Worthy upgrade? 75-300 to 55-250 IS?

Hey all. Just got the 75-300 as a gift and have quickly noticed its drawbacks. Since I often find myself at the tele end of the kit lens, my first upgrade will probably be from the 75-300. I've read great things about the 55-250 IS, but is it worth it to upgrade from my current tele lens? My current budget is around $300 after selling the lens, but I could possibly afford more with a few months waiting. So I can get the 55-250 now if it's worth it. What do you all think? Thanks!

55-250 >> 75-300

Definitely do it. It's sharper, has modern IS and...IT'S SHARPER!!

I just purchased the 55-250 and am selling my 75-300...DO IT

definitely worth it

55-250 is super sharp. definitely should go for it.

Awesome, thanks a lot everyone. Off to sell that 75-300

go to 70-300 IS instead.

sorry to throw this in, but the optics, IS and USM are much improved and you wouldn't lose focal length at the long end.

http://www.bobatkins.c​om …s/ef_70_300is_r​eview.html

Froggeh wrote in post #7044123
go to 70-300 IS instead.

sorry to throw this in, but the optics, IS and USM are much improved and you wouldn't lose focal length at the long end.

http://www.bobatkins.c​om …s/ef_70_300is_r​eview.html

Is that lens $200 better? I've definitely considered it, but at that price point, would the 70-200 f/4 be a better option? That might be comparing apples to oranges though.

Unless the OP really wants/needs 300mm, the 55-250 IS offers more value. Optically as good or better than the 7-3 IS, but much smaller, lighter, and the IS is just as good if not better. Oh and it's quite a bit cheaper.

Froggeh wrote in post #7044123
go to 70-300 IS instead.

sorry to throw this in, but the optics, IS and USM are much improved and you wouldn't lose focal length at the long end.

http://www.bobatkins.c​om …s/ef_70_300is_r​eview.html

LightRules wrote in post #7044145
Unless the OP really wants/needs 300mm, the 55-250 IS offers more value. Optically as good or better than the 7-3 IS, but much smaller, lighter, and the IS is just as good if not better. Oh and it's quite a bit cheaper.

That's what I was thinking. If they're optically equivalent, losing 50mm in the long end is definitely worth the >$200 savings.

It is quite a bit cheaper, and I know you test a lot of lenses, but I'd disagree from my own experience that it's as good or better optically. In fact, I found the copy of the 55-250mm I had softer, lower contrast and more prone to having the shake - the weight of the 7-3 IS is a plus in my book when the 55-250mm IS is so light. The 250mm was less sharp at 240mm than the 300mm is at 240mm (brief target tests, banknote on fence post yadda yadda) - I gree the 55-250 is "more value", as in "cheaper and decent value for money", but having bought a 100-400L again I've kept the 70-300 - it really is an underrated lens.I also found the AF hunted more in low light on the 55-250, and wasn't impressed by the build quality. All this is subjective, but I also didn't find the IS of the 250mm any better/worse. I did find that on a 40D, it felt unbalanced and body-heavy with the 55-250, but I suspect on a XXXD cameral it'd feel a lot better (small movements in the body are amplified through the lens more in my use with the 55-250, I should say)

Edit - I also had a vignetting issue with the 55-250mm at 250mm, wide open......significant? to me....yes.

Well this would be used on an XS if that makes a significant difference. I guess my new question is: would it be better to save money, skip the 55-250, and jump to the next logical upgrade? If so, what is that next lens?

maybe 70-200mm f4L (non-IS). that's a fantastic upgrade to the 55-250. alternatively, you could look at the 100-400L. the 70-300 is an ideal travel walkabout lens for me.

My ideal setup would be 70-200L 2.8 IS + 1.4x tc + 400 5.6, but the 100-400L does most of that in a half price package or my wildlife/bird needs. It's not such a good portraiture lens though, for that I'd go for any variant of the 70-200.

more things to think about: IS on 55-250 is newer (4 stop?) and you could use it as a stepping stone to the 70-200 4 IS or 2.8 / 100-400, however you'll gain better long lens technique with a heavier lens. I'd skip the 55-250 myself - especially because you said you often find yourself at the tele end of the kit lens. If this is the end you'll be chopping off, why buy a shorter length zoom? especially when long glass costs so much money...

Could also look at the Sigma 100-300.

Unfortunately the 100-400 is way out of my price range for the foreseeable future. But you would say skip the 55-250 and get the 70-300 IS? Since my current budget is about $300, it'd be a few months until I could make it happen, but if it's worth it, I'll definitely consider.