Ever used the EF 55-200 USM?

Not EF-S, but EF

https://www.keh.com …-5-6-usm-ef-mount-lens-52

It seems like a great deal but I know nothing about this lens (other than what is apparent in the write-up). I see it has no IS, but for that price I'm not a bit surprised.

Anybody have experience with it?

No expereince with it, but looks like it dates back to 1998-2003, since the Mark 2 version was introduced in 2003.

http://www.canon.com …/ef_55~200_45~5​6_usm.html

http://www.canon.com …f_55~200_45~56i​i_usm.html

Old film kit lens. Mediocre image quality.

If you want a budget FF telephoto, check out the 70-210 3.5-4.5 USM or a Sigma 70-300mm APO.

tkbslc wrote in post #17031222
Old film kit lens. Mediocre image quality.

If you want a budget FF telephoto, check out the 70-210 3.5-4.5 USM or a Sigma 70-300mm APO.

that sigma's price is so low. how is the quality compared to some of canon's stuff? it doesn't have OS, IS right?
I was looking at the 70-200 f4 without IS, but I think I will really need the IS, which is out of my price range.
I saw the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens, Tamron AF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 SP Di VC USD XLD,
both of which seemed decent. what do you think? i'd like to spend as little as possible.

pkim1230 wrote in post #17032383
that sigma's price is so low. how is the quality compared to some of canon's stuff? it doesn't have OS, IS right?
I was looking at the 70-200 f4 without IS, but I think I will really need the IS, which is out of my price range.
I saw the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens, Tamron AF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 SP Di VC USD XLD,
both of which seemed decent. what do you think? i'd like to spend as little as possible.

everyone wants to "spend as little as possible" !
What is your intended usage - sports? portraits? wildlife ?

watt100 wrote in post #17032840
everyone wants to "spend as little as possible" !
What is your intended usage - sports? portraits? wildlife ?

Wildlife mostly with a bit of astrophotography for giggles and sports when I rarely visit a sports event. Mostly wildlife.
I'm not about spending as little as possible but more about bang for the buck. I found the 55-250 to be fine for all of the above usages. So I'm not asking for much but since I got a new camera I don't want to use the crappiest lenses either.

Hard to beat the Tamron 70-300 VC for a budget FF tele lens.

pkim1230 wrote in post #17033002
Wildlife mostly with a bit of astrophotography for giggles and sports when I rarely visit a sports event. Mostly wildlife.
I'm not about spending as little as possible but more about bang for the buck. I found the 55-250 to be fine for all of the above usages. So I'm not asking for much but since I got a new camera I don't want to use the crappiest lenses either.

It's not as good as the 55-250, but it is better than the junk film lens the OP was looking at.

What's your budget? If you can stretch a little, consider 70-200 f4 zoom.

EOS-Mike wrote in post #17030981
Not EF-S, but EF

https://www.keh.com …-5-6-usm-ef-mount-lens-52

It seems like a great deal but I know nothing about this lens (other than what is apparent in the write-up). I see it has no IS, but for that price I'm not a bit surprised.

Anybody have experience with it?

Just know what you're buying.

You're buying a slow to focus, F8 telephoto lens, that requires all the ISO your 6D can muster to keep the shutter speed appropriate. For $70. If you just want to play around with 200mm, go for it. It's probably softer than some old 200mm pentax manual lenses that cost about the same. Simply fully manual. But with how slow this lens is with AF, you might as well do it with manual focus as you will not be doing much action with it.

It's cheap enough to not care, to try it out.

If you're wanting a real telephoto for full frame on a budget though, just look to some Tamron options. Great quality, VC, and reasonable prices. Otherwise, it's hard to beat a used 70-200 F4L at $450.

Very best,