Need Opion on 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM

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...........​....

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.

also look at the tamron 70-300 VC..

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.

IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING! HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'text/html'

IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING! HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'text/html'

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?...............

Double post

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...............

i'd buy the 55-250 then.

pretty good lens for the $.

55-250...you say IS isn't important...but you don't have anything over 55mm...you'll see how valuable it is...

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.............​..

This is what sparked my Interest back back into Photography. This little guy shows up once every three Months, hangs out for about an Hour doing "Touch-n-Goes" then heads back out to Andrews AFB. Shot with my little Olympus C-740UZ, 300mm: f/4.5: 1/650: ISO64

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER. Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries. Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page. http://i985.photobucke​t.com …s/AirForce-1_1-1-2011.jpg

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.

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 you 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.

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?

http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …o_70_210mm_f_3_​5_4_5.html

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.

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...............