Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 23 Sep 2010 (Thursday) 19:11
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

55-250 or 70-300 My head hurts.

 
Ultimate
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
86 posts
Joined Sep 2010
     
Sep 24, 2010 09:07 |  #16

Koshin wrote in post #10969579 (external link)
55-250 isnt bad for the money....but id vote 70-200 with no IS

I think I'd miss the IS. In low light without a tripod it's pretty much necessary if you want to be tack sharp.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
bmwcolin
Senior Member
Avatar
564 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Nov 2009
     
Sep 24, 2010 11:52 |  #17

Skip both of those, I have tried both, neither is bad, I liked the 55-250is for the price and light weight (which could be a con too) I have pre-ordered the Tamron 70-300 vc. Looks to be a awesome lens, do a search on here and there are a few threads about it with sample pix. http://www.amazon.com …r?ie=UTF8&m=ATV​PDKIKX0DER (external link)


EOS 6d, 24-105, 85 1.8, Tamron 150-600. kenko 180*fisheye, tokina 11-16, Canon 100L macro, 430ex.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
watt100
Cream of the Crop
14,021 posts
Likes: 29
Joined Jun 2008
     
Sep 24, 2010 13:20 |  #18

egordon99 wrote in post #10969571 (external link)
Buy the 55-250 and start saving for the 100-400L. Going from 250-300mm is not that big of a deal. Going up to 400mm is much better!

absolutely true !




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CountryBoy
"Tired of Goldmember label"
Avatar
5,168 posts
Joined May 2006
Location: Okie
     
Sep 24, 2010 16:54 |  #19

ceegee wrote in post #10967518 (external link)
I had both, sold the 70-300 and kept the 55-250. Focusing speed is similar, IQ is indistinguishable and I preferred the IS system on the 55-250. It's a terrific lens for the price; you're unlikely to be disappointed. The "lost" 50 mm of reach amounts to a couple of steps forwards or backwards.

There are many times when one can not move forward a couple of steps . When looking at my images , I can always tell when I left my zoom on less then 300mm . Yes it does matter more then some let on and you can tell the difference .


Hi

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
HmrMike
Junior Member
21 posts
Joined Sep 2009
     
Sep 24, 2010 17:22 |  #20

CountryBoy wrote in post #10972323 (external link)
There are many times when one can not move forward a couple of steps . When looking at my images , I can always tell when I left my zoom on less then 300mm . Yes it does matter more then some let on and you can tell the difference .

Yep.
I don't want to find out what crossing the fence at an airshow would get me into. Also, these two steps will not have the same effect as adding 50mm when things are too far away.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Ultimate
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
86 posts
Joined Sep 2010
     
Sep 24, 2010 17:32 |  #21

It looks like I will stick with 70-300. I will just wait to see how the Tamron performs before I make my final decision. Thanks for all who helped out.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SpeacialMoments
Member
Avatar
49 posts
Joined Sep 2010
Location: Splendora, Tx
     
Sep 24, 2010 19:39 as a reply to  @ post 10969579 |  #22

I "had" the 70-300mm Tamron non-is. This is what it did, I liked it. I take lots of sports with it. It broke in two yesterday....but something to think about at $159.00.

IMAGE: http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4109/4981272314_9381743a01.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …tivesnapshots/4​981272314/  (external link)
IMG_4315 (external link) by kellyldishman (external link), on Flickr

This is with no tripod sitting in the bleachers, with track, and fence in between. Pretty good to me. Could have been better but I think I was shooting in small jpeg so they could have been better in defense of the lens.

Canon 30D -"NIFTY Fifty- Tamron 75-300MM *BROKE* Canon 55-250 IS - Jill-e Bag - CS4 http://www.facebook.co​m/kellyldishman (external link)
http://www.flickr.com/​sweetmemoriesandphotos (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SiaoP
Goldmember
Avatar
1,406 posts
Joined Dec 2009
Location: Bay Area
     
Sep 24, 2010 19:41 |  #23

Get the 70-200 f4 non-IS.


My Flickr (external link) | Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
The ­ Ran
Goldmember
1,555 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Hertford, England
     
Sep 24, 2010 19:53 |  #24

I don't get why anyone would suggest the 70-200mm f/4, it's shorter than the 50-250mm, more expensive and lacks IS.


Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Ultimate
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
86 posts
Joined Sep 2010
     
Sep 24, 2010 19:56 |  #25

SpeacialMoments wrote in post #10973086 (external link)
I "had" the 70-300mm Tamron non-is. This is what it did, I liked it. I take lots of sports with it. It broke in two yesterday....but something to think about at $159.00.
QUOTED IMAGE
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …tivesnapshots/4​981272314/  (external link)
IMG_4315 (external link) by kellyldishman (external link), on Flickr

This is with no tripod sitting in the bleachers, with track, and fence in between. Pretty good to me. Could have been better but I think I was shooting in small jpeg so they could have been better in defense of the lens.

I saw that thread. I'm referring to the new Tamron that is supposed to come out very soon. It is 70-300mm and has IS. I think they call is Vibration Compensation? I don't know much about it yet...




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
egordon99
Cream of the Crop
10,247 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Philly 'burbs
     
Sep 24, 2010 20:03 |  #26

The Ran wrote in post #10973157 (external link)
I don't get why anyone would suggest the 70-200mm f/4, it's shorter than the 50-250mm, more expensive and lacks IS.

It's ~1 stop faster (I'm guessing the 55-250 is NOT f/4 @ 200mm, but if I'm wrong, someone correct me), has extremely fast USM autofocusing, the IQ is better, and it's full-frame compatible.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
monst0r
Member
237 posts
Joined Aug 2009
Location: New Jersey
     
Sep 24, 2010 20:10 |  #27

egordon99 wrote in post #10973195 (external link)
It's ~1 stop faster (I'm guessing the 55-250 is NOT f/4 @ 200mm, but if I'm wrong, someone correct me), has extremely fast USM autofocusing, the IQ is better, and it's full-frame compatible.

+1

It's a huge upgrade really. I used to use a 55-250 on my XTi, and decided it was time for an upgrade. I found myself taking pictures of planes often and while the extra reach would be nice, I preferred having a solid lens. I didn't spring for the 70-200 however, but the 80-200 2.8L. I got it for about the same price as the 70-200 4L, and it's served me great. The IQ jump was awesome, the 2 stops of speed, plus the build quality and overall experience. I understand a lot of people don't consider buying older gear, but it can be a great value. There's also a 100-300L that is ancient, but goes for a very decent price of ~$400 I believe.


Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
The ­ Ran
Goldmember
1,555 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Hertford, England
     
Sep 24, 2010 20:15 |  #28

1 stop faster is nothing compared to 3-4 stops from IS. And before you say that the 1 stop advantage could be helpful with sports to freeze motion, the lighting needs to be so bad that your at the limit of acceptable ISO and can't afford to bump it up a stop and you're needing to shoot wide open. Image quality and USM are fair points, of course they both depend on what body Ultimate is using, and it's not as if the 55-250mm has ****e image quality to begin with.


Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
Avatar
18,381 posts
Gallery: 49 photos
Likes: 3282
Joined Mar 2006
Location: S.F. Bay Area
     
Sep 24, 2010 20:16 |  #29

The Ran wrote in post #10973157 (external link)
I don't get why anyone would suggest the 70-200mm f/4, it's shorter than the 50-250mm, more expensive and lacks IS.

the same could be said for a 200mm f2...do you see a problem with your argument yet?


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
J.Litton
Goldmember
Avatar
1,741 posts
Likes: 16
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Florida's Treasure Coast
     
Sep 24, 2010 20:17 |  #30

The iq of the 70-200 l is loads better than the 55-250 IMO.


7D MK II.17-40L.100-400L.500L
www.jlitton.com (external link)
www.facebook.com/jlitt​on.nature.photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

5,788 views & 0 likes for this thread
55-250 or 70-300 My head hurts.
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is kurbronj
871 guests, 267 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.