70-300 IS II USM or 55-250 IS STM

Trying to decide on which value telephoto to get, reviews seem mixed on which one has the better image quality.

the 70-300 has a better build quality and 50mm more reach but it costs about $200 more than the 55-250.

The 55-250 is more compact and lighter which would be nice when backpacking.


I'm fairly new to shooting with a DSLR, I'm using a new to me XSi and a 50mm 1.8 STM currently.


So basically just wondering if the 70-300 is worth the extra cost or is the 55-250 just as good or better?

Thanks in advance.

I owned the original 70-300 IS USM, and the 55-250 STM. Michael Carnathan at TDP says the original 70-300 and the II are essentially optically the same. I thought version one was a pig at 300mm. I'd take the 55-250 STM as first choice among the two.

I had the v1 70-300 also and also wasn't happy with the performance at the long end. I sold it and bought a 70-200 f/4L, figuring I'd rather crop a really really great image taken at 200 mm than have a so-so image taken at 300.

I bought a 55-250 STM about a year ago as a lightweight alternative for biking and hiking. I'm seriously impressed with the performance of this lens! Even at the long end. How impressed? I just sold my 70-200 f/4L to fund a 100-400, figuring that I had quality coverage of the same range with the 55-250. That's good company to keep!

I just posted five images I made recently with the 55-250 in the cheap lens thread: https://photography-on-the.net …p?p=18380273&i=​i111864032

As far as cost, both lenses are available at significant savings on the used market. I see 70-300's on Craigslist all the time for around $300, and 55-250 STM's for around $150-180 (that's where I bought mine).

Mike

If the only lens you have right now is the 50/1.8, the. I would save the $200 and buy the 55-250 STM and then use the money saved to buy a 18-55 STM because 50mm is really tight for your widest lens on crop.

Just to throw the opposite opinion in here -- My wife had the 55-250 STM for a couple of years and got the 70-300 II last December. She much prefers the 70-300 II and is very glad she made the change. Also, the 70-300 II works on FF bodies if she ever wishes to go to full frame.

Here are a couple of her photos:

Buy the 70-200 f4 L that a member is selling for $425.00

LJ3Jim wrote in post #18380961

Very nice, is that Galiano Island in the background?

texkam wrote in post #18381003
Buy the 70-200 f4 L that a member is selling for $425.00

A great lens, but be aware that the ones at that price don't have IS. the ones with IS go (used) for more like $750.

Mike

I have the non IS version and love this lens. Everyone of these pictures was made with it.

http://kamenish.weebly​.com/running.html

dochollidayda wrote in post #18381078
Very nice, is that Galiano Island in the background?

A little further south. The snowcapped mountains are the Olympics. The shot was taken from Fir Island about 5 miles southeast of La Conner, WA, and looking to the southwest. We've been photographing in this area for 6 years, and it's the first time we've seen ice at this location. It was (for us) a cold winter.

Had the 70-300 II and now have the 55-250 STM. The latter is better because it is smaller, lighter and slightly better IQ, More noticable at the long end. All that is irrelevant if you want it for FF. Both are good lens and you will be happy with either.

Personally went with the 55-250 STM for a light and versatile option to use with crop, preferred it mainly due to positive experiences with the non-STM version and the wider wide end.