55-250 or 70-300 My head hurts.

I'm looking to upgrade to a lens with more reach. I am currently trying to decide between the 55-250mm and 70-300mm. The lens will be used for....pretty much everything. Landscapes, walk-around, some sports/action. What it won't be used for: studio portraits. I've spent so much time reading and comparing between lens and so far I still can't decide. I know the 55-250 is much cheaper but you lose 50mm on the long end. Am I going to regret not having that extra bit of reach? I know that the IQ is very similar between the two lens. What do you guys think?

P.S. I was also looking at the 70-200 f/4 L non-is but I think I would regret not having IS. I'd really like the 70-200 f/4 L IS but it is out of my price range right now.

If you didn't need IS so badly I'd suggest the old Tamron 70-300mm, it's even cheaper than the 55-250mm but has better build quality and does 1:2 macro, the lack of IS and USM are it's only downfalls. I do believe Tamron now makes an IS and USM (or whatever abbreviations they have for it) version of the lens, might be worth looking in to.

For $200 or less, the 55-250mm is an awesome lens, that's my reccomendation. I have no experience with the 70-300mm so I can't compare.

250mm to 300mm is not that big of a difference.

Thanks both of you for the input. I would like to hear from someone that owns both, or has owned both before. Or just more opinions in general, I'm stumped

Wow threads get pushed back pretty quickly here...

crcal wrote in post #10966541
For $200 or less, the 55-250mm is an awesome lens, that's my reccomendation. I have no experience with the 70-300mm so I can't compare.

250mm to 300mm is not that big of a difference.

I guess it depends on what your shooting , but I think it is .

I'd wait and check out the new Tamron 70-300mm.

I won't be purchasing for another 1-2 months. What about the new Tamron do you think is worth waiting for?

Ultimate wrote in post #10967064
I won't be purchasing for another 1-2 months. What about the new Tamron do you think is worth waiting for?

Here's a thread about it https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=915074

If you're not in a hurry , i'd wait and see if it's worth it .

I have both lenses. Used the 55-250 for a year or so, the 70-300 for 4 months. Both on a Rebel XSI.
Shot at airshows mostly, ranging from scale RC aircraft to the real deal.

The image quality is VERY similar, differences are seen mostly at wide open apertures with the 70-300 being slightly sharper (i needed that extra sharpness, I like to crop and need to more often than not).
At f/8 they're almost impossible to distinguish.

The USM motor on the 70-300 is not much faster than the 250's. But i did see a difference (more keepers seems to be a good measure for that).
Not that the 250 is bad, it worked pretty good shooting RC aircraft but I've found myself using AF less, because it failed too much tracking the planes even when close to infinity.
The 70-300 did better with locking AF accurately at all distances.

The extra 50mm were useful many times, allowing me to crop less. Every bit helps.

Regarding build quality- both are not even up to my Tamron 17-50.
The 250 always felt like a toy to me. The zoom ring was hard to move accurately- it would always jump a bit when moving it slowly. The 300's zoom and focus rings feel and operate much better, smooth and with no zoom creep (250's barrel will drop like a rock when pointed down).

Also, the 250 is a great dust pump! Not only are some internal elements are covered with nice dust (that doesn't seem to impact IQ, but it's still there) after a year now, but I've also noticed that less dust made it onto my sensor with the 70-300. I don't see any dust inside the 70-300 yet.

The 70-300 is noticeably heavier and larger than the 55-250.
the IS on the 70-300 seems a little more effective, maybe it's also because of the weight.
The IS also was VERY useful at 300mm in many cases, especially in mode 2 for panning.

I like the 70-300 better because it's built better, keeps my sensor cleaner and has that little edge on sharpness and reach. The price really is rather high but it's an EF lens, more glass and all.
I bought mine second hand, still great condition, so the price was a little lower.

If you really need a compact lens- go for the 55-250. If you need some more IQ and performance, the 70-300 will help.

If you can't afford the 70-200 f4 non-is, you cannot afford the 70-300mm IS.

If you've got the money, get the 70-300--if not, stick with the 55-250... it's a darn good lens for the money. The 70-300 is slightly better, but more than 2x as expensive. Of concern to some: the 70-300 is not an all-in-one. With the 55mm, you can sometimes have it double as a portrait lens--at 70mm (especially on APS-C), that's just too long to start with.

Thanks for that response. When I first started looking, I had my eye on the 300. I think started coming across other variations and said "Hm what about this?" "Oh wait, there's this one too" etc. Your post reinforces my initial choice of the 300. However I probably will wait and see what happens with the new Tamron. Like I said, I won't be purchasing for a while anyway so why not wait?

MOkoFOko, you may have misunderstood me (or I wasn't clear). I can not afford the 70-200 f/4 L IS. Not the non-IS. The non-IS and the 70-300 are basically the same price (close enough) but I think I would regret not having IS.

I had both, sold the 70-300 and kept the 55-250. Focusing speed is similar, IQ is indistinguishable and I preferred the IS system on the 55-250. It's a terrific lens for the price; you're unlikely to be disappointed. The "lost" 50 mm of reach amounts to a couple of steps forwards or backwards.

i don't know what other gear you have, or what you like to shoot...but i'd get the 55-250mm, and put the money saved towards something else...

Buy the 55-250 and start saving for the 100-400L. Going from 250-300mm is not that big of a deal. Going up to 400mm is much better!

55-250 isnt bad for the money....but id vote 70-200 with no IS