Canon SLR lens

[Abe]

I am not much of a photo person. I would like to get my wife a decent zoom lens for her Canon SLR.

I can get a "Canon EF-S 55-250mm F/4-5.6 iS Image Stabilizer lens - 88-400mm equivalent focal length , UD element" lens for R2850 from Frontosa and a "CANON Sigma lense 70-300DG" for R1999 from Dion Wired.

I have no clue what "F/4-5.6" means or how a lens that is 55-250mm could have a focal length of 88-400. I know that she wants to get a 300mm lens. Are either of the two above any good and is the Canon better than a 300mm lens because of the 88-400mm part?

 

[bwana]

When you put a lens on a crop sensor camera then to get the effective focal length you multiply by a factor of 1.6. That's how the 55-250 effectively becomes a 88-400. Likewise the sigma becomes a 112-480.

The lower the f/ the larger the aperture, which means more light can get in. Many of the less expensive zooms have a variable aperture depending on the focal length so while at 55mm it might be able to shoot at f/4 when you increase the focal length it reduces the aperture so at 250mm your maximum aperture is reduced to f/5.6

What's your budget?

 

[koffiejunkie]

The second lens you mention is not a Canon. It is a Canon-fit lens manufactured by Sigma. Of the two, the Canon is the better lens. The Sigma isn't bad but, I used to own one and I don't particularly miss it.

If your wife really needs 300mm, I would recommend going one step up and getting the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM. It's better than both the 55-250mm and the Sigma 70-300, and not a whole lot more expensive.