What lens to look for

Hey guys,

What would be a decent lens up from the 55/250? Not too expensive, im not a pro.
Shooting birds in fight and such. thanx

Two good lenses worth considering, that are not too expensive, are the Tamron 70-300mm VC ($450 new) and the Canon 70-200mm f/4.0 (non-IS) ($500 used)

that canon is that the L ?

Oh, and apart from IQ with that canon lens. Would be gaining reach to the subject with either>

What's your budget? EF 70-200 f/4L is faster(from ~75mm on), faster focusing with FTM and very well built.. for around $700 . They can be found used in great condition for around $550.

under 1k but realistically under 500 lol

The 70-200 has faster focus and better IQ than the tamron 70-300 VC, but 100mm less reach, and is more expensive, and lacks VC. If you add a 1.4x TC on the 70-200, it will still have better IQ than the tamron, and only be 20mm shorter, but again, will lack VC and will cost even more.

Personally, I went with the 70-200 because I wanted better IQ than what I've seen from the tamron (while the tamron is good, I don't notice that much of a difference at all between it and the 55-250, so to me, upgrading to the tamron would be a bit pointless since I'd want to upgrade again in the future).

For birds in flight, the best choice would be the 400 5.6L, but that might be out of your price range. It is under 1K used though, so look into that.

However, the first question you should probably be asking yourself is why you want to upgrade from the 55-250?

torkk wrote in post #14157464
Hey guys,

What would be a decent lens up from the 55/250? Not too expensive, im not a pro.
Shooting birds in fight and such. thanx

The sad news for birds in flight "BIF" shots it is going to be expensive, most of the good 400mm start at $1,000 ------- start saving !

ok so 70/200l f4 sounds like the winner. and that would replace my 55/250 correct. just a little less reach. hmm decisions decisions

good point watt, maybe I should wait for the more cash. I do want the reach

You know that 55-250 is not that bad of a lens, if not doing 100% crops the images it produces for prints up to 8x10 is very good. if you upgraded your body to a higher resolution processor you would see what I am talking about. I went the route of the 70-200 F4 L (non-IS) and it's a very good lens, basically a must have at the $500 price but I have to wonder if on an XT body you would see that much improvement. I'd consider getting a 50D or even a newer Rebel first.

Just my two cents.

T2i4me wrote in post #14158086
You know that 55-250 is not that bad of a lens, if not doing 100% crops the images it produces for prints up to 8x10 is very good. if you upgraded your body to a higher resolution processor you would see what I am talking about. I went the route of the 70-200 F4 L (non-IS) and it's a very good lens, basically a must have at the $500 price but I have to wonder if on an XT body you would see that much improvement. I'd consider getting a 50D or even a newer Rebel first.

Just my two cents.

It's more about focus-speed and accuracy for BIF shots. Having an 18mp body and a lens that doesn't lock onto said birds, gets you nowhere...just clearer/more cropable OOF shots.

Agree, but I doubt that is all he is shooting. In my opinion the body will hold him back more than the lens at this juncture.

I shoot wildlife be it in a zoo or in the wild, car shows, people, landscapes etc.

70-200 f4 is your best bet without spending a lot more money. it's a great value in the lens lineup