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

AMP2774 wrote in post #14720258
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!!

Does it come with the original receipt from a Canon Authorized Dealer dated within the last year? If not it has no warranty that Canon will honor, and the warranty starts on the day of the receipt. Technically they aren't transferable.

"New in box with warranty" really means "used but well taken care of with the warranty card"

[QUOTE=Keyan;14720299]​Does it come with the original receipt from a Canon Authorized Dealer dated within the last year? If not it has no warranty that Canon will honor, and the warranty starts on the day of the receipt. Technically they aren't transferable.

"New in box with warranty" really means "used but well taken care of with the warranty card" [/QUOTE

The guy that owns it said it was brand new in box never opened and he has a receipt to go with it, I asked him why he was getting rid of it without ever using it, he told me he was an I-T tech and bought it because he got it super cheap his job. Im not sure if this is a BS story or what. But i priced this lens at a local camera shop he had it forsale used for 450, i know they retail for 649, but if it isn't worth a **** at 300mm then it can't be that good. IM not sure what shooting full frame is and why that lens would be better, "Im really new at this" I just figured it would be a kick ass lens because of its zoom, better optics?, and the fact that it is an IS lens.

[QUOTE=AMP2774;1472046​5]

Keyan wrote in post #14720299
Does it come with the original receipt from a Canon Authorized Dealer dated within the last year? If not it has no warranty that Canon will honor, and the warranty starts on the day of the receipt. Technically they aren't transferable.

"New in box with warranty" really means "used but well taken care of with the warranty card" [/QUOTE

The guy that owns it said it was brand new in box never opened and he has a receipt to go with it, I asked him why he was getting rid of it without ever using it, he told me he was an I-T tech and bought it because he got it super cheap his job. Im not sure if this is a BS story or what. But i priced this lens at a local camera shop he had it forsale used for 450, i know they retail for 649, but if it isn't worth a **** at 300mm then it can't be that good. IM not sure what shooting full frame is and why that lens would be better, "Im really new at this" I just figured it would be a kick ass lens because of its zoom, better optics?, and the fact that it is an IS lens.

Ok cool, I am just always wary of scams, if he has an original receipt you should be ok warranty wise. It is not a bad lens, have you ever seen one in person?

[QUOTE=AMP2774;1472046​5]

Keyan wrote in post #14720299
Does it come with the original receipt from a Canon Authorized Dealer dated within the last year? If not it has no warranty that Canon will honor, and the warranty starts on the day of the receipt. Technically they aren't transferable.

"New in box with warranty" really means "used but well taken care of with the warranty card" [/QUOTE

The guy that owns it said it was brand new in box never opened and he has a receipt to go with it, I asked him why he was getting rid of it without ever using it, he told me he was an I-T tech and bought it because he got it super cheap his job. Im not sure if this is a BS story or what. But i priced this lens at a local camera shop he had it forsale used for 450, i know they retail for 649, but if it isn't worth a **** at 300mm then it can't be that good. IM not sure what shooting full frame is and why that lens would be better, "Im really new at this" I just figured it would be a kick ass lens because of its zoom, better optics?, and the fact that it is an IS lens.

A few points. The 70-300 is NOT a bad lens. It is quite good for the money out to about 250mm. The 55-250 is quite good, also, at half the money. Both of them are IS lenses. The difference between 250 and 300, as far as reach goes, is not worth paying for.

Full frame refers to the size of the image sensor/film. The 55-250 is an EF-S (not full frame) lens and will not work on full frame/film cameras. The 70-300 will work on any and all Canon EF mount bodies, digital or film. If you don't own a film body, and don't plan on upgrading to FF ($2,000+) any time soon, get the 55-250.

I do use a film body and have no use for the 70-300, on any camera. I use a lesser lens, the 70-210 f/3.5-4.5 (old lens - $100), when I can get away with it, and a 100-400L when I need the reach and/or IQ.

Eastport wrote in post #14720797

Anything less you'll never want to take the IQ hit vs your 70-200 2.8 II. The 70-300L is a great lens.

Keyan wrote in post #14720952
Anything less you'll never want to take the IQ hit vs your 70-200 2.8 II. The 70-300L is a great lens.

I was just giving advice to the OP. I suspect the L lenses are not in his price range.

Eastport wrote in post #14720177
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).

I was saying you should get the L variant as you'll probably never use the non-L since you have the 2.8 II.

I also think it is probably out of budget for the OP, but if not, it is great.

Back to the OP, if you can get the 70-300 for that price and everything looks legit you can probably sell it used later for basically that same amount if you should decide to move on to another lens.

Keyan wrote in post #14721165
I was saying you should get the L variant as you'll probably never use the non-L since you have the 2.8 II.

I also think it is probably out of budget for the OP, but if not, it is great.

Back to the OP, if you can get the 70-300 for that price and everything looks legit you can probably sell it used later for basically that same amount if you should decide to move on to another lens.

Oops. Oh, OK.

No interest in getting rid of the 70-200 f/2.8 IS. Need the 2.8 for events like low light recitals, school plays and concerts.

But for fun vacations, baseball games, lacrosse games and NFL games (which won't allow the white L lenses) the 70-300 IS has some advantages. And I have had enough experience with it, I know what I'm getting into should I decide to dip my toe there...again!

Eastport wrote in post #14721199
Oops. Oh, OK.

No interest in getting rid of the 70-200 f/2.8 IS. Need the 2.8 for events like low light recitals, school plays and concerts.

But for fun vacations, baseball games, lacrosse games and NFL games (which won't allow the white L lenses) the 70-300 IS has some advantages. And I have had enough experience with it, I know what I'm getting into should I decide to dip my toe there...again!

All im looking for is the best IQ through out its range out of the 2 lenses! color, sharpness, at any zoom. If one is superior to the other thats the one i wanna purchase. Im not gonna know either ones full potential because im a newbie at this, Thats why i ask you guys who have used these lenses. Im sure i will learn alot and look forward to learning alot from everyone on here. My camera is a rebel t3i with the standard 15-55 is lens. It just isn't cutting it for any length of zoom and im eager to get out and start learning my camera and the enjoyment of taking alot of pictures and learning from my mistakes and how to better myself! So if either one lens stands a tad taller than the other thats the one im gonna pull the trigger on, and start enjoying this.

AMP2774 wrote in post #14721416
All im looking for is the best IQ through out its range out of the 2 lenses! color, sharpness, at any zoom. If one is superior to the other thats the one i wanna purchase. Im not gonna know either ones full potential because im a newbie at this, Thats why i ask you guys who have used these lenses. Im sure i will learn alot and look forward to learning alot from everyone on here. My camera is a rebel t3i with the standard 15-55 is lens. It just isn't cutting it for any length of zoom and im eager to get out and start learning my camera and the enjoyment of taking alot of pictures and learning from my mistakes and how to better myself! So if either one lens stands a tad taller than the other thats the one im gonna pull the trigger on, and start enjoying this.

And based on that I would recommend the 55-250 IS.

I've owned both the 55-250 and the 70-300 (at the same time, for a couple of months). After using them side by side, I had no hesitation in selling the 70-300 and keeping the 55-250. In terms of image quality, they're pretty similar. Focusing speed is also similar. However, my 55-250 is sharp throughout the range, wide open, whereas the 70-300 was not. I found the updated IS system on the 55-250 to be superior, and much preferred the smaller, lighter build. Lastly, the range was far more useful to me than the 70-300.

The 55-250 is an outstanding lens for the price. I kept mine even after getting a 70-200 f4 IS (a $1000 lens). The 55-250 has become my vacation and hiking lens, and never lets me down. It's produced some of my favourite images over the years. I highly recommend it.

ceegee wrote in post #14721675
I've owned both the 55-250 and the 70-300 (at the same time, for a couple of months). After using them side by side, I had no hesitation in selling the 70-300 and keeping the 55-250. In terms of image quality, they're pretty similar. Focusing speed is also similar. However, my 55-250 is sharp throughout the range, wide open, whereas the 70-300 was not. I found the updated IS system on the 55-250 to be superior, and much preferred the smaller, lighter build. Lastly, the range was far more useful to me than the 70-300.

The 55-250 is an outstanding lens for the price. I kept mine even after getting a 70-200 f4 IS (a $1000 lens). The 55-250 has become my vacation and hiking lens, and never lets me down. It's produced some of my favourite images over the years. I highly recommend it.

Yeah, I just got the 70-300L, and I am not going to get rid of my 55-250. The 55-250 has a higher magnification factor for macro, and if I need to pack light or loan someone a lens I have one for that.