Canon 55-250?

akcron

akcron

Suspended / Banned
Messages
387
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
No
Hello all.
Is the Canon 55-250 the best low budget choice for a zoom lens for my 30d?

I am looking for at least 200mm zoom and my budget will be £150 max.

Thanks all.:)
 
The short answer is ......Yes.
have a look at THIS thread.
 
i had the 55-250 and i sold it, it was slow to AF much slower than the kit lens and noisy too
and after taking a photo you could hear the glass rattling around untill the IS disengaged but
for your budget its the best you'll get. my advice is save some more and buy a better lens like the Tamron 70-300 VC USD £280
 
lucky_13 said:
i had the 55-250 and i sold it, it was slow to AF much slower than the kit lens and noisy too
and after taking a photo you could hear the glass rattling around untill the IS disengaged
Click to expand...

You should have returned it, it was clearly faulty, I can should birds in flight with mine, so the AF is no slouch, & definitely no rattling, it's a great lens for the price.
 
akcron said:
Hello all.
Is the Canon 55-250 the best low budget choice for a zoom lens for my 30d?

I am looking for at least 200mm zoom and my budget will be £150 max.

Thanks all.:)
Click to expand...

Hi

If £150 is your max budget, then yes it's a cracking lens and for the money it's worth getting...

The AF is slower (compared to more expensive lenses), but is more than adequate and the lens gives very nice results.

Hope this is of help...
 
Thanks all for the replies.
i am going to get a 55-250 as it is my best bet at the moment.
Think im going to get it from Kelso as i have heard good things about him.
Again big thanks all :)
 
akcron said:
Thanks all for the replies.
i am going to get a 55-250 as it is my best bet at the moment.
Think im going to get it from Kelso as i have heard good things about him.
Again big thanks all :)
Click to expand...

KERSO :D
 
wontolla said:
KERSO :D
Click to expand...

His web site is flashcamera

Camerapricebuster is another good site to keep an eye on for reference costs
 
You should have a look on the classifieds section, I got mine from there a few months ago and it's a tremendous lens, sharp, light and good AF speed. I'm thinking of selling it again though as I've got zooms that cover the reach and I want either an 85 f1.8 or a 35 f2 prime. For the price it's got to be one of the best zooms available.
 
lucky_13 said:
i had the 55-250 and i sold it, it was slow to AF much slower than the kit lens and noisy too
and after taking a photo you could hear the glass rattling around untill the IS disengaged but
for your budget its the best you'll get. my advice is save some more and buy a better lens like the Tamron 70-300 VC USD £280
Click to expand...

You definitely had a duff one!
Mine's very quiet, the AF is almost instant and it's pretty darn sharp.

I used mine this morning at a running event, took 270 shots using AI servo focus, just 3 missed focus caused by me accidentally taking my thumb off the back button. ;)
 
Thanks again for the replies ...
Ill remember its kerso not kelso :bonk:
 
jm2 said:
You should have returned it, it was clearly faulty, I can should birds in flight with mine, so the AF is no slouch, & definitely no rattling, it's a great lens for the price.
Click to expand...

I did, that was the second copy! Same as the first one..
 
Wozzaaah said:
You definitely had a duff one!
Mine's very quiet, the AF is almost instant and it's pretty darn sharp.

I used mine this morning at a running event, took 270 shots using AI servo focus, just 3 missed focus caused by me accidentally taking my thumb off the back button. ;)
Click to expand...

Perhaps I was expecting too much of the lens but No duff copy as I had 2 of them and just to make sure I borrowed a friends one over the weekend and it was the same as the 2 I had previously owned. Glad I got rid but as mentioned by many for the price, not a bad lens, just not for me.
 
To be dissatisfied with three copies is quite unusual, especially given that the majority of us owners rave about them. :shrug:
I think it also depends on what others you've used to compare it to.
If you're used to better built lenses with a ring USM then yes, I can see you might be disappointed with it.
We all know it's no L, it doesn't pretend to be but imho, what you get for such a small amount of money is astounding. ;)
 
Wozzaaah said:
To be dissatisfied with three copies is quite unusual, especially given that the majority of us owners rave about them. :shrug:
I think it also depends on what others you've used to compare it to.
If you're used to better built lenses with a ring USM then yes, I can see you might be disappointed with it.
We all know it's no L, it doesn't pretend to be but imho, what you get for such a small amount of money is astounding. ;)
Click to expand...

All of the above stands true, I'm spoiled by my 15-85 I suppose.
 
Beav said:
I have to agree. I recently brought one for motorsports :) Im thinking what would be the next lens up for me but would it be worth buying the Tamron 70-300? £280 for the extra 50mm.
Click to expand...

It's not just the 50mm that u get but also sharpness, IQ, USD AF and a better VC than the 55-250 although 2 x the price.
 
The 55-250 is definitely slower to focus than the kit lens, it's also much heavier too though I the kit lens is the only lens I can compare to because like yourself I'm just starting out.
 
lakeland said:
The 55-250 is definitely slower to focus than the kit lens, it's also much heavier too though I the kit lens is the only lens I can compare to because like yourself I'm just starting out.
Click to expand...


The 18-55.
2.7 in. x 3.33 in./68.5mm x 84.5mm (maximum lens length), 7.1 oz. (200g)

The 55-250.
2.8 in. x 4.3 in./70 x 108mm (maximum lens length); 13.8 oz./390g

Hardly a heavyweight and one of the lightest 250mm zooms on the market. Personaly, I don't find it any slower to focus than the kit lens.

However, compaired to my 70-200 L, a lot slower, but that is NOT a fair comparison.
 
I was talking to a couple of people ealier and they said in their opinion the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM was better than the 55-250 as it uses a USM motor and has a faster focus and gets the same picture quality plus 50mm extra.
So is it?
And as it has no IS how important is IS on a long lens?
Or is the importance of IS just dependent on what you shoot?
 
IS is even more important on a long lens if you are not going to be sing a tripod. At 250mm on a crop camera the focal length is 400mm so you want a shutter speed of 1/400 or faster when hand holding. Unless the light is good you will have to increase the ISO to get this and likely suffer some image quality loss as a result. If you have even a basic 2 stop IS then you can use 1/100 instead which helps a lot.
However if you are wanting to shoot something that is moving you will want the faster shutter speed anyway so it does also depend on what you are shooting.
 
Last edited:
akcron said:
I was talking to a couple of people ealier and they said in their opinion the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM was better than the 55-250 as it uses a USM motor and has a faster focus and gets the same picture quality plus 50mm extra.
So is it?
And as it has no IS how important is IS on a long lens?
Or is the importance of IS just dependent on what you shoot?
Click to expand...
Having both of those lenses here I can say your friends' opinions don't match mine. If I take the same shot with both lenses at their full extension the one taken with 55-250 is most definitely sharper than one taken at 250mm with the 75-300.
The 75-300 has a USM motor but it's not the faster ring one, it's what's known as a micro motor and tbh, probably isn't much better than the one in the 55-250.
IS makes a big difference. ;)
 
gblades said:
At 250mm on a crop camera the focal length is 400mm so you want a shutter speed of 1/400 or faster when hand holding.
Click to expand...

No it's not, it's 250mm on whatever body you put it on.
The crop factor alters the effective focal length, not the physical focal length. :thumbs:
 
Wozzaaah said:
No it's not, it's 250mm on whatever body you put it on.
The crop factor alters the effective focal length, not the physical focal length. :thumbs:
Click to expand...

The shutter speed 'rule' is 1/effective focal length - so the 1.6 factor does apparently come into it.

I'm not entirely convinced that it makes a difference - but that's what I read.
 
Last edited:
I can't see how it can Matt, the focal length is measured to the focal plane isn't it?
It's the sensor which gives you the crop factor which has no physical bearing on the amount of lens stuck out the front. :shrug:
I should have said 'equivalent' focal length, not 'effective' to make it a little clearer.
Googling this, most people seem to agree with you but my way of thinking is that if you take a shot at 250mm and 1/250 on a FF body but crop it down to the same size as one taken on an APS-C body then you have done exactly the same as if you'd taken it on a crop body, you haven't upped the shutter speed to allow for the amount you've cropped.
Or am I talking twaddle? :shrug:
 
At 250mm with camera shake the image will be shifting by the same amount on a full frame versus crop camera. But on a crop camera that shake is affecting a greater proportion of the picture so the shake will appear worse. That's why I included the crop factor into the calculation aswell. It's only a guide though and other things like how good you are at holding the camera steady and even the resolution of the ccd will have an impact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top