Canon 55-250mm IS _vs_ 70-300mm IS USM

Tom

After 15 years away from the hobby, I just bought a dSLR and am having a blast. I had been saving/waiting/shopping for about a year and decided on a Canon XSi body. Then I found a great deal online and picked up a kit for the cost of a body! Even though the kit lens was not my first choice, I can't complain. This leaves me some money in my budget to buy a second lens.

I'm torn between the Canon 55-250mm 4/5.6 IS or the 70-300mm 4/5.6 IS USM. The first is lighter, smaller, cheaper, and has a range that compliments my 18-55 kit lens. The second is longer, has USM, and gets great reviews.

Money is pretty tight so this is a major factor. Especially since I'm already saving for a 60 or 100mm macro lens . So is there anyone out there that has experience with both of those telephotos and can give some advise? At nearly twice the price, is the 70-300 worth it?

ziggy53

Tom, welcome to the Digital Grin.

Congratulations on the new equipment.

The two lenses you ask about do have a similar range and function. The Canon EF-S 55-250mm, f/4-5.6 IS is still pretty new and may take a while to get enough reviews to make a reliable consensus of opinion. The 55-250mm, f/4-5.6 IS is certainly a value leader in the Canon line and I would probably recommend it over the Canon EF 55-200mm, f/4.5-5.6 II USM. For some reason Canon chose "not" to put USM on the 55-250mm, f/4-5.6 IS and that may affect both focus speed and focus accuracy.

There is a fairly good review of the Canon EF 70-300mm, f/4-5.6 IS USM and compares it to the 55-250mm, f/4-5.6 IS:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/canon-ef-70-300mm-f-4-5.6-is-usm-lens-review.aspx

I do think that the other lens you should consider is the Canon EF 70-200mm, f/4.0L USM. In the non-IS version it is fairly affordable and a real value in Canon "L" lenses. While it lacks the reach and range of the previous mentioned lenses it has very good quality overall with very good to excellent focus speed and focus accuracy. Definitely a "pro" lens.

Tom

Ziggy,
Thanks for the reply! The link you posted provided a lot of fantastic information.

I looked into the 70-200 f4 USM and love the sharpness, focusing speed, and extra f-stop, but wonder that it may not be long enough for me.

My kids will probably be my most frequent subjects now but I used to enjoy landscape/wildlife/closeup nature photography. So I hope to be able to cover all my bases simply with the 17-55 walkaround lens, a fast 60 or 70mm macro & portrait lens, and a long tele zoom for backyard wildlife & kids' sports. (To keep costs down I may have to skip the macro lens and get an inexpensive 50mm prime, plus closeup "filter" and/or extension tubes.) So the extra range up to 250mm or 300mm is important.

Any long tele zooms from Sigma, Tamron, or Tokina that I should consider too?

My old gear: Canon A1, Canon 50mm 1.4, Tamron 28-70mm 3.5/4.5, Tamron 135mm 2.8, Tokina 400mm 5.6, Slik U212 tripod, and the venerable Vivitar 283 flash.

Tee Why

You may also want to check out photozone.de as I think they have reviewed both lenses.

TaDa

Tom,

I had the 70-300 IS USM and it's a great little lens. The things that led me to get the 70-200 f/4 were the slower autofocus of the micro USM on the 70-300, and lack of full-time manual focusing. I have a 1.4x extender now for when I need the extra little reach, and the 70-200 series takes extenders extremely well. The image quality from the 70-300 is very very good, but the IQ out of the 70-200 is out of this world. I think both are very good lenses for those with different needs.

If you want the extra 100mm of reach, Image Stabilization and a nice compact lens, the 70-300 is for you.

If you want a faster focusing lens that supports full-time manual focusing, the 70-200 is for you. Other things about the 70-200 are the obvious Image Quality, Build Quality, ease of use with polarizers, etc., but both are really good lenses.

But, back to your post, for wildlife you'll probably need something longer, as either 288mm (1.4 extender) nor 300mm will get you close enough most likely.

For the general kid shooting, i find that my 70-200 works extremely well. I have a 2 year old, and the faster focus and FTM really help me when the kid is always on the move.

Tom

Just to follow up... for weeks I read and re-read all the reviews and STILL couldn't make up my mind. The 70-200 L sounded so nice but I wanted image stabilization.

In the end, I weighed my amateur photographic abilities against the cost of a pro lens. So I bought a refurbished 55-250 IS from Adorama. It works quite well and for less than $250 I feel it is a great bargain. That lens will meet my needs as I hone my skills. With luck, by the time I outgrow it the price on the 70-200 f4 L IS will have dropped. (I can dream, can't I?) I'll save up my pennies until then.

Thanks for all your advice.

divamum

Late the party, er, thread, but since I just acquired the 55-250 is yesterday I want to wade in and say I am BLOWN AWAY by this lens. I have a 50mm 1.8, 28-105 USM and an old 70-200 (pre-USM!) and the new lens puts them all to shame for clarity and sharpness. Yes, faster would be even better, yes the AF may hunt a little sometimes and it's noisier than USM and yes, it's plastic (a bonus for the more casual user, imo, since this thing is beautifully light and well-balanced on my Rebel XT) but for the price? It's a winner - the IQ on it is stunning. The IS seems to work fine - I've experimented a little with it, and so far, so good as far as I can tell.

Can anybody who has both comment on the 18-55is relative to the 55-250? If it's even half as good, I'll be selling my 28-105 and looking for one, I think...