What do you think of the EF-S 55-250mm IS lens?

I bought a T2i last december with the kit lens (18-55mm).

I can see the reach limitation of this lens so I'm looking at a longer reach lens. Since I'm new to this hobby and don't want to break the bank, is the EF-S 55-250mm a good choice for me?

I will only use this lens outside, taking pictures of my boy on his bike, playing soccer, etc...

I have read that on a the digital picture web site:

Of course the lens that they mention (70-200mm) is better, it is 3x the price of the 55-250mm. I think we must compare apples with apples no?

I can get the 55-250mm for 230$ on Amazon.

If I can get similar quality compared to the lens kit but with a longer reach, that would be fine for me.

thanks for any input.

The 55-250 is a great choice. Don't let its low price fool you. This is a very nice lens that gives comparable results to lenses costing much more. I used to own the Canon 70-300, but sold it and kept the 55-250 instead. It will do a fine job on the types of photography you mention. Enjoy!

You said it yourself, that is comparing apples and oranges. Of course a lens three times the price is better and worth it if you can afford it.

The 55-250mm is an excellent lens for the price. It has IS and it is incredibly sharp. You can get it for cheaper used as well. I've seen them for $100!

Buy the 55-250mm. You will be happy.

Unless of course you have more cash, then get a 70-200mm!

I don't have one, but I've seen the 55-250mm recommended many times on these forums as an inexpensive zoom.

Check out the 55-250mm image sample thread.

Jason

ceegee wrote in post #14207991
The 55-250 is a great choice. Don't let its low price fool you. This is a very nice lens that gives comparable results to lenses costing much more. I used to own the Canon 70-300, but sold it and kept the 55-250 instead. It will do a fine job on the types of photography you mention. Enjoy!

It's the damn reviews that fools me!!!

They also mention in the review that the 70-200mm is the NON IS version. I thought for long reach is was almost mendaroty to have image stabilization ??

it's popular, probably because of the price

I've got a 55-250 and think it's great. Obviously it's not L or USM, but it still takes great photos. I think I would rather have the IS at these lengths than the 70-200 non-IS. A lot of the reviews and comments say that the 55-250 is the "best VALUE" of performance for the price you pay in a tele zoom. I would save up for either the 70-200 IS in f/4 or f/2.8 instead of paying for the 70-300's more marginal increase in quality for almost triple the price. I bought mine last year for around $230-240, but if there are the occasional Canon instant rebates or you look on eBay, it is pretty easy to get for below $200.

rick_reno wrote in post #14208087
it's popular, probably because of the price

And because it's an image stabilized lens with good image quality.

I was in the same situation as you when I first puchased my T2i about 2 years ago. Friends had told me to save my money and purchase a better quality lens rather than purchase a cheaper lens that I would eventually have to upgrade. Instead, I followed the mantra that the best lens is the one you have in your possession. Rather than wait and miss out on photo opportunities that required a longer lens, I purchased the 55-250 as part of the Kit Package when I bought my camera.

I was very happy with the results it produced for the price. I was able to get clear crisp shots of wildlife, birds in flight, motorcyle racing, NASCAR and Indy Car. You will need good light to get good pictures but the lens is capable of producing great images under the right conditions. I print my photos on a large format printer for sale as fine art and was very happy with the results this lens produced. Many of the shots on my website were produced with the 55-250.

About a month ago I finally upgraded to the new 70-200 IS ii with 1.4x III to replace the 55-250. I still use the 55-250 when I am going on long hikes or want to keep the weight of my equipment to a minimum.

Good lens for the price, you'll be happy with it.

It's no coincidence or fluke that there are plenty of threads with the same question that have the same response that the 55-250 is a great bang for the buck.

The 55-250 is a great quality, bargain zoom lens. I don't normally shoot in those ranges however I have one just in case those situations arise. I've only used it a few times but the IQ is very good and, for the price, you won't find a better lens. You could go the 70-200 route however they're quite pricey to say the least. They're worth it but unless you've got money burning a hole in your pocket, the 55-250 is a no brainer and will serve you well for those longer range shots.

You can check out the marketplace forum for 55-250's (that's where I got mine from) for cheaper than you would on Amazon or some other online retailer.

The 55-250 is a great lens, you simply won't find a better bargain for this kind of reach. While the build quality is definitely entry level, the lens give nothing away in IQ, and the IS is excellent. I still use mine on my rebel when I wanna travel light and I don't need the speed of the "great white".....

For the money, it's absolutely a great buy. Please take a look at the photos people took with this lens. From bird inflight to sports car zoooming on race track....
https://photography-on-the.net …165683&highligh​t=55-250mm

as mentioned, if you do a search you'll find so many threads refering to the great value of this lens. I owned and loved it as long as there was enough light. I do alot of sports and the minute I tried using this in a gym - forget it. But I see that it looks like you'll be outside so light shouldn't be an issue. Are there better lenses out there? Sure, but for the money, you shouldn't be disapointed.

I actually sold mine a while ago, and now my wife is complaining that she wanted it for the 450d....