EF 55-250 is vs EF 70-300 is usm

Hello Everyone!! I was wondering what your thoughts are on the two lenses. I have both available to me and they are both in my price range, The 55-250 i can get in a local store for 299.00 i came across a 70-300 usm that is new in box for 325.00 someone has. Both are IS lenes, once i pay tax on the 55-250 in store it will be the same price. So my question is comparing the two lenes and for the same price what would be the best purchase? Any advice would be greatly appreciated thank you!!!

Neither @ those prices. The 55-250 can be had for around $150. Check the classifieds here.

mrbtd wrote in post #14718879
Neither @ those prices. The 55-250 can be had for around $150. Check the classifieds here.

And I picked one locally for $135 on CL. Shop around.

That said, Tamron 70-300 VC can be found used for $250-280 and it's better than both, IMHO.

Amamba wrote in post #14719242
And I picked one locally for $135 on CL. Shop around.

That said, Tamron 70-300 VC can be found used for $250-280 and it's better than both, IMHO.

You found one of the canon lenses that im looking for that cheap on cl?? Is it ok to buy used?

AMP2774 wrote in post #14719262
You found one of the canon lenses that im looking for that cheap on cl?? Is it ok to buy used?

If the price is right, and you can actually inspect the lens, why not ? It only took 10 min to check all functions & focusing. AFAIK there's little quality variation in 55-250, I've used at least 3 diff copies and they all performed the same.

Don't be afraid to ask for a lower price before meeting up, if the posted one is not reasonable. A lot of CL sellers set the price way too high because they don't know the market & compare to the $299 price tag at Target. The guy I bough my from was selling a kit (camera and two lenses), I offered to buy just that lens for that amount (which is about what he'd get if he sold it for $150 and had to mail it to someone & pay PP fees), I actually sent him a few links to "for sale" ads here and on FM. In the end everyone won - he got his money without a hassle, I got to inspect the lens before buying and saved $15 or so.

AMP2774 wrote in post #14718785
Hello Everyone!! I was wondering what your thoughts are on the two lenses. I have both available to me and they are both in my price range, The 55-250 i can get in a local store for 299.00 i came across a 70-300 usm that is new in box for 325.00 someone has. Both are IS lenes, once i pay tax on the 55-250 in store it will be the same price. So my question is comparing the two lenes and for the same price what would be the best purchase? Any advice would be greatly appreciated thank you!!!

get the 55-250IS for $169 from adorama which includes a one year warranty and free shipping
http://www.adorama.com​/CA55250AFSR.html

Don't even consider buying the 70-300 IS USM (non-L). The 55-250 is lighter, better optically (at the long end), cheaper, and there is not enough difference between 250 and 300 to justify spending more money for a lesser lens. As mentioned above, $300 is way too much for the 55-250. I sold my 70-300 non-L because it was way too soft at 300mm. And I'm not picky; I use kit lenses and discontinued stuff off of e-bay, mostly. My one concession to the Big Whites was the 100-400L. It was worth every penny.

[QUOTE=watt100;1471969​7]get the 55-250IS for $169 from adorama which includes a one year warranty and free shipping
http://www.adorama.com​/CA55250AFSR.html[/QUOTE

Wow they have some great prices!! Which lens is the nicer lens? It all comes down to that build quality ect... if you had your choice of the two for the same price which would be the best lens? the 55-250 is or 70-300 is usm??

I would still take the 55-250, the 70-300 is OK, but not fantastic and much larger. If you are thinking about going full frame some day the 70-300 is an EF mount while the 55-250 is EF-S. The focusing on the 70-300 is USM, but it is still driven with a small motor and isn't insanely fast. The 55-250 also has a very close minimum focusing distance so it can even do some macro work.

My suggestion? Get the 55-250 and save the money and put it towards another lens, want do you currently have? Also, $299 is full retail, never pay that for the 55-250, Canon regularly runs instant rebates on it, usually $50-$100 off.

sambarino wrote in post #14719841
Don't even consider buying the 70-300 IS USM (non-L). The 55-250 is lighter, better optically (at the long end), cheaper, and there is not enough difference between 250 and 300 to justify spending more money for a lesser lens. As mentioned above, $300 is way too much for the 55-250. I sold my 70-300 non-L because it was way too soft at 300mm. And I'm not picky; I use kit lenses and discontinued stuff off of e-bay, mostly. My one concession to the Big Whites was the 100-400L. It was worth every penny.

Clearly, the 55-250 is a better deal for the price. But, if you look hard enough you can find the 70-300 IS for as little as $300.

My experience with both these lenses was that the 70-300 was better optically. And, given the price, it should be. Don't confuse the 70-300 with either of the 75-300 models which have indeed been rather poorly rated (I have not used either of them).

I found the build and weight of the 70-300 a major plus over the much cheaper (in build quality) of the 55-250. I used both of these lenses on Rebels and the 70-300 on the 5Dc and the 5D2. I am thinking of repurchasing the 70-300 for my 5D2 (though I will not be dumping the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II).

If there's no chance of your moving to full frame, start with the 55-250. It's a good lens (maybe even very good).

Saying the 70-300 is week at 300 is not a great point when comparing it to the 55-250 (which is non-existent at 300!). Most of the long lenses are a bit weaker at its longest end.

Keyan wrote in post #14719891
My suggestion? Get the 55-250 and save the money and put it towards another lens, want do you currently have? Also, $299 is full retail, never pay that for the 55-250, Canon regularly runs instant rebates on it, usually $50-$100 off.

Walmart sells it for $243 all day long.
http://www.walmart.com …=Find&search_co​nstraint=0

sambarino wrote in post #14720180
Walmart sells it for $243 all day long.
http://www.walmart.com …=Find&search_co​nstraint=0

That's still too high. Last year, Amazon had them on sale twice for $144.

Anyway, this is one lens I would get used. Often the $ difference between used and new is too small and it's better to get a new one, but there's so many of these floating around because they were kits, the price of used is really decent. That $170 refurb from Adorama is a good deal if you want some peace of mind.

Eastport wrote in post #14720177
Clearly, the 55-250 is a better deal for the price. But, if you look hard enough you can find the 70-300 IS for as little as $300.

My experience with both these lenses was that the 70-300 was better optically. And, given the price, it should be. Don't confuse the 70-300 with either of the 75-300 models which have indeed been rather poorly rated (I have not used either of them).

I found the build and weight of the 70-300 a major plus over the much cheaper (in build quality) of the 55-250. I used both of these lenses on Rebels and the 70-300 on the 5Dc and the 5D2. I am thinking of repurchasing the 70-300 for my 5D2 (though I will not be dumping the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II).

If there's no chance of your moving to full frame, start with the 55-250. It's a good lens (maybe even very good).

Saying the 70-300 is week at 300 is not a great point when comparing it to the 55-250 (which is non-existent at 300!). Most of the long lenses are a bit weaker at its longest end.

Get the 70-300L

Eastport wrote in post #14720177
Clearly, the 55-250 is a better deal for the price. But, if you look hard enough you can find the 70-300 IS for as little as $300.

My experience with both these lenses was that the 70-300 was better optically. And, given the price, it should be. Don't confuse the 70-300 with either of the 75-300 models which have indeed been rather poorly rated (I have not used either of them).

I found the build and weight of the 70-300 a major plus over the much cheaper (in build quality) of the 55-250. I used both of these lenses on Rebels and the 70-300 on the 5Dc and the 5D2. I am thinking of repurchasing the 70-300 for my 5D2 (though I will not be dumping the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II).

If there's no chance of your moving to full frame, start with the 55-250. It's a good lens (maybe even very good).

Saying the 70-300 is week at 300 is not a great point when comparing it to the 55-250 (which is non-existent at 300!). Most of the long lenses are a bit weaker at its longest end.

I found a 70-300 is usm lens on craigslist brand new in box with a warranty for 325.00 if you don't think this is a good deal and or a better lenses than the 55-250is, is i will pass on it. I figured it was a steal of a deal at 325.00 brand new in box. It seemed to get great reviews and be better built, and a longer zoom. You guys have way more experience than me and so its class in session for me!!

Eastport wrote in post #14720177
Clearly, the 55-250 is a better deal for the price. But, if you look hard enough you can find the 70-300 IS for as little as $300.

My experience with both these lenses was that the 70-300 was better optically. And, given the price, it should be. Don't confuse the 70-300 with either of the 75-300 models which have indeed been rather poorly rated (I have not used either of them).

I found the build and weight of the 70-300 a major plus over the much cheaper (in build quality) of the 55-250. I used both of these lenses on Rebels and the 70-300 on the 5Dc and the 5D2. I am thinking of repurchasing the 70-300 for my 5D2 (though I will not be dumping the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II).

If there's no chance of your moving to full frame, start with the 55-250. It's a good lens (maybe even very good).

Saying the 70-300 is week at 300 is not a great point when comparing it to the 55-250 (which is non-existent at 300!). Most of the long lenses are a bit weaker at its longest end.

I had the 70-300 (non-L). I sold it because IQ at 300mm, wide open, was not acceptable. I use the 18-55 and the 18-135 and find them just fine, which should give you a good idea of how bad this lens is at 300 f/5.6. Several reviewers state that the 55-250 is better at 250 than the 70-300 is at 300. I replaced the 70-300 with the 100-400L. That lens is better at 400mm f/5.6 than the 70-300 was at 300 and f/8. Perhaps I had a less than stellar copy of the 70-300. Given the price of the 55-250 used, there is no reason to buy the 70-300 unless you are shooting FF or film.