55-250mm??

Hey everybody! I just ordered my 60D through the loyalty program yesterday with the 18-135mm IS. In terms of shooting, I'll be doing portraits, sports (horse riding), and some but not alot of nature. Plenty of indoor work too, so I need a faster lens. I went to a camera shop today to look at lenses and tripods, and was shown the 55-250. It was at a great price of $125 used, but I wanted to check on the quality of it before I bought it. I was also shown the Tamron 70-300mm VC that I liked, but I can't afford to pay $450. Around $250 is my limit for a telephoto lens, I know it is low. Do you recommend the 55-250mm, or do you have another suggestion?

I love mine - it's a pretty great lens for the price. I shoot for my school newspaper and it works well for outdoor sports, and I've even been able to make it work pretty well for speaker in dim lecture halls (the IS really helps in these situations). This is no 70-200 2.8 - the dof leaves something to be desired and obviously it can struggle in low-light situations. But it is also a tenth of the price of a 70-200 2.8 IS, and considerably more portable. I also love it for landscape shots - if you can get it mounted on a tripod (a good tripod that doesn't shake at 250mm) it is very sharp stopped down.

If you were going to pay more, I would skip the Tamron for $450 and get a 70-200 F4.

EDIT: This isn't a great portait lens though (although you can certainly shoot portraits with it). If you are focused primarily on portraits I'd check out the 85mm 1.8, which also does well indoors and for sports.

It's great for the price, but is slow, particularly at the long end. It's also cheaply made - but it does make it a bit of a bargain, particularly as it's optically quite respectable.

This is the bargain in consumer grade teles--but too slow for indoor use.

The 55-250 is a very nice lens, optically, especially for the price, but it does not meet your need for a faster lens.

aperture.anna wrote in post #13704277
Hey everybody! I just ordered my 60D through the loyalty program yesterday with the 18-135mm IS. In terms of shooting, I'll be doing portraits, sports (horse riding), and some but not alot of nature. Plenty of indoor work too, so I need a faster lens. I went to a camera shop today to look at lenses and tripods, and was shown the 55-250. It was at a great price of $125 used, but I wanted to check on the quality of it before I bought it. I was also shown the Tamron 70-300mm VC that I liked, but I can't afford to pay $450. Around $250 is my limit for a telephoto lens, I know it is low. Do you recommend the 55-250mm, or do you have another suggestion?

the 55-250IS is sharp but it's more of an outdoors lens because the minimum aperture is f4.0, it can be used indoors but you will have to increase the ISO levels.
A faster telephoto lens (f2.8) at 250mm will cost considerably more than $125

Also consider that your 60D has pretty decent high ISO, so you can probably make do for some indoor events.

The 55-250 is a nice lens. But you were looking for a fast lens. Within your budget you might want to look at one of these primes 50mm f/1.8, 24mm f/2.8, 28mm f/2.8, 50mm f/2.5 macro, 35mm f/2.0.

I consider the 55-250 IS better built than the 10-22 and 17-55. It's a nice lens for the money. Good lightweight hiking option.

Since you already have the 18-135, I don't see much use for the 55-250 for horse events. Look at the 85 1.8 ($350) or the 50 .18 II ($100) to accompany your 18-135. Beautiful horse event lenses. The 55-250 is not a fast lens, nor is it an indoor lens.

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

Really? I certainly don't. Both the 10-22 and 17-55 have better electronics and motors, are heavier and more solidly built - the 55-250 feels cheap and plastic-y in comparison, at least to me.

I'll be upgrading to a 70-200L as the next lens to replace it...

RTPVid wrote in post #13704868
The 55-250 is a very nice lens, optically, especially for the price, but it does not meet your need for a faster lens.

Yeah, that ^^^

As you have the 18-135, the 55-250 isn't going to be any faster, though will zoom a bit more. In your budget the 50mm 1.8 will probably be the only option for "fast". The 55-250 won't do anything indoors your 18-135 won't, in fact the 18-135 will do better indoors simply because it's wider.
If I were in your shoes, I'd see how your 18-135 goes indoors, and if you want/need something faster get the nifty fifty, and/or wait and save for a faster zoom like the 70-200 f4.

Enjoy your new camera, I love mine.

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

That comment makes me wonder if you're thinking of the right lenses. The 10-22 and 17-55 aren't fabulous in their solidity, but the 55-250 has cheap light plastic kit lens feel to it, no USM, no FTM, plastic mount, rotating front, weird sloppy feeling and awkwardly placed focusing ring.. etc. It's definitely not built anywhere near as nice as those other lenses.

I disagree. 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.

Mike55 wrote in post #13705108
Look at the 85 1.8 ($350) or the 50 .18 II ($100) to accompany your 18-135. Beautiful horse event lenses. The 55-250 is not a fast lens, nor is it an indoor lens.

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.

Mike55 wrote in post #13705478
I disagree. 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 like the 55-250 quite a bit for the price but I disagree with your build quality comparison to the 10-22. 10-22 feels much more sturdy.