at the 200
setting and one at 300. I thought the 200 would give me a more
valid comparison to the 55-200.

I took signs...foliage........moving cars....people....and birds.

Got home....loaded them up.....wow. No comparison...the 55-200 was
dramatically better in each and every shot. Sharper...better
contrast...more vibrant colors. This was comparing the 75-300 at
its 200 length. The 300mm shots were even poorer.

I emailed a few of the comparison shots to a photog friend (...very
serious about still photography)...I coded the pics...didn't tell
him which was which.

He was 100% on the money...the 55-200 pics are crisp, colorful and
vibrant. He was actuall impressed by what it could do.

Of course...I could have had a bum 75-300...but it is not that it
produced bad pics...they look OK...but the 55-200 just looked so
much better in comparison.

Just thought I'd throw this out there for consideration.
Unfortunately I am not subscribed to anyone databases so I can't
postthe pics....but I'm considering giving Pbase a try.

Tom

Click to expand...

--
Tanglefoot47

Click to expand...

HipHapa said:

I think if I find the 55-200, I'm jumping on it, but how come so
many shops list it for $300-$350? Isn't it supposed to be $200?

Chris

mike bustad said:

Tom Estrella said:

Posted this on Lens forum..thought I'd put it here also.

Folks,

As a new D300 owner...I'm in the market for a decent zoom lens.
I've read everything I can online...including looking at seemingly
100's of online galleries!

My local camera shop got some of the new 55-200 Canon's in
stock...so I grabbed my Rebel and borrowed the 55-200 and the Canon
75-300.

My methodology was simple...set the camera in P mode....shoot a set
of photos with both lens...one after the other....shooting the
exact same material with both lens.

I took two exposures of each shot with the 75-300...one at the 200
setting and one at 300. I thought the 200 would give me a more
valid comparison to the 55-200.

I took signs...foliage........moving cars....people....and birds.

Got home....loaded them up.....wow. No comparison...the 55-200 was
dramatically better in each and every shot. Sharper...better
contrast...more vibrant colors. This was comparing the 75-300 at
its 200 length. The 300mm shots were even poorer.

I emailed a few of the comparison shots to a photog friend (...very
serious about still photography)...I coded the pics...didn't tell
him which was which.

He was 100% on the money...the 55-200 pics are crisp, colorful and
vibrant. He was actuall impressed by what it could do.

Of course...I could have had a bum 75-300...but it is not that it
produced bad pics...they look OK...but the 55-200 just looked so
much better in comparison.

Just thought I'd throw this out there for consideration.
Unfortunately I am not subscribed to anyone databases so I can't
postthe pics....but I'm considering giving Pbase a try.

Tom

Click to expand...

--
Tanglefoot47

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

HipHapa said:

I think if I find the 55-200, I'm jumping on it, but how come so
many shops list it for $300-$350? Isn't it supposed to be $200?

Chris

Click to expand...

Tom Estrella said:

Nope...it was the plain 75-300 not USM either. From what I've read
the IS version is slightly softer than the non-IS.

Tom

mike bustad said:

Tom Estrella said:

Posted this on Lens forum..thought I'd put it here also.

Folks,

As a new D300 owner...I'm in the market for a decent zoom lens.
I've read everything I can online...including looking at seemingly
100's of online galleries!

My local camera shop got some of the new 55-200 Canon's in
stock...so I grabbed my Rebel and borrowed the 55-200 and the Canon
75-300.

My methodology was simple...set the camera in P mode....shoot a set
of photos with both lens...one after the other....shooting the
exact same material with both lens.

I took two exposures of each shot with the 75-300...one at the 200
setting and one at 300. I thought the 200 would give me a more
valid comparison to the 55-200.

I took signs...foliage........moving cars....people....and birds.

Got home....loaded them up.....wow. No comparison...the 55-200 was
dramatically better in each and every shot. Sharper...better
contrast...more vibrant colors. This was comparing the 75-300 at
its 200 length. The 300mm shots were even poorer.

I emailed a few of the comparison shots to a photog friend (...very
serious about still photography)...I coded the pics...didn't tell
him which was which.

He was 100% on the money...the 55-200 pics are crisp, colorful and
vibrant. He was actuall impressed by what it could do.

Of course...I could have had a bum 75-300...but it is not that it
produced bad pics...they look OK...but the 55-200 just looked so
much better in comparison.

Just thought I'd throw this out there for consideration.
Unfortunately I am not subscribed to anyone databases so I can't
postthe pics....but I'm considering giving Pbase a try.

Tom

Click to expand...

--
Tanglefoot47

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Tom Estrella said:

Posted this on Lens forum..thought I'd put it here also.

Folks,

As a new D300 owner...I'm in the market for a decent zoom lens.
I've read everything I can online...including looking at seemingly
100's of online galleries!

My local camera shop got some of the new 55-200 Canon's in
stock...so I grabbed my Rebel and borrowed the 55-200 and the Canon
75-300.

My methodology was simple...set the camera in P mode....shoot a set
of photos with both lens...one after the other....shooting the
exact same material with both lens.

I took two exposures of each shot with the 75-300...one at the 200
setting and one at 300. I thought the 200 would give me a more
valid comparison to the 55-200.

I took signs...foliage........moving cars....people....and birds.

Got home....loaded them up.....wow. No comparison...the 55-200 was
dramatically better in each and every shot. Sharper...better
contrast...more vibrant colors. This was comparing the 75-300 at
its 200 length. The 300mm shots were even poorer.

I emailed a few of the comparison shots to a photog friend (...very
serious about still photography)...I coded the pics...didn't tell
him which was which.

He was 100% on the money...the 55-200 pics are crisp, colorful and
vibrant. He was actuall impressed by what it could do.

Of course...I could have had a bum 75-300...but it is not that it
produced bad pics...they look OK...but the 55-200 just looked so
much better in comparison.

Just thought I'd throw this out there for consideration.
Unfortunately I am not subscribed to anyone databases so I can't
postthe pics....but I'm considering giving Pbase a try.

Tom

Click to expand...

Jack_DC said:

Please post something!

I had discounted the 55-200 and was going with the 28-135 IS, now
you made me reconsider.

Please post pics...

Click to expand...

Jack_DC said:

Please post something!

I had discounted the 55-200 and was going with the 28-135 IS, now
you made me reconsider.

Please post pics...

Click to expand...

Gordon Brockhouse said:

Jack_DC said:

Please post something!

I had discounted the 55-200 and was going with the 28-135 IS, now
you made me reconsider.

Please post pics...

Click to expand...

I have been trying to decide for several days whether to get the
55-200 or 28-135 IS. My local camera store (Henry's in Newmarket,
Ont.) let me try the two lenses out in the parking lot. IMHO, the
55-200 gives away very little to the 28-135 in terms of sharpness,
contrast or colour.

Check these two images in my pbase gallery to see if you can figure
out which is which. Here's the URL:
http://www.pbase.com/gbrockhouse/lenstest

For me, the decision will come down to factors other than
performance. I'd like the reach and light weight of the 55-200,
especially on hiking expeditions with my family. I'd like the IS
feature of the 28-135, especially at family events and when
covering tradeshows for publications that I write for. The 28-135
could also serve as a general-purpose walkaround lens, though its
lack of wide-angle capability is certainly a limitation. Price is
also a consideration: the difference is about CDN$350.

I'll identify which lens shot which image in a follow-up message.

Best,
Gordon.

Click to expand...

Gordon Brockhouse said:

Jack_DC said:

Please post something!

I had discounted the 55-200 and was going with the 28-135 IS, now
you made me reconsider.

Please post pics...

Click to expand...

I have been trying to decide for several days whether to get the
55-200 or 28-135 IS. My local camera store (Henry's in Newmarket,
Ont.) let me try the two lenses out in the parking lot. IMHO, the
55-200 gives away very little to the 28-135 in terms of sharpness,
contrast or colour.

Check these two images in my pbase gallery to see if you can figure
out which is which. Here's the URL:
http://www.pbase.com/gbrockhouse/lenstest

For me, the decision will come down to factors other than
performance. I'd like the reach and light weight of the 55-200,
especially on hiking expeditions with my family. I'd like the IS
feature of the 28-135, especially at family events and when
covering tradeshows for publications that I write for. The 28-135
could also serve as a general-purpose walkaround lens, though its
lack of wide-angle capability is certainly a limitation. Price is
also a consideration: the difference is about CDN$350.

I'll identify which lens shot which image in a follow-up message.

Best,
Gordon.

Click to expand...

gottria said:

Greg

Gordon Brockhouse said:

Jack_DC said:

Please post something!

I had discounted the 55-200 and was going with the 28-135 IS, now
you made me reconsider.

Please post pics...

Click to expand...

I have been trying to decide for several days whether to get the
55-200 or 28-135 IS. My local camera store (Henry's in Newmarket,
Ont.) let me try the two lenses out in the parking lot. IMHO, the
55-200 gives away very little to the 28-135 in terms of sharpness,
contrast or colour.

Check these two images in my pbase gallery to see if you can figure
out which is which. Here's the URL:
http://www.pbase.com/gbrockhouse/lenstest

For me, the decision will come down to factors other than
performance. I'd like the reach and light weight of the 55-200,
especially on hiking expeditions with my family. I'd like the IS
feature of the 28-135, especially at family events and when
covering tradeshows for publications that I write for. The 28-135
could also serve as a general-purpose walkaround lens, though its
lack of wide-angle capability is certainly a limitation. Price is
also a consideration: the difference is about CDN$350.

I'll identify which lens shot which image in a follow-up message.

Best,
Gordon.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Joel Santos said:

I ordered 28-135 IS and already saw great, great pics with it!
Besides, IS is a great feature that will allow some photos that
otherwise are difficult to obtain. 28-135 also allows me to have a
versatile lenses, using the 18-55mm only for wide angle...

Now I was considering the 75-300 IS... I want to take some pics at
birds, and 300mm with IS seams better than 200mm without IS... even
if pics are softer, at least I'll be able to get them...

I've ordered a 50mm 1.8 too...

--
Joel Santos
http://www.yupictureit.com/joelfotos/

Click to expand...