I think the 55-250 is a worthwhile upgrade over the 75-300 for at least three reasons: IS, sharper and better images, and a newer design. I
To be clear, my 75-300 has IS, but I believe the IS on the 55-250 is better as it is of a newer design.
So the advantage might also be how sharp it is by comparison. They are so cheap, it seems like a good hold over lens compared to living with what I have. I also wonder if the 55 might be a little nicer as the 75 is often too long.
I imagine the slow focus and focus hunting will be no better.
Does anyone know of any comparisons between these two in terms of sharpness? The 75-300 IS isn't on Photozone or the Digital Picture.
Thanks for the replies!
I know that your 75-300 has IS but as you correctly guessed the 55-250 has third gen. IS, which is supposed to give a 4-stop advantage. On the other hand 75-300 is the first gen.
As I mentioned, the 55-250 is reasonably sharp (of course it would be silly to compare it to the 70-200 L lenses). It was similar to the 70-300 non-L I owned at the time, which is pretty good up to 200mm.
Finally while the autofocus is slower than ring USM, I guarantee you will find huge improvement over the antique DC motor in the 75-300 IS. And the AF might be slower due to the slower motor but I didn't find any it to be inaccurate or any hunting in normal light. Of course, you wouldn't even use it in low light.
So, that's my 2 cents. I wholeheartedly recommend it to my APS-C user friends who are not looking for L-lenses and don't have the "won't buy EF-S because I will upgrade to FF soon" syndrome.