Canon 55-250 f/4-5.6 IS vs Tamron SP 70-300 f/4-5.6 Di VC USD

Techuser wrote in post #11919442
For widlife the 70-300 would be better even for accepting a TC, as the 250 dont

Good point, though if you're planning on using a TC extensively, I'd look at other options...Tamron + TC is getting close to the price of a used Bigmos.

Thanks for the input guys! I'm new to photography and at this point all I have is the kit lens so I need something with a little more reach in general. I realize neither of these lenses have a truly sufficient reach for wildlife photography but seeing as I'm a college student I don't have 1k to spend on a lens right now. This lens will act as an intermediary until I can save up for the Sigma 150-500.

I have both. The 55-250 is a good lens. So is the Tamron. I take a lot of pictures of my grandkids playing sports. I find the extra reach of the Tamron is handy on a large soccer field. Image quality seems to be the same. Even with the Tamron it's hard to get close to wildlife. I'd go with the 55-250 because it's cheaper and you can apply the savings toward the Sigma.

ShaneKPhotography wrote in post #11921539
This lens will act as an intermediary until I can save up for the Sigma 150-500.

Then it makes sense to get the cheaper option, since the optics are pretty darn close.

LowriderS10 wrote in post #11918614
Have you ever used the Tamron?

I really doubt it.

To answer the OPs question, I've had two 55-250s and now own the 70-300. I like the Tamron much more all around.

Cesium wrote in post #11923558
I really doubt it.

To answer the OPs question, I've had two 55-250s and now own the 70-300. I like the Tamron much more all around.

Haha yeah, that was my feeling too.

I would get the Tamron (in fact I did) for the extra reach, however, if it's an in-between lens, then the cheaper option makes more sense.

i would get the canon...simply because you can buy it used, whereas the tamron is pretty new, and i don't think too many used copies are floating around...either way i'd definitely buy used this way you won't lose any money when you go to sell it...hell you might gain some money...also keep your eye out for the sigma used...i've seen some crazy low prices on it like less than $750

The Tamron I would say... the 55-250mm is really good for the price, can be had for $200-$250 range. However, the thing is, the Tamron is amazingly good for the price. It can be had for $400 ish, especially if ther is a rebate going on. For the price you get a MUCH better build. Real ultrasonic auto-focus. Full frame compatibility. Much better edge sharpness and contrast on the long end...etc. Oh, and a nice lens hood. And the best stabilization I've ever seen on any lens. It can be jumpy if you are a bit shakey the Canon is more useable, but if you aren't very shakey and can hold pretty still you can literally keep the image locked dead solid for seconds or more--it's eerie the first time you experience it in the viewfinder.

Honestly, they priced it so low for how good it is that it really makes no sense to get any other 70-300mm zoom (except maybe the L if you have tons of money). It really destroys the 55-250 and Canon 70-300 imho lol. And lets not even talk about how much better it is than the Sigma and previous Tamron offerings.

Abe's of Maine has the Tamron 70-300mm VC for $369 after $30 discount and $50 Tamron mail-in rebate. Free shipping too within CONUS.

Sirrith wrote in post #11921978
Then it makes sense to get the cheaper option, since the optics are pretty darn close.

absolutely true, get the 55-250IS for $150 and then start saving for the 100-400 !

XSi (450D) with Canon 55-250IS

Hi all, new to the forum, in fact I joined for this post. I was looking at getting the new Tamron 70-300, and had someone tell me to get the canon 55-250 instead. I tried the tamrom and really liked it but wanted to know more...This photo here says a lot.
And the xsi is one of my cameras.
I just want a good zoom lens with stabilization. I got a free canon 75-300, no IS and don't like it at all except for it was free and worth every penny!

Get The Tamron

55-250 is decent. It's more versatile overall, since at 55mm you're in the "standard" range for most portraits etc. It's also very light and sturdy, a perfect travel lens, it spent more time in my non-photographic lightly padded backpack than it did safely stored in house, with no negative effects whatsoever. I could theoretically use it as my only lens if I were to only look at the focal range. For most situations I don't think extra 50mm on the long end make as much of a noticeable difference as 15mm on the wide end.

However there are also some negatives. I find that in the relatively poor lighting the contrast and corner sharpness suffer on the long end. Contrast more so. So if you're shooting birds in the dimly lit forest be prepared to boost contrast in PP all the time. Also 250mm is probably too short for this purpose but so is 300mm.

As an overall tele lenses go, the only other lens I'd be willing to buy would be one of the Canon 70-200 series, otherwise it's hard to justify spending all that extra money without seeing a major boost in IQ, especially since today 55-250 can be had dirt cheap. For what you want to use it for, I'd go with a longer lens. Just my $0.02

Reasons?

greytracker wrote in post #12018624
Reasons?

I assume the question is directed at my post ?

The reason is, Canon 55-250 can be had new for under $200. It has a very decent if not spectacular IQ. Tamron is twice as much (over $400) with very little advantage in IQ. Why spend this money for no major gain ? The Canon 70-200 /4 non-IS can be had new for about $650 and it would have a much better IQ than either of the other two lenses (granted without IS). Canon 70-200 /4 IS will be even better (and more expensive). So I can see the reason in getting 55-250 (cheap and decent), and I can see the reason in getting one of the 70-200 teleuberlords (pricey and excellent) but I see no reason to buy anything in between. This is just my personal point of view.