Zoom Lens / Non-Zoom Lens (Canon 600d)

[Progressive]

Hello all,

Amateur here with a Canon 600d. The camera rarely leaves auto mode unless I am in the confines of an environment where time isn't an issue (house or garden usually).

I have the 18-55mm kit lens and am looking into further lenses although am confused about the various numbers, sizes and what lens would be right for me / what sort of results I could expect.

I am looking at:

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Lens
Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III (Non-USM)
Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS II Lens - Kit Version

Could anybody break it down for me with some basics of each of the above. Basically all that I can figure out is that the first one doesn't zoom, the latter two do. What is the advantage of having the 'fixed' lens. What difference would I see between the latter two?

Many thanks and apologies if this is an extremely basic question!

Cheers.

[markmullen]

I don't know how much you know, but the shorter the focal length (the number of millimetres), the wider the angle, eg you'll get more of a scene in one shot but everything will be a lot smaller, useful for landscapes for example. The longer the focal length the closer up to distant things you get, eg zooming in on a bird a long way away. The next number, usually preceded by F is the maximum aperture the lens can use, eg the smallest f number. Whilst you can shoot with a lot smaller aperture (eg f16) the number given is the maximum, widest aperture.

A prime lens (one with a fixed focal length) like the 50mm tends to have a wider maximum aperture than a zoom, eg a smaller f number. This allows more light in, useful for shooting in low light without having to go mad on ISO. It also allows a shallower depth of field, so for example in a portrait the face is in focus but the background thrown out of focus. Lots of people swear by the 50mm f1.8, I've got one but to be honest never got on with it, that's just me though, most people like them.

Of the two zooms, the 55-250 is very well regarded for the money, I had one on my 450d when I first started back in photography, and loved it. The 75-300 gives you a little bit more at the long end but isn't particularly well regarded.

[DibblyDobbler]

Another way to look at it: what is your kit lens not doing for you that's making you want another lens? Eg - not wide enough for landscapes, not long enough for wildlife, not 'fast' enough for indoor shots ? You get the idea

[Pints]

DibblyDobbler said:

Another way to look at it: what is your kit lens not doing for you that's making you want another lens? Eg - not wide enough for landscapes, not long enough for wildlife, not 'fast' enough for indoor shots ? You get the idea

Sensible question to be asking yourself.

I've only just taken delivery of my first DSLR (Canon 60D) but knew I'd be after a range of lenses - based on my bridge camera usage.
I got the 18-55mm, 50mm f1.8 and 55-250mm. In the few shots I've taken (a little more than 100), I've already had a chance to use all three.
Since the nifty-fifty is so cheap, it was a no-brainer, and indoor portrait pics are just so much nicer with it. Taking close-up shots of the girls playing outside - without getting in their space, or even knowing I was shooting - means using the 55-250mm.

I speak as an absolute amateur.

[JDRoest]

Progressive said:

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Lens
Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III (Non-USM)
Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS II Lens - Kit Version

Could anybody break it down for me with some basics of each of the above. Basically all that I can figure out is that the first one doesn't zoom, the latter two do. What is the advantage of having the 'fixed' lens. What difference would I see between the latter two?

I'll break from the trend - don't bother with the 50mm f1.8. It'll do one thing that your 18-55 won't do which is very narrow depth of field (think of a sharp portrait photograph with the background all blurred out). I found it the most difficult lens to use and sold it in the end. Totally over-rated unless you have a need for really out of focus backgrounds.

As for the 75-300 vs 55-250 - probably not much between them, the 300 will get closer to the subject, whilst the 55 will be a wider lens. Wouldn't get too hung up about quality, unless RD comes on and says something. For an amateur, they'll both be good enough for what you want.

[Mr Will]

JDRoest said:

Progressive said:

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Lens
Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III (Non-USM)
Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS II Lens - Kit Version

Could anybody break it down for me with some basics of each of the above. Basically all that I can figure out is that the first one doesn't zoom, the latter two do. What is the advantage of having the 'fixed' lens. What difference would I see between the latter two?

I'll break from the trend - don't bother with the 50mm f1.8. It'll do one thing that your 18-55 won't do which is very narrow depth of field (think of a sharp portrait photograph with the background all blurred out). I found it the most difficult lens to use and sold it in the end. Totally over-rated unless you have a need for really out of focus backgrounds.

As for the 75-300 vs 55-250 - probably not much between them, the 300 will get closer to the subject, whilst the 55 will be a wider lens. Wouldn't get too hung up about quality, unless RD comes on and says something. For an amateur, they'll both be good enough for what you want.

The big advantage to the 50mm is not really the shallow DoF but the low light ability. Wide open it lets in 8 times the amount of light that the kit lens does which makes indoor photography without flash much more practical. Stopped down (i.e. f4 or greater) it will also be significantly sharper than any of the zooms.

As for the two telephotos there is one big difference between them - the 75-300 is an EF lens capable of working with full-frame cameras whereas the 55-250 is an EF-S lens that only works on APS-C cameras - basically every Canon camera up to and including the 7D, including yours. This is important because EF lenses are more expensive to make and the cheaper ones such as this are often older designs dating from the days of film. Go for the 55-250; you'll lose a tiny amount of zoom but it'll be faster, lighter, sharper and generally more useful.

[RobDickinson]

75-300 is pants.

Get the 55-250 which is all round nice. If you ever get full frame you will want L glass anyhow.

The 50/1.8 is superb if you know what it is and how to use it.