How "good" is the 55-250IS Lens?

[robert_thommes1]

<p>I'm tettering with getting a 55-250IS and replacing my 70-300IS lens. I've read that these lenses are quite close in IQ. But the phrase used to describe the 55-250 lens as being the better "bang for the buck" always clouds the issue for me. Which lens has the better IQ PERIOD? I'm interested in a few of the benifits of the 55-250, those being: 1) lighter in weight, 2) closer close-focus, 3) a more forgiving image stabilization (up to 3-4 stops), 4) wider wide-angle. So....is the IQ of the 70-300IS lens enough to make me forget my list of benifits? IQ is the most important factor---no question. Comments please.</p>

[User_1172872]

<p><a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/194-canon-ef-s-55-250mm-f4-56-is-test-report--review">http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/194-canon-ef-s-55-250mm-f4-56-is-test-report--review</a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/200-canon-ef-70-300mm-f4-56-usm-is-test-report--review">http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/200-canon-ef-70-300mm-f4-56-usm-is-test-report--review</a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/201-canon-ef-70-300mm-f45-56-usm-is-lab-test-report--review">http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/201-canon-ef-70-300mm-f45-56-usm-is-lab-test-report--review</a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/202-canon-ef-100-300mm-f56-l-test-report--review">http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/202-canon-ef-100-300mm-f56-l-test-report--review</a></p>

[mark_ethridge]

<p>I know you say that IQ is the most important factor, but in this case it's likely to be minimal. And there are other factors that will be more important (or they would be to me). Let me start by saying that I don't have either of these lenses. From what I've seen, there's really no reason to switch from one of these lenses to the other in a quest for better IQ. The decision should be made based on other factors. Due you really need a little better IS? Do you really need a closer focusing distance? I can tell you that if it were me, I likely wouldn't need these things, but I would certainly notice if someone lopped of 50mm from the long end of my zoom. If I were you, I'd keep the lens you have. Just my personal opinion.</p>

[harold sicks]

<p>I do not have the lens that you want. I do have the 70-300mmIS and is produces pictures for me that are better than my white lens sometimes. I know that is unusual but maybe I got a great lens. I use a lot so I will not be getting the lens you want.</p>

[robert_thommes1]

<p>Prof. K,</p>

<p>I did read those Photozone reviews and personally find the results too close to call. Overall ratings of the 2 lenses happen to be equal as well. I guess I simply need to decide if those 4 points are worth the hassle of switching lenses. Right now, I'm torn, despite the recommendation to hold on to the 70-300IS(which I may well end up doing).<br>

Thanks to Harold and Mark as well.</p>

[paddler4]

<p>These lenses are not greatly different, according to the reviews, but from what I have seen, the one you have is actually slightly better at most focal lengths. It goes soft at 300mm, but the other lens doesn't even go to 300mm. I had the 55-250 for several years and explored whether it was worth spending the $$ to switch to the lens you have. I decided it wasn't, but I certainly would not have switched the other way.</p>

<p>You can compare for yourself here:<br>

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

[JDMvW]

<p>The Photozone.de reviews are usually very reliable.<br /> I think this would be a "side-grade" instead of a "up-grade". My old 75-300 IS (the original IS, after all) is considerably weaker optically than your 70-300 IS, but I wouldn't bother to trade for the degree of improvement a 55-250 would give me. But then I have found in the last few years that I really don't use a long zoom lens all that much any more. Most of my shooting is from ultrawide to short telephoto, these days.<br /> The reduced use of telephoto zooms may also reflect the fact that I have 6 500mm or longer prime lenses (obsession, don't ask)</p>

<p>I'd personally save my money (if I had any) towards the new L version of the 70-300mm, if I felt I needed any substantial improvement, although I do confess I have a itch for getting the older EF 100-400 IS L lens. Maybe after I stop sending all my spare money to Simon Fraser University (2-3 more years?), and after I get the TS-E 17mm. ;)</p>

[garymoncur]

<p>I have both and the 70-300IS is better for IQ and build, period. The only advantage the 55-250 has is weight.</p>

[robert_thommes1]

<p>I think I will go the direction of most of your advice, and hold on to the 70-300IS and forget about acquiring the 55-250IS for now. Sounds like it would be a "side-grade" move at the very best. So not worth the move for now. Maybe someday I'll opt for the 70-200/4, but it'll have to be the non-IS version(money is very much an object). <br>

So maybe I should ask.....would you advise my going from the 70-300IS USM to the 70-200/4 non-IS lens? Cost/value of these lenses is relatively close. Or..does the IS of the longer zoom put both of these lenses on a more equal footing?<br>

Would I truly see the difference in quality with the "L" lens?</p>

[garymoncur]

<p>Now you've done it ! You had to ask that question didnt you. I can hear the puffing of the L lens brigades chests already as there fingers poise over the keyboards getting ready to spout lyrical. lol</p>

[robert_thommes1]

<p>Gary,</p>

<p>Am I going to regret bringing this up? On goes the hard hat.</p>

[mike_hitchen]

<p>No hard hat needed, but when someone asks for advice on a choice of lenses $300 you just know that someone is going to join in and recommend one costing $1,000 saying "you won't regret it. I didn't"</p>

[esfishdoc]

<p>It comes down to the questions, 1. Do I want the best under this $$$ amount? 2. Do I want to know what the best is and am I willing to pay for it?</p>

 

[JDMvW]

<p>Whatever the benefit or not of L glass in general, I would never trade even my old 75-300mm IS telephoto for a modern lens without IS. I'll just make do until I can afford the IS.<br>

I shoot on foot, at the most with a monopod, only extremely rarely with a tripod, and any gain in optical quality in my own case (and I have fairly steady hands) is more than offset by the inability to go slower on the shutter speed without stabilization. Others have different priorities.<br>

What I would want in any <em>new</em> long zoom lens I bought is the best optics I could get with the most recent stabilization technology. If I'm going to shoot long and non-stabilized, I'd sooner shoot prime lenses anyhow. It's still hard to beat that Zeiss Sonnar 180mm f/2.8 when all is said and done. :)</p>

<p>I shoot plenty of manual focus, non-stabilized, etc. prime lenses over 200mm, but that's a different story.</p>

[ds_meador]

<p>Robert,<br>

I use the 55-250IS on an XSi. I've never used the 70-300IS. Here are a few shots with the 55-250 for you to consider. The first shows pretty close focus, but not quite as close as it goes. I shot this @ 240mm, 1/80, f/8, ISO 400.</p><div></div>

[ds_meador]

<p>This one is a Hibiscus Bloom. It is pretty much as close as I can get without extension tubes. I shot it @ 250mm, 1/13, f/5.6, ISO 200. This shows you the OOF effects of the 55-250, which I believe has a 9 blade aperture. This shot is wide open. This and the previous were both handheld.</p><div></div>

[ds_meador]

<p>Here's a third example. I was at the Jet Waves 2010 Championship. Most of my shots were zoomed out to 250. However, here's a wider shot.<br>

I shot this one @ 55mm, 1/800, f/6.3, ISO 200.<br>

I hope these shots help you see what the 55-250 has to offer in your areas of concern (close focus, IS, wider wide end).<br>

DS Meador</p><div></div>

[mas-alaska]

<p>I would not take a 55-250 over the 70-300IS. It appears you have reached that decision. Mine is very close in IQ to my 100-400. Now between the 70-300 IS and the 70-200 f/4 it is a closer question. I think it basically come down to IS and reach against faster AF, non-rotating front element, build quality and likely somewhat better IQ. I do not have the lens and have not shot it. I have seen very good shots from it though. At the time I was deciding between the two IS and reach were the deciding factors. That and some excellent shots a friend of mine had taken.<br>

So between those I do not think there is a clear better choice across the board. I went with the 70-300 and am happy with it. It still sees lots of use especially for travel, even though I have the 100-400. I would not make a switch to the 70-200 f/4 non-IS. I would , though, for the 70-200 f/4 IS which I have borrowed and shot some.</p>

[roger_smith4]

<p>Compared to my Tamron 17-50mm at 50mm the Canon at 55 is fairly soft. mushes over low contrast areas and vignettes noticably. Yet it's light, has a great range, the IS and focus works great and I actually appreciate the softness and vignetting for portraits. </p>

<p>If I need more detail I can crank up clarity and sharpness in Lightroom and have good enough image quality for what Im doing. Is it a great lens? No. Is it on part with the Tamron? No. Is it good enough for what I do- absolutely!</p>

[bob_king2]

<p>I have both and I would say that my 70-300 has better IQ than the 55-250. I got the latter because it is smaller and lighter than the 70-300 and I bought it cheaply. If I could only keep one it would be the 70-300. I even use it on my 5DII when I don't want to lug around my 70-200 f/2.8 IS.</p>

<p>If IQ is the most important factor in your decision then IMO keep the 70-300.</p>

<p>Cheers, Bob</p>

[garymoncur]

<p>Wow! no hard hat required Robert that wasn't as bad as I thought in fact all responses were relevant and helpful. I guess they can be humbled into silence sometimes. :-)</p>

 

[robert_thommes1]

<p>Agreed, Gary. Not too shabby there. <br>

I need to make clear that I can not spend 1K for the IS version. So the question remains: the 70-300IS lens or the 70-200/4 non-IS lens? And it appears that THE WINNER IS>>>>>>>>>the 70-300IS. No one has agreed to push the "L" lens if not with IS. And, though the 55-250IS is a decent lens, the 300mm lens still betters it. <br>

With that sort of advice, and I do appreciate each and every response that the question has received, the 70-300IS will be THE lens for me. Thanks very much, all.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>And as someone (sometimes me) inevitably points out, the 70-300mm is much stronger than the 55-250mm at between 251mm and 300mm. : }</p>

[garymoncur]

<p>lol, I like it JDM.</p>