I'm looking for a zoom and I narrowed it down to a EF-S 55-250 f/3.5-5.6 IS or a EF 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM. IQ is important and IS not so much, plus I'm on a limited Budget. Opinions very much appriciated...............
Chief_10Beers Didn't get his vaccinations . . . ![]() More info | Nov 25, 2011 06:10 | #1 I'm looking for a zoom and I narrowed it down to a EF-S 55-250 f/3.5-5.6 IS or a EF 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM. IQ is important and IS not so much, plus I'm on a limited Budget. Opinions very much appriciated............... ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
LOG IN TO REPLY |
lungdoc Goldmember ![]() 2,101 posts Likes: 1 Joined May 2006 Location: St. Catharines, Ontario Canada More info | Nov 25, 2011 09:52 | #2 No personal experience but I believe the 50-250 IS is considered quite good for the price and the 100-300 isn't as well regarded. Mark
LOG IN TO REPLY |
muskyhunter Goldmember ![]() 1,137 posts Likes: 4 Joined Nov 2010 Location: Toronto, Canada More info | Nov 25, 2011 10:49 | #3 also look at the tamron 70-300 VC..
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Nov 25, 2011 11:36 | #4 I own a copy of the 100-300, and it is okay at best. Here is a random bird shot from yesterday @300mm f/9 ISO-400 TV-1/100sec. This lens is decent @100mm, but as one gradually creeps to the tele end, the sharpness fall dramatically. If you're not going to be pulling 100% crops, I'd say it will do fine, but it you need fine detail then look at more expensive options.
100% Crop of the Bluejay. This has been sharpened in PP, and as you can see, it doesn't have a lot of detail.
_
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Nov 25, 2011 14:01 | #5 muskyhunter wrote in post #13449447 ![]() also look at the tamron 70-300 VC.. I wish, but my Budget is limiting me to under $200. I was looking at the Used/referb lenses at B&H, the 100-300 is listed at $158.35 OTD Used and the 55-250 at $174.95 Factory Referb ($199 new) with free shipping. Is it a coin flip between the two?............... ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Nov 25, 2011 14:07 | #7 davidc502 wrote in post #13449605 ![]() I own a copy of the 100-300, and it is okay at best. Here is a random bird shot from yesterday @300mm f/9 ISO-400 TV-1/100sec. This lens is decent @100mm, but as one gradually creeps to the tele end, the sharpness fall dramatically. If you're not going to be pulling 100% crops, I'd say it will do fine, but it you need fine detail then look at more expensive options. As long as the Image is sharp up to 8X10, I'll be a hapyy camper............... ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
LOG IN TO REPLY |
muskyhunter Goldmember ![]() 1,137 posts Likes: 4 Joined Nov 2010 Location: Toronto, Canada More info | Nov 25, 2011 15:05 | #8 i'd buy the 55-250 then.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Nov 25, 2011 19:44 | #10 DreDaze wrote in post #13450940 ![]() 55-250...you say IS isn't important...but you don't have anything over 55mm...you'll see how valuable it is... You maybe very well right as I need the long end of the zoom for Photographing Avions, from the Feathered Humming Bird to the Aluminum Antonov An-225 and everything inbetween...............
Photobucket blows with their Image compression............... ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
LOG IN TO REPLY |
macroimage Goldmember 2,169 posts Likes: 2 Joined Aug 2007 More info | Nov 25, 2011 22:34 | #11 I have both lenses and the 55-250 is better optically and covers a wider range. The 100-300 f/4.5-5.6 USM gets quite soft towards the long end. The 55-250 is pretty sharp at all settings. The main reason to choose the 100-300 USM over the EF-S 55-250 would be if the fast, silent, ring USM autofocus with the non-rotating front element are most important to you over everything else. Perhaps another reason would be if you needed full-frame coverage for a full frame digital SLR or a 35mm film SLR.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
lsuber Senior Member 502 posts Likes: 1 Joined Jun 2008 Location: North Carolina More info | Nov 26, 2011 07:15 | #12 I've owned the 100-300mm and thought it would be a nice, inexpensive lens that would get me to 300mm. The problem with it is that the closer to 300mm you get, the worse that lens becomes. It's too bad, because there are more choices for covering the 200mm and below range, so it's value really lies in the 200-300mm range that other lenses don't cover. But it just doesn't do well there. Canon 5D Mark II | 28-70mm f/2.8L USM | Σ 70-200mm f/2.8 APO EX DG HSM OS | 85mm f/1.2L USM | Σ 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM | 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro | LR5 | PS CS5
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Nov 26, 2011 07:42 | #13 lsuber wrote in post #13453007 ![]() I've owned the 100-300mm and thought it would be a nice, inexpensive lens that would get me to 300mm. The problem with it is that the closer to 300mm you get, the worse that lens becomes. It's too bad, because there are more choices for covering the 200mm and below range, so it's value really lies in the 200-300mm range that other lenses don't cover. But it just doesn't do well there. Another lens I'll toss out there for your to consider is the 100-300's "sister" lens, the 70-210mm f/3.5-4.5 USM. That's one dandy of a lens, and can be had within your budget. It's a superior lens, optically, to either of the ones you're considering. Be sure it is that lens exactly though. You don't want the other 70-210mm that's out there. But if you can find the USM f/3.5-4.5 model in good shape, you can't go wrong. Yeah, I was looking at the 70-210 USM at B&H, is this the one? ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
LOG IN TO REPLY |
lsuber Senior Member 502 posts Likes: 1 Joined Jun 2008 Location: North Carolina More info | Nov 26, 2011 10:23 | #14 That's the one. Excellent lens, and a bargain for what it costs. I had one for a long time before I moved to a f/2.8 telezoom, and it would be what I still owned if I hadn't gotten a wider aperture lens. It's among the fastest-focusing lenses I've ever used. It's not the absolute fastest, but very close to it. Canon 5D Mark II | 28-70mm f/2.8L USM | Σ 70-200mm f/2.8 APO EX DG HSM OS | 85mm f/1.2L USM | Σ 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM | 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro | LR5 | PS CS5
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Dec 02, 2011 08:36 | #15 lsuber wrote in post #13453472 ![]() That's the one. Excellent lens, and a bargain for what it costs. I had one for a long time before I moved to a f/2.8 telezoom, and it would be what I still owned if I hadn't gotten a wider aperture lens. It's among the fastest-focusing lenses I've ever used. It's not the absolute fastest, but very close to it. How are the Optics of the 210 as compared to the 55-250............... ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
LOG IN TO REPLY |
![]() | x 1600 |
y 1600 |
Log in Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting! |
| ||
Latest registered member is Lian van den Heever 930 guests, 306 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 |