Digital Camera - Q & A

Since I don't shoot Canon, I have no idea where to find lens reviews aside from dpreview.com which doesn't have a review for either of these lenses. Now I had read many times that the 55-200 was a better lens than the 75-300 but I haven't seen anything about the 55-250. I would guess they are close if not the same in IQ. As to low light capabilities, they are probably about the same and neither is going to do well in low-light, but no zoom in that price range will.

You could get a moderate zoom that would be good for low-light. Sigma has the 28-70 f/2.8 for $350 or the 18-50 f/2.8 for $420. There are also the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 for $450, and the 28-75 f/2.8 for about $460. And the Tokina 16-50 f/2.8 for $550. There are more but they only go up in price. The least you can expect to pay for a telephoto zoom that is good for low-light is about $700-800 for either the Tamron or Sigma 70-200 f2.8 and to buy the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 will cost about twice as much.

Of the two you listed, the 55-250 would be the better lens to complement the range of the 18-55mm kit lens. If you get the 75-300 you will have a gap between the two lenses. It may not seem like much now, but you would notice it after a while. Personally, I would choose the 55-250.

After that, you might think about getting the 50mm f/1.8 if you want to shoot people and low-light scenes. It only costs about $100.