tight budget lens for birds

I think you'll be pleased with your choice.
I loved my 55-250 and yours will be the more recent, better version.
Happy shooting!

Thanks! I am excited to get it!

MalVeauX wrote in post #17415362
Heya,

By the way, what kind of birds are we talking about here? Large birds? Coast birds? Water fowl? Birds in flight specifically? Raptors? Song birds?

Birding can be all kinds of things, from trying to capture diving eagles with a massive lens on a mount, to sitting in a garden with a little blind and stationary shooting song birds at feeders with a short lens. Either way is fun. It's all about what you plan or want to do. It will help dictate what you need.

Shorter focal lengths can be even more useful for birding in urban environments. Since I have been shooting birds for the last 11 years, there have been numerous uncommon or vagrant birds in Manhattan which stayed for days or weeks in small, busy parks and became fearless of people, and would come so close that I wished I was using a 200mm or even 100mm lens. Many of the potential shots are lost because the minimum focus distance on longer lenses is too great, and even if you have a close-focusing zoom, they are often a bit soft at the short end, or it takes too long to zoom out. Bird photos from a close perspective can have qualities than you don't see in distant "spy" pictures. Getting close is where the real "reach" is!

You will be happy with the 55-250. I just traded mine in on a 100-400 but I had the 250 for several years. On a crop camera it provides some pretty good reach. if you set up a feeder and spend lot of time close to it with your camera the birds will get used to you. My yard birds dont even leave the feeder when I open the door now.

John Sheehy wrote in post #17419809
Shorter focal lengths can be even more useful for birding in urban environments. Since I have been shooting birds for the last 11 years, there have been numerous uncommon or vagrant birds in Manhattan which stayed for days or weeks in small, busy parks and became fearless of people, and would come so close that I wished I was using a 200mm or even 100mm lens. Many of the potential shots are lost because the minimum focus distance on longer lenses is too great, and even if you have a close-focusing zoom, they are often a bit soft at the short end, or it takes too long to zoom out. Bird photos from a close perspective can have qualities than you don't see in distant "spy" pictures. Getting close is where the real "reach" is!

Sometimes.

In my local areas there are aggressive gulls & pelicans that will walk right up and take your lunch. So sure, a wide angle lens would even capture one. Depends what look you're going for.

Here's a gull with 85mm at F1.4 on full frame:

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/qz9H​fX

quick question.

I was looking at buying the lens today and I noticed there are prices all over the board. I see the ones from USA are way more money? Is it really that much better? I was looking at buying from here if anyone has ever heard of them and this one was not made in the USA

http://www.abesofmaine​.com …DTNf5ZqkzVoGEDR​oCVL7w_wcB

or ebay

http://www.ebay.com …ain_0&hash=item​339d37b5b4

mamaof2 wrote in post #17423497
quick question.

I was looking at buying the lens today and I noticed there are prices all over the board. I see the ones from USA are way more money? Is it really that much better? I was looking at buying from here if anyone has ever heard of them and this one was not made in the USA

http://www.abesofmaine​.com …DTNf5ZqkzVoGEDR​oCVL7w_wcB

or ebay

http://www.ebay.com …ain_0&hash=item​339d37b5b4

Jessi, The price difference you are seeing may be an indicator of a "Grey Market" item and not covered under Canon USA warranty.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/Gray-Market.aspx

Though, for the price, I'd probably snag it anyway.

I see B&H has one for $30 more used. I wonder if I should bite on that one being it is a US lens for sure?

http://www.usa.canon.c​om …anonAuthorizedD​ealers.pdf

Check your local craigslist, there is a 55-250 on the Milwaukee site for $135 (not related to me), I've seen others for more or less, I got my 55-250 from a craigslist seller for $100 and it has been working fine for me.

I started a similar thread to this one recently and have pretty much decided to just stick it out with my current lenses until my budget reaches my want list. Too bad I can't zoom my wallet.

haha no kidding!

I want the 55-250 STM

Read through some of the "stm" threads, to my understanding the STM helps with video and may or may not equate to enough added value to justify upgrading to the stm version of the lens. A $200 difference could easily add a decent tripod or filters (CPL or ND or others) or speedlight or remote shutter controller if your budget is as limited as mine is.

Food for thought.

Thanks for the thought! I did post about this very thing awhile ago and most people said STM is better.

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1404691

mamaof2 wrote in post #17423897
Thanks for the thought! I did post about this very thing awhile ago and most people said STM is better.

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1404691

Heya,

Regardless of the optical improvements the STM 55-250 has, the key feature that really should have you going "YES!" if you're a filter user, is that the front element doesn't rotate with focus. Someone might be saying "Uhh.. why does that matter?" and the answer is, well, if you use a CPL, this is one less thing to constantly fool with.

If you're shopping a 200~250mm, get the STM. It's sharper. And it's simply built more like what nicer lenses are like. At $170 it's a total steal. It's as good optically basically as the 70-200 F4L non-IS in a practical sense.

Very best,

Thank you so much for explaining that! I just bought one off the forum. Should be here Thursday or Friday!

I forgot about the non-rotating front end, can be a big deal at times.