Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 20 Oct 2012 (Saturday) 05:47
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Shall i get a 55-250 or save more for a L lens?

 
ekfaysal
Senior Member
Avatar
418 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 28
Joined Jun 2007
     
Oct 20, 2012 05:47 |  #1

so guys, i want to get a telephoto lens.
right now I'm at a budget in which i can get a 55-250mm.
Never had a L lens. heard its too good to have one.
so thinking that i should save more n get a L lens with 70-200 or something.
I guess it costs almost double then one 55-250.
if you are in my shoe, what would you do ?
Suggestions please


My INSTAGRAM (external link)

Facebook page (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
D ­ 550D
Senior Member
404 posts
Joined Feb 2011
Location: Slovenia
     
Oct 20, 2012 05:57 |  #2

I have the 55-200 (got it for 200 bucks new). It's a very good performer when there is good light. Where there isn't enough light it's not so good anymore.
It depends mostly on what do you shoot. If it's daylight, outdoor stuff than you'll be fine. If it's indoor action, you better get a fast prime like a 100 f2 or 85 1.8.

You might want to look into third party glass (Sigma 70-200 2.8 HSM II). Solid IQ and also a good price (some 500-600 euros).


http://domenulbl.blogs​pot.com/ (external link)
550D|Sigma 18-35 1.8 Art|Sigma EX 70-200 OS|Nifty Fifty|Samyang 85 1.4|430 EX II|

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
talbot_sunbeam
Senior Member
Avatar
848 posts
Joined Dec 2008
Location: UK
     
Oct 20, 2012 05:59 |  #3

I'd say, looking at your gearlist, get the 55-250 for now, it's a good starter lens for your kit, learn how to use it, take good pictures.

Then upgrade later when you know why you need to upgrade.



7D, 450D | 17-55, 10-22, 55-250, 50 1.8, 580EXII | YN568II | YN622 x3 | Magic Lantern | (Still) Jonesing for a 70-200 2.8...
Turns out a gripped 7D + 622 + 580exII + 70-200 2.8 IS MK2 is BLOODY HEAVY! Who knew?!!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jimewall
Goldmember
1,871 posts
Likes: 11
Joined May 2008
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
     
Oct 20, 2012 06:19 as a reply to  @ talbot_sunbeam's post |  #4

Get the 55-250 now, used if possible. It is a good lens. See if you use the focal length enough that you still want the L. Use is with IS on and off so if you do upgrade, you will know if you definitely need IS or not. (Though I think now I will always go IS if available on a lens.)


Thanks for Reading & Good Luck - Jim
GEAR

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
El ­ Pedro
Senior Member
Avatar
708 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 12
Joined Sep 2012
Location: Australia
     
Oct 20, 2012 06:39 |  #5

I bought a 55-250 used locally to see if I liked the focal length as I didn't want to drop $2500 on a lens I wouldn't use. Played with it for a week and went down and got a new 70-200 2.8 is II. The only other lens I own is an EF-S 17-55 and as soon as I saw the 55-250 I new it probably wouldn't satisfy my needs.

Not sure where you're from but I got my used 55-250 for $150.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sliceotime
Senior Member
Avatar
582 posts
Gallery: 17 photos
Likes: 2
Joined Jan 2012
Location: Williamsburg, Virginia
     
Oct 20, 2012 06:49 |  #6

If I were in your shoes, I'd find the best deal on this lens and buy it. I have two, the first one went to my girlfriend with the T2I, seeing the results it's the only lens she wants to shoot with. Got the second one at BB for $150. I think this lens is one of the best canon lens values going, you won't like this lens you'll love it! There's only one draw back to this lens, it may lead you down " L " glass avenue.


-Slice
So many birds so little time.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Snydremark
my very own Lightrules moment
18,491 posts
Gallery: 47 photos
Likes: 1527
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Issaquah, WA USA
     
Oct 20, 2012 07:05 |  #7

Get it now; see if those focal ranges are something you're going to use...and then, if so, start saving for one of the 70-200s. Comparatively, the price is minimal and isn't going to, significantly, impact your saving up for an "L" lens...especially if you do as the others have suggested and find a reasonably priced, used one.


- Eric S.: My Birds/Wildlife (external link) (7D MkII/5D IV, Canon 10-22 f/3.5-4.5, Canon 24-105L f/4 IS, Canon 70-200L f/2.8 IS MkII, Canon 100-400L f/4.5-5.6 IS I/II)
"The easiest way to improve your photos is to adjust the loose nut between the shutter release and the ground."

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
watt100
Cream of the Crop
14,021 posts
Likes: 29
Joined Jun 2008
     
Oct 20, 2012 07:13 |  #8

ekfaysal wrote in post #15146013 (external link)
so guys, i want to get a telephoto lens.
right now I'm at a budget in which i can get a 55-250mm.
Never had a L lens. heard its too good to have one.
so thinking that i should save more n get a L lens with 70-200 or something.
I guess it costs almost double then one 55-250.
if you are in my shoe, what would you do ?
Suggestions please

spend $169 and get the 55-250IS - it's a nice sharp lens with "IS"
http://www.adorama.com​/CA55250AFSR.html (external link)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CountryBoy
"Tired of Goldmember label"
Avatar
5,168 posts
Joined May 2006
Location: Okie
     
Oct 20, 2012 07:15 |  #9

I'd save for at least the 70-200mm f/4L ....


Hi

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
paddler4
Goldmember
Avatar
1,319 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 7
Joined Aug 2009
     
Oct 20, 2012 07:57 |  #10

Never had a L lens. heard its too good to have one.

When you start thinking like this, stop. Yes, the L lenses in that focal length range (there are a bunch of them) are all very good. At least two of them are truly outstanding. However:

A 70-200 L with IS will cost you MUCH more than twice as much. The 70-200 f/4 IS costs about $1300.

More important, for most purposes, unless you are very experienced, you are not going to see a huge difference in image quality. I know; I've owned both the 55-250 and the 70-200 f/4 IS. Until you have a lot of experience, most of the variation in image quality will be you: how well you compose the shot, how well you choose settings, how carefully you use the various AF options, and how well you post-process the image.

So I am with most of the others: get yourself a 55-250. It is an inexpensive lens, and it feels like it, but it can take very good images, and it is an excellent lens for the price. Then practice a lot, and when you get to the point where that lens is holding you back for some reason, consider upgrading.

And when you do get to that point, there is nothing magical about L lenses. There are lots of superb lenses that are not Ls, and many of them are much cheaper. I have been shooting for decades and currently have 5 lenses, of which only 2 are Ls. When you get to the point where an upgrade makes sense, shop around and ask for specific advice here. In some cases, you will find good, much cheaper options; in other cases, you may not.


Check out my photos at http://dkoretz.smugmug​.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BJenk
Member
182 posts
Joined Mar 2011
     
Oct 20, 2012 08:10 |  #11

It's hard to beat the price on the 55-250. Worth getting now. If you feel the need for a bit higher quality and more range, consider the Tamron 70-300 VC.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
danpass
Goldmember
Avatar
2,134 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2006
Location: Miami, FL
     
Oct 20, 2012 08:26 |  #12

CountryBoy wrote in post #15146161 (external link)
I'd save for at least the 70-200mm f/4L ....

A refurb model just might meet the savings price range. But it won't have IS


Dan
Gallery (external link) | Gear/Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
StarTzar
Senior Member
Avatar
426 posts
Likes: 1
Joined May 2010
Location: Gatineau QC, Canada
     
Oct 20, 2012 08:56 |  #13

paddler4 wrote in post #15146253 (external link)
When you start thinking like this, stop. Yes, the L lenses in that focal length range (there are a bunch of them) are all very good. At least two of them are truly outstanding. However:

A 70-200 L with IS will cost you MUCH more than twice as much. The 70-200 f/4 IS costs about $1300.

More important, for most purposes, unless you are very experienced, you are not going to see a huge difference in image quality. I know; I've owned both the 55-250 and the 70-200 f/4 IS. Until you have a lot of experience, most of the variation in image quality will be you: how well you compose the shot, how well you choose settings, how carefully you use the various AF options, and how well you post-process the image.

So I am with most of the others: get yourself a 55-250. It is an inexpensive lens, and it feels like it, but it can take very good images, and it is an excellent lens for the price. Then practice a lot, and when you get to the point where that lens is holding you back for some reason, consider upgrading.

And when you do get to that point, there is nothing magical about L lenses. There are lots of superb lenses that are not Ls, and many of them are much cheaper. I have been shooting for decades and currently have 5 lenses, of which only 2 are Ls. When you get to the point where an upgrade makes sense, shop around and ask for specific advice here. In some cases, you will find good, much cheaper options; in other cases, you may not.

Solid advice right here..... go for the 55-250




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BigBadWolfie
Senior Member
268 posts
Joined Jul 2011
     
Oct 20, 2012 09:24 |  #14

Get the 55-250 and then decide which 70-200 you really want. You can get it for under $200 regularly so don't stress yourself out over it.

paddler4 wrote in post #15146253 (external link)
More important, for most purposes, unless you are very experienced, you are not going to see a huge difference in image quality. I know; I've owned both the 55-250 and the 70-200 f/4 IS. Until you have a lot of experience, most of the variation in image quality will be you: how well you compose the shot, how well you choose settings, how carefully you use the various AF options, and how well you post-process the image.

So I am with most of the others: get yourself a 55-250. It is an inexpensive lens, and it feels like it, but it can take very good images, and it is an excellent lens for the price. Then practice a lot, and when you get to the point where that lens is holding you back for some reason, consider upgrading.

And when you do get to that point, there is nothing magical about L lenses.

I disagree. Lenses make a difference and in Canon's lineup, L lenses make a difference pretty much every time. I have the 55-250 and I've rented the 70-200 f2.8ISII. There's no comparison. My photos were much better with the 70-200 and I can guarantee you it wasn't me. The 55-250 is a great value and under good light and stopped down it is an excellent lens. But it's AF is extremely slow compared to the 70-200 so much so that if you're not under good light you'll miss a ton of shots with the 55-250 in comparison to having a 70-200.

The 55-250 is like a blunt knife compared to the 70-200. When you're able to cut with the 55-250, you'll find that it works pretty well compared to the 70-200. But in cases where you're having trouble cutting with the 55-250, the 70-200 makes life a whole lot easier. The person behind the camera always matters but the tool does the person uses does too.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RAH1861
Senior Member
330 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Jul 2011
     
Oct 20, 2012 09:36 |  #15

How about a 3rd-party lens in the middle of the price range, like the Tamron 70-300 (i.e. Tamron SP AF70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di VC USD). There's a $100 rebate right now, so you can get it for $350. Excellent lens.


Rich
Canon 80D; 60D; SL1; Canon 60mm; Canon 400mm f5.6L; Canon 1.4 II teleconverter; Canon 10-18 STM; Canon 55-250 STM; Tokina 12-24; Sigma 17-50; Sigma 17-70; Sigma 18-250; Bower 35mm; Tamron 70-300; Pro-Optic 8mm fisheye

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

3,540 views & 0 likes for this thread
Shall i get a 55-250 or save more for a L lens?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is smarshall1
1658 guests, 305 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.