Canon EF 70-300mm IS USM, Just as good but for less?

Just a fast question...

I was wondering if there is anything out there that is just as good as the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM, but for less?

I have seen the lens on line for $550 new and $475 referb. The cost of this "other lens" would have to be no more then the high $300 range for me not to go with the Canon.

It is understood, I could just keep looking for a good deal on a nice used Canon, but again just wounder if there is another Manufacture out there that can compare to the Canon specs.

I owned both the Canon 70-300 and the Canon 55-250 at the same time, and eventually decided to sell the 70-300 and keep the 55-250. As far as IQ is concerned, the two were virtually identical. As for focusing speed, there was no marked difference either; the 70-300 isn't a "true" USM. The 70-300 is heavier and "feels" more solid, but I actually preferred the compact formula of the 55-250, and it seems to be plenty robust enough for most amateur users (hiking, sports, beach, travel in my case). When I look at the images taken with these two lenses, I can't distinguish between them. Here in Canada, the 70-300 is more than twice the price of the 55-250, but IMHO it's nowhere near twice the lens. I'd certainly recommend that you take a look at the 55-250; it's a terrific lens and won't break the bank.

Thanks for that info... Wondering, would I miss the 50mm, would it be a big difference?

MrSteve wrote in post #7912730
Thanks for that info... Wondering, would I miss the 50mm, would it be a big difference?

It amounts to about two steps forwards or backwards. You might miss it sometimes, but in most cases you won't, not really. I don't miss it at all for about 95% of the shots I take with my 55-250 (zoo, family events, kid's events, trips to the park, dog activities, vacation). This lens stayed on my camera virtually full-time for last year's family vacation. I would say the place I miss those two steps the most is at our backyard bird feeder, but even so, I've had some really nice results with the 55-250.

Thanks again for the reply... I guess 2 steps isn't that bad.

Also I should have noted (I added it to my sig) that this lens will be going on a 30D and for now I have no thought on upgraded to a full frame at this time, if anything when the time comes, maybe to a 50D or when Canon comes out with a newer non-full frame model... So a EF-S lens will be just fine.

I have both the 70-300 and the 55-250 (which I picked up after the 70-300, because it was an offer I just could not refuse ...)

I took them both on a recent trip to Washington and Baltimore, and to be honest, the 70-300 never went on either body.

I found the 55-250 to give just as good performance and results as any I had with the 70-300 on previous opportunities, but it much lighter, easier to carry around, a better fit in my photovest pocket, and gets less attention.

I never missed the 50mm at the long end, and the 15 mm at the short end came in handy a couple of times.

Maxdave

Thanks again for the input... By the looks of it, if I go with the Canon lens, the 55-250 is the way to go. By what I have seen here and on the net, it almost seems that Canon made a "opps" with the 55-250, in other words they made it just as good if not a bit better then their 75-300 for half the price.

So for the reason for this thread in the beginning, is there any other company to go with that is just as good as the 55-250 or 75-300 for less then the price of one or the other?

Thank again for the replies.

MrSteve wrote in post #7921393
Thanks again for the input... By the looks of it, if I go with the Canon lens, the 55-250 is the way to go. By what I have seen here and on the net, it almost seems that Canon made a "opps" with the 55-250, in other words they made it just as good if not a bit better then their 75-300 for half the price.

So for the reason for this thread in the beginning, is there any other company to go with that is just as good as the 55-250 or 75-300 for less then the price of one or the other?

Thank again for the replies.

Originally you asked about the 70-300, but above typed 75-300. If you don't know, there is a huge difference between the two. The 75-300's are cheap in price and quality. I had a 75-300, and hated it.

Anyhow, you're right about the oops by Canon. The 55-250 is almost as good as the 70-300 at 1/2 the cost. The other problem with the 70-300 is that it is not that much cheaper than the 70-200 f4. If you can live without IS, the 70-200 is a clear winner over the 70-300 given the insignificant price difference.

Thanks... Sorry that was a typo on my part (I meant to type 70).

IS is pretty much is what I need or I should say feel I need, if I want to have somewhat good photos in the high mm range.