Which is the better lens, 70-300 or 55-250? Forget about the cost.

[robert_thommes1]

<p>These two lenses seem to be well matched, IQ wise. Is one any better than the other.....significantly enough to declare a clear winner? Forget about the fact that the 55-250 is alleged to be the "better buy", or my favorite "best bang for the buck". I don't care about the build quality differences or the FF vs. cropped sensored factor, or the difference in zoom range(well, maybe a little). I just care about the quality of the finished product....the image. Is there enough difference between the two to determine one to be better than the other? If, after all this, they are equal, I'll opt for the 55-250 because it's slightly lighter in weight. But for the moment, I'd like your opinion and reason for it. Thanks much.</p>

[wolf_weber]

<p>Most Testers rate the 2 lenses about equal. With the surprise (surprise..!) of the longer ONE being above average for this type of Zoom at the longer focal length'... As a drawback, both lenses have 58mm rotating front elements. For myself, after looking at them carefully, I'd go for the 70-200mm f/4 IS. One can always add a quality 1.4... <strong><em>"Forget about the cost."</em></strong></p>

[geoffs1]

<p>Between the two, I'd go go for the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 USM IS for two reasons: 1) USM, 2) 300mm</p>

<p>Personally, one of these days I'm going to get the 55-250mm IS for its small-size and low cost only for those times I don't want to drag around my other telephotos.</p>

[alan_bryant1]

<p>I'm with Wolf, if cost doesn't matter, get the 70-200/4 IS and a 1.4x converter.</p>

<p>This review might be useful to you - he compares these lenses -</p>

<p>http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-55-250mm-f-4-5.6-IS-Lens-Review.aspx</p>

[ed_v.]

Because the 70-300 is a full-frame lens it has certain advantages when using it on a crop-sensor camera. For instance vignetting is almost negligible where with the 55-250 it's very apparent at large apertures. Also distortions are lower since you're using only the center of the image circle. I checked out the reviews of both on photozone.de. If I had to choose between the two I'd go for the 70-300.

[mike_hitchen]

<p>The 70-300 (at 200mm) is said to be very close to the 70-200 (at 200). And from my experience with the 70-300 I am well happy (note that I have not used the 70-200 myself). The 55-250 is said to be close to the 70-300 but not equal to it.<br>

I have held the 55-250 on a camera body (no real photo testing) and if I wanted to have a lens for carrying around town I would prefer that to the 70-300 as it is smaller and lighter.</p>

[robert_thommes1]

<p>Thanks for your contributions. Sounds like the 70-300IS is preferred; even if only by a little bit. This is what I was looking for. </p>

[nathangardner]

<p>70-200mm f/4L</p>

<p>You may be surprised how cheap you can get one. I got mine mint used for $500. Not too far from the 70-300mm. The superior optics, build, AF, and internal zoom make it head and shoulders the best lens of the 3. I find the fast AF is indispensible. I think a lot of people shoot mostly action related photos at this focal length (wildlife, sports) and fast AF is a crucial tool for action. I can't tell you how many shots I missed with the 70-300mm due to the AF searching. Now if I miss a shot due to AF, its user error. I'd rather give up the 100mm and have to crop a little than miss the shot all together. And BTW, I use the 70-200mm f/4L on a 40D and have taken some HEAVY crops that were still very acceptable quality. </p>

[tudorciobanu]

<p>70-300</p>

[chughtai]

<p>+1 for 70-300</p>

<p>I got 55-250 last year (<em>only due to urgency and lower price</em>) -- i enjoy it a lot but if i had time and money, i would have definitely gone for a better option, ideally 100-400 (or in this case, 70-300).</p>

[paddler4]

<p>I have the 55-250 and have not yet used the 70-300. Most reviews say that the 70-300 has an edge in image quality, although not a huge one, and they both get soft at full extension. check out this:<br>

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=358&Camera=452&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=3&LensComp=456&CameraComp=452&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=3</p>

[paul_russell1]

<p>I had the 70-300 IS and was pretty happy with its images.<br>

I was less than happy with the physical extension as you zoom.<br>

I was far less than happy with the rotating filter thread.<br>

I didn't use IS that much (I am mr mono-tripod) but found it nosiy and intrusive.<br>

Didn't like the plastic construction.<br>

Very sharp lens given the range, even at 300! I've had various versions of the 75-300 which was unusable beyond 200mm on digital.<br>

Lenses at this price are not investments as such. Buy a lens to use it. The 55-250 gets great reviews for IQ also ( I had a 55-200 USM II which was great for the price, but with all the practical caveats) but with same compromises.<br>

A good lens doesn't just take nice images, it is also nice to use. None of these are.<br>

Get the cheapest version of the 70-200L (i.e. non IS f4)<br>

Not all that much more than the 70-300 Is, but far nicer to use. Faster AF, constant max aperture, touch adjust ai-Servo Af.<br>

built properly. Doesnt annoy filter users. Sharper througout than both the 55-250 and 70-300.</p>