55-250mm??

aperture.anna wrote in post #13705485
The 55-250 won't be for arena work, more for cross country/fox hunts and horses in the pasture.

I do plan on buying the nifty fifty but I wanted a cheap telephoto lens first to see if I'd rather stick with smaller zooms before I went ahead and started saving up for the 70-200mm F4L. I just don't know if I really have any use for longer focal lengths, which is why I want to go cheaper.
Thanks for the input guys, I appreciate it.

Then the 55-250 should fill the bill nicely. It is low cost, but it is very good optically, so it would be a good choice for what you want.

I'll clarify - when I say indoors, I mean shooting in large churches all the way in the back or in 125' by 250' indoor arenas where lighting is either shoddy or somewhat decent, depending on the arena. Nothing living room sized at all.
Outdoors, mostly large open meadows, different kinds of sports fields, and hiking trails.

I don't care about build, I am delicate with my gear, and the 55-250 was much more substantial than the 55-200 and 35-80 I also toyed with.

55-250 is a great value. Not great for low light. It is a struggle to get sharp shots from the back of dark arenas or churches. Real low light telephoto is more $$. If you're outside or its bright, it is one of the best values at these focal lengths.

A bit OT again, but I too have both a 17-55 and 55-250 and feel that the 17-55 is better built. I see your point (a little), but think that the USM and FTM make the 17-55 the build champion.

The 55-250 is a very good lens for the money. I wouldn't hesitate to get it. You'll need to pay a lot more for a better lens. It isn't a very slow lens with slow focusing though, so it might not work that well indoors.

Mike55 wrote in post #13705108
I consider the 55-250 IS better built than the 10-22 and 17-55.

Mike55 wrote in post #13705478
It feels more solid to me despite the plastic mount. I used it alongside a 17-55 this summer in a few national parks (my shooting partner has one). The 17-55 and 10-22 feel like they're about to fall apart in my hands. Nice IQ, though.

I own all three of the lenses and I too will have to disagree with you. The 10-22 and 17-55 is much better built. It's not just how it feels in your hands it's how it feels in your hand while it's attached to your camera. There's no comparison. The 10-22 and 17-55 "feels" like a precision instrument while the 55-250 "feels" like it's about to stop working in comparison.

I use 55-250 for portraits all the time. I think it makes a good portrait lens. I also think all that talk about build quality is silly. It's build well - otherwise it wouldn't survive many trips on the bottom of my regular (non photo) backpack without any special protection and still look and function like new. It's inexpensive but certainly not flimsy. As an engineer I think it is a very well designed plastic assembly.
But I wouldn't use it in a dimly lit large arena. It's not a low light lens. As a matter of fact even a 2.8 lens is not really a low light lens.

Despite its plastic mount, it's a reasonably well-built lens and worth the money IMHO. Optically it performs respectably.

I have a 55-250 and use it a lot. My daughter used it on my 50D to take this shot, indoors...no flash

btdrygulch wrote in post #13712288
I have a 55-250 and use it a lot. My daughter used it on my 50D to take this shot, indoors...no flash

That brings up a good point... you CAN use the 55-250 in low light if you are willing to tolerate the high ISO noise. It depends on what use you intend to make of the photos. Also, stage lighting can be quite bright, unlike arena lighting.

I'm not sure about there always being noise just because you pushed the ISO....My photo above has no PP at all and was shot at ISO 2000.

Well, that depends on how much noise you consider acceptable. Even at the small image included, there appears to be color noise in the backgrounds. I can't tell about the face, but it is probably there, too.

Don't misunderstand, that is a very usable image (IMO), but it does exhibit some high ISO noise.

Tom,

I don't disagree with you, but I think sometimes we put too much emphasis on noise (and believe me I'm not saying this about your comment) and that scares people. For example...a friend who is an avid amatuer will not set ISO on her 60D above 200. When I asked her why, she said that "everyone says I'll get noise if I go above 200" I'm not sure if she even really knows what noise is. Anna has a 60D which should be very good at handling a healthy ISO. Believe me I'd love to own 70-200 2.8 and keep my ISO down.

I agree with your point... believe it or not, my original post on ISO noise was intended to say you really can get some good images with the 55-250 in low(er) light situations with the high ISO capabilities of these cameras. (My phrase "high ISO noise" meant noise at high ISO, not high noise levels per se.) The OP has a 60D, which can do very well up to ISO 3200, perhaps higher depending on your needs.

Many of the really serious photogs on this site want super-clean images. Many more, however (such as me) can tolerate the noise since we are not planning on making super-large prints and value the overall image as a whole.

for your budget of $250 there are no better options...go for it...you can probably sell it for the same price if you don't like it

For the price it is a very good lens. Here's one that I took with it when I first got my xsi.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/73264135@N05/6​613364823/