Purchase 55-250 STM as first telephoto?

Hi everyone,

I'm currently using a borrowed EFS 55-250 IS, and I've found that I really enjoy wildlife photography. I'm considering purchasing my own telephoto (an upgrade to the borrowed one). Would the new EFS 55-250 STM be a significant upgrade?

Alternatively, can anyone suggest another upgrade to aim for?

If I'm going to be spending more than I would for the 55-250, I'd want a lens that beats it both in terms of max focal length and image quality. I've been finding that 250mm isn't enough (or is barely enough) for the situations I end up in... I was originally looking at Canon's 70-200mm f4, but I don't think I would want to give up 50mm of reach. Of course, if the upgrade is big enough, I could always overlook the focal length and maybe get an extender later.

My price point is ideally under $1000.

I am guessing the canon 100-400 would be your best bet but it runs around $1500

Pretty sure the two 55-250 lenses have the same optics but different focusing systems.

I agree you'll want more reach if you can afford it

I don't think they're the same optics.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …-f-4-5.6-IS-STM-Lens.aspx

You can do way better for $1000 though ... I think. This is in the end future kit lens. More bang for buck type.

You could look into the Tamron 70-300. It is a pretty nice lens with a lot of reach . Anything beyond 300mm is going to cost you :P

Thanks for the suggestions! I would love to have the canon 100-400mm, but I don't think I can afford to spend that much at this point... perhaps one to save up for. The Tamron definitely looks like it could be a good alternative to the 55-250.

Yeah it's either the Tamron or the 70-300L - and that one is also probably out of your budget.

There are also two Sigmas you could look at if reach is your goal. They make some tradoffs optically, but they do have crazy reach (and crazy size..)

http://www.adorama.com​/SG150500EOS.html
http://www.adorama.com​/SG120400EOS.html

if you're mainly using it for wildlife, i'd go for the sigma 150-500OS...yes it's big, but show me a lens that goes out to 500mm that isn't...

For $1,000 or less, your other options are mainly the Tamron 70-300VC, Sigma 120-400 OS, Sigma 150-500OS, or Canon EF 400mm f/5.6.

Of the above, the Tamron is the least expensive, but gives you only an additional 50mm of reach over the 55-250, which is not much for wildlife. The Sigmas give you more reach for your dollar. The Canon will have the best optics and AF performance, but you lose flexibility since it is a prime lens, and it lacks image stabilization.

At the tele end there's not much noticable difference between 250mm and 300mm.
To make a noticable difference you'll need 400mm+, but that means lots of money.

AS to the 55-250 newer STM or older non STM.
The newer STM ones are supposed to be redesigned and better quality.

Crop or FF? You mentioned giving up 50mm of reach if you went to the 70 200 so I am assuming FF. If crop then that would result in giving up 80. You can get a 100 400 or the 400 for around 1k if you wait for a 15 or 20% refurbished sale.

I have the 55 250 and 70 200 on a crop and the loss of 80 is significant for sports and wildlife. I will eventually get a 300 or 400 and then sell my 55 250.

the 55-250 is an EF-s, so it must be crop...and it's not giving up 80mm...it's giving up 50mm regardless of the camera format

PH68 wrote in post #16442597
At the tele end there's not much noticable difference between 250mm and 300mm.

20% diagonally and 30% in terms of resolution. It's like going from 18MP to 12MP with a crop.

DreDaze wrote in post #16442650
the 55-250 is an EF-s, so it must be crop...and it's not giving up 80mm...it's giving up 50mm regardless of the camera format

You are correct about the ef-s. I should have caught that.

But my understanding is the 250 gives you 400 reach on a crop and the 200 is equivalent to 320 with the 1.6 factor. Am I totally misunderstanding that? Maybe I should have stated the word reach? Still a noob.

bencodymike wrote in post #16442672
But my understanding is the 250 gives you 400 reach on a crop and the 200 is equivalent to 320 with the 1.6 factor. Am I totally misunderstanding that? Maybe I should have stated the word reach? Still a noob.

It's an area of great confusion. The best way to avoid it is always to use the actual focal length of the lens in question. So-called "equivalent focal lengths" are useful only when comparing fields of view for different formats. If they are not being compared, citing such values is unwarranted and unhelpful.

"Reach" is a somewhat vague term as it is dependent on the focal length used and the degree of magnification applied to the final image (whether induced by starting with a smaller image from a smaller sensor or otherwise). This is compounded by differences in sensel density among sensors (leading to the "pixels on target" philosophy), and the coincidence of design that tends to give smaller sensors higher density for contemporary bodies, leading to the confusion of sensor size with "reach".