What is a good lens to replace the Canon 55-250mm (kit lens)

[nanc1]

<p>I was looking at the Canon EF 70-200MM F/4L USM goes for $779.99 here my limit would be around that or just a tad higher maybe around $850 with taxes in.<br>

and was told it was a Great lens and its better to go without the IS because at its longest it tends to get dark a little.<br>

What to you think is a good one?</p>

<p>I have the Canon 60D and the Rebel XSI</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Nancy, if I were you I'd pick up a used 70-200/4 L IS. It'll cost you only a little more than you've budgeted, and it's a stellar lens.</p>

<p>I don't know what you mean when you say that "it's better to go without the IS because at its longest it tends to get dark a little," but I <em>do</em> know that many photographers (myself included) find IS to be an invaluable feature on longer lenses.</p>

[alan_bryant1]

<p>It's a difficult matter because the 55-250 is actually a pretty good lens.</p>

<p>The 70-200/4 is definitely better in many ways. It does lack IS. If you shoot in daylight you might not need IS; if you shoot indoors it's more of a problem.</p>

<p>Other lenses to look at are the Canon 70-300/4-5.6 IS (the non-L version), which is a good lens. There's also a Tamron lens with practically identical specs; it's a little cheaper than the Canon and has good reviews.</p>

<p>One review you might want to look at - near the end he discusses the relative merits of several of these lenses:</p>

<p><a href="http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-300mm-f-4-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx">http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-300mm-f-4-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx</a></p>

[phule]

<p>Why do you need to replace the lens to begin with? What is the problem that you are trying to solve?</p>

[matthijs]

+1 to Rob.

 

What's disappointing in the 55-250?

 

Build quality, reach, max aperture (light sensitivity), sharpness, color&contrast, size&weight?

 

Depending on your answer you might need a fast prime, a tough zoom or a bigger budget.

 

(-;

 

Matthijs.

[horse]

<p>Why does everyone want 70-200mm's? But any way I just saw the lens you listed at Amazon.com thru<br>

Adorama for $619.00 + 0.29 cents shipping new. Good luck, these lenses get expensive real quick.<br>

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000053HH5/sr=1-1/qid=1328356339/ref=olp_product_details?ie=UTF8&me=&qid=1328356339&sr=1-1&seller=</p>

 

[John Crowe]

<p>Are you able to keep the 55-250 for those rare occasions when you need IS, and simply add the 70-200/4 L for the majority of your images where superior resolution, contrast and colour rendering are most important? </p>

[kts]

<p>Nancy, i have the same two camera's as you and also had the 55-250....after looking at a few alternatives i went with the tamron 70-300vc.....extra reach, sharp lens, excellent IS, 6 year warranty and it works well with a kenko 1.4 extender....if you have a local camera store that carries tamron it's worth a look...</p>

<p>as far as the 55-250, yes its a decent lens for sharpness but the cheap build, the terrible lens creep and it's inability to work with a circular polarizer were the reasons i sold it</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Whatever you do, I think you'd be sorry if you didn't get IS. We did fine before there was such a thing, but progress marches on and I wouldn't buy a modern tele lens without the feature.</p>

[nathangardner]

<p>The IS version can be bought used for barely above your budget. The non-IS goes for right at $500 used. I love these lenses. AF is fast, internal zoom is very nice, and the build is better.</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>Nancy, maybe you could elucidate your specific reasons for wanting to upgrade.</p>

<p>Depending on why (and what kind of environment you shoot in), a 70-200/4 non-IS may be a poor choice. JDM's point is sound, the IS version will serve <em>most people</em> far better for <em>most</em> things than the non-IS iteration. Either one is an excellent lens though.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<blockquote>

<p>Why does everyone want 70-200mm's?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Because they deliver very-close-to-prime image quality, and are more versatile than primes.</p>

[brett_w.]

<p><strong>Neither! </strong><br>

<strong> </strong> if you have a crop model the 55-250IS is almost as sharp as the 70-200 f4 (at a fraction of the cost ). If you need a longer focal range save for the 100-400, if you need something sharper or larger aperture look at primes</p>

<p><strong><br /></strong></p>

<p> </p>

[yakim_peled1]

<blockquote>

<p>Why do you need to replace the lens to begin with? What is the problem that you are trying to solve?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's very important that you answer this. On a recent 2 month trip to India I chose the 55-250 as my tele lens because it was small, light, has versatile FLs, has IS and with very good IQ. And it's not that I did not have other options. I did, but I'm glad I chose this one. It didn't disappoint.</p>

<p>One thing I can definitely say is that I would not advise buying a slow tele lens without IS/VC. It can be the difference between stop shooting and stop shooting.</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>

<p> </p>

[nanc1]

<p>Well the reason for wanting this lens is because I'm starting to do some weddings, I tried using my zoom indoor and it didn't matter what setting I tried it still came out on the dark side.<br>

So I was told this one would let in more light and much much sharper.<br>

When I upgraded my 18-55 to a Tamron 17-50 I wasn't dissapointed in was a great upgrad in quality.<br>

And I'm looking at doing the same, but reading all this maybe I should give it another try with this one I have.<br>

My main photography is portraits and baby shoots and now small weddings.</p>

<p>Thank you all for all this great advice!</p>

[yakim_peled1]

<p>1. Dark refers to exposure, not a particular lens. Have you tried to apply positive EC? That said, I must confess that I never heard or encountered a lens that consistently gives darer pictures at one end of the zoom. Have you given it to a lab? Does the phenomena also happens with other lenses? What happens when you mount this lens on another body?</p>

<p>2. For weddings any 70-200 L will do great. Nevertheless I must stress that good pictures rely first and foremost on the ability of the photographer to exploit its gear to the max, not on a particular gear he/she uses.</p>

<p>3. For portraits any 2.8 version (there are three: 2.8, 2.8 IS and 2.8 IS II) is highly recommended because it allows you for both higher shutter speeds and shallower DoF. As the 2.8 is a lot more than your budget my recommendation to you is get a used 70-200/2.8 L. While the f/2.8 versions are a lot heavier than the f/4 versions I believe that for your requirements they represent the best solution.</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>

[matthijs]

Maybe you could start a new thread with a dark sample (plus the settings used) so we can have a look at that.

 

It might be a lens, settings or even (pop-up?) flash issue.

 

Note: though a 70-200/2.8 is nice you might prefer a prime for it's price and size. (however shooting events a zoom is

more practical)

 

M.

[color]

<p>Horse E.<br>

People like the 70-200 Canons because they are very good. I have a 70-200 2.8 I.S. and it is great:  Produces sharp images, it's well made and has good contrast. It's also because for most people it's a useful focal length range. I.S. is nice too, helps with hand held shooting, which if you're photographing moving objects/people allows you to move around and still get good images and have the freedom of not using a tripod.</p>