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.

 
The ­ Ran
Goldmember
1,555 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Hertford, England
     
Sep 24, 2010 20:51 |  #46

As I've said, it's only good for sports in the before mentioned extreme circumstance. Ultimate also mentioned he'll be using it for a bit of everything except studio work. As for subject separation, the depth of field is actually narrower at 250mm f/5.6 than it is at 200mm f/4.


Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
CountryBoy
"Tired of Goldmember label"
Avatar
5,168 posts
Joined May 2006
Location: Okie
     
Sep 24, 2010 20:51 |  #47

Ultimate wrote in post #10966452 (external link)
I'm looking to upgrade to a lens with more reach. I am currently trying to decide between the 55-250mm and 70-300mm. The lens will be used for....pretty much everything. Landscapes, walk-around, some sports/action. What it won't be used for: studio portraits. I've spent so much time reading and comparing between lens and so far I still can't decide. I know the 55-250 is much cheaper but you lose 50mm on the long end. Am I going to regret not having that extra bit of reach? I know that the IQ is very similar between the two lens. What do you guys think?

P.S. I was also looking at the 70-200 f/4 L non-is but I think I would regret not having IS. I'd really like the 70-200 f/4 L IS but it is out of my price range right now.


DreDaze wrote in post #10973396 (external link)
it's definitely not a bad suggestion...he mentions sports the faster focusing would help there...and as already mentioned the extra stop...not just for a faster shutter, but also more subject isolation...

i mean his handle is ultimate, and he's got a picture of a guy playing ultimate frisbee as his avatar...i bet he's going to be using it for some sports

He did think about the 70-200mm f/4 but ruled it out, due to lack of IS .
So there's really not much else out there in his price range .


Hi

  
  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 21:07 |  #48

The Ran wrote in post #10973459 (external link)
As I've said, it's only good for sports in the before mentioned extreme circumstance. Ultimate also mentioned he'll be using it for a bit of everything except studio work. As for subject separation, the depth of field is actually narrower at 250mm f/5.6 than it is at 200mm f/4.

yeah...but the framing would be entirely different...to get the same framing at 250mm you'd have to back up a bit...and by backing up you'd create more DOF...

CountryBoy wrote in post #10973462 (external link)
He did think about the 70-200mm f/4 but ruled it out, due to lack of IS .
So there's really not much else out there in his price range .

i'm just saying it's not a horrible suggestion...and to be honest for what he's describing i don't really see a screaming need for IS...but i do understand as i wouldn't want a telephoto without it...i recommended the 55-250mm to him, i bought the 70-300IS over the 70-200F4...i think they're all worth considering when you are looking at this range...

if i were the o.p. though, and not in a rush to buy i'd see what the tamron delivers


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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Ultimate
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
86 posts
Joined Sep 2010
     
Sep 24, 2010 22:31 |  #49

DreDaze wrote in post #10973396 (external link)
i mean his handle is ultimate, and he's got a picture of a guy playing ultimate frisbee as his avatar...i bet he's going to be using it for some sports

...and can you guess which sport? ;)

The Ran wrote in post #10973459 (external link)
Ultimate also mentioned he'll be using it for a bit of everything except studio work.

Also true.

CountryBoy wrote in post #10973462 (external link)
He did think about the 70-200mm f/4 but ruled it out, due to lack of IS . So there's really not much else out there in his price range .

Yeah. I've done a lot of reading about how necessary IS is. While I think I probably could get away with not having it, I don't want to take the chance. I can do without the extra stop of light (for now) but not so much without IS. Those are my thoughts at this moment anyway. They could change in a month in which case I will be right back where I started :rolleyes:




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SiaoP
Goldmember
Avatar
1,406 posts
Joined Dec 2009
Location: Bay Area
     
Sep 24, 2010 23:15 |  #50

The 70-200 is L grade and its image quality speaks for itself. Although not as sharp as a f/2.8 IS mark II, it is a lot better than the kit lenses.


My Flickr (external link) | Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CountryBoy
"Tired of Goldmember label"
Avatar
5,168 posts
Joined May 2006
Location: Okie
     
Sep 25, 2010 03:15 |  #51

Ultimate wrote in post #10973867 (external link)
Yeah. I've done a lot of reading about how necessary IS is. While I think I probably could get away with not having it, I don't want to take the chance. I can do without the extra stop of light (for now) but not so much without IS. Those are my thoughts at this moment anyway. They could change in a month in which case I will be right back where I started :rolleyes:

You do know IS is not going to help you shooting sports ?


Hi

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Ultimate
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
86 posts
Joined Sep 2010
     
Sep 25, 2010 08:57 |  #52

CountryBoy wrote in post #10974743 (external link)
You do know IS is not going to help you shooting sports ?

Yes. The reason why I was even debating NOT getting it is because I would be shooting sports. But sports is not the only thing I want to shoot. There will be many situations where I'll need a slower speed handheld and IS will be necessary.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Jethro790
Goldmember
Avatar
2,193 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Nov 2004
Location: Southern New Hampshire
     
Sep 25, 2010 09:41 as a reply to  @ Ultimate's post |  #53

I have the 70-300, never had the 55-250, but I have been very impressed with the quality if there is enough light to stop it down a bit. I actually bought it after I got my 70-200 2.8IS in an effort to have a lighter travel kit (55-250 wasn't an option then). Stop the 70-300 down and it's as sharp as my 70-200 and almost as nice color/contrast. The 70-300 really is a hidden L lens if you have enough light. Problem is, you can't just create light- unless you have a faster lens. And full telephoto at f8?? You better have a lot of light if you are shooting anything with a heartbeat. This is why people often suggest the 70-200 (which doesn't seem a competitor at all) in lieu of either the 55-250 or 70-300.

I've recently considered selling both my 70-200 2.8IS and 70-300 in exchange for a 70-200 f4IS now that with my 7d, I can crop like crazy and still have large enough files to print at 8x10. I think even 100mm shorter, it's a far better option if you are planning on shooting at full reach a lot.


If you must know...

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SpeacialMoments
Member
Avatar
49 posts
Joined Sep 2010
Location: Splendora, Tx
     
Sep 28, 2010 21:04 |  #54

I just went and replaced my tamron 70-300mm for the canon is 55-250, you saw what my other did and this is what my new one can do. I got it for $150.\

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://i795.photobucke​t.com …ellyldishman/IM​G_4813.jpg (external link)

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
flowrider
Goldmember
Avatar
3,606 posts
Gallery: 127 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 826
Joined Dec 2009
Location: 604
     
Sep 29, 2010 00:01 |  #55

I suggest the new Tamron 70-300 USD VC. It has the same f/4-5.6 as the Canon 55-250 but has a ultrasonic motor, full time manual and vibration control (IS). It's cheap and a great value to boot.

IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO


Link to Tamron's site (external link)

~Steve~
~ My Website-stevelowephoto.com (external link) ~ Facebook (external link)
Feedback Feedback Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Ultimate
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
86 posts
Joined Sep 2010
     
Sep 29, 2010 08:07 |  #56

I'm very seriously considering the Tamron but I would rather wait for some third-party reviews first.




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

5,794 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 Mike1911
820 guests, 191 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.