EF 70-300 f4.0-5.6 IS vs EF-S 55-250 IS

[Seight_Returns]

I'm getting frustrated with my el-cheapo Tamrom 70-300 f4.0-5.6 and am thinking about upgrading. My frustrations are mostly from the inherent limitations of a slow lens with a long focal length and also the average optical quality.

I struggle to get a sharp image with the Tamron, mostly because of shake when shooting hand held but also even when using a tripod particularly at large(ish) appertures. All too often I get caught in a no-win of trying to up the shutter speed to try to null out the camera shake and hence forcing me into larger appertures where the lens is softest.

I have a Sigma 17-70 as my everyday lens which I'm delighted with, my best efforts with the Tamron are pants in comparison.

I was thinking that a budget tele-zoom lens with IS would be a substantial improvement and as such the Canon EF 70-300 f4.0-5.6 IS seemed to be the only option but still more than I really wanted to spend.

I've subsequently learned that there's an EF-S lens available that being the EF-S 55-250 IS which seems ideal both in terms of cost (just under 200 quid) and the reviews I've read to date.

I'm aware that at half the price the EF-S lens will be of a cheaper construction which I can live with. I'll find the extra money for the 70-300 if I have to, but I'd rather not.

Anyone have any comparitive experience of either of these lenses ?

[RobDickinson]

I've seen examples of both which are OK.

The 70-300 is pretty good opticaly, the IS works well, but its slow f5.6 and it has slow focusing (no USM).

55-250 is cheaper, wont fit a FF camera (being EF-S) so effectivly has less glass, I dont think its too far off the other on IQ though.

I looked at the 70-300 (I have an old 75-300 canon), but decided it didnt meet my needs, not long enough, not fast enough not quick enough focusing.

So I bought a used sigma 70-200f2.8 and a 2.0 teleconvertor and will add a 1.4tc too.

No IS but cheap ($900 kiwi or £330 or so) and the IQ is excelent.

[cirks]

I may well be selling my 70-300IS if you're interested (obviously there's plenty available elsewhere too) but I've generally been very happy with it and had good results. I've never really noticed that it's 'that' slow in focussing. I've used it quite a bit at my kids' rugby matches and with the camera on AI Servo AF mode, I've had great action pictures - so no compaints there.
Only reason for probably disposing of it is that I wanted something with much greater aperture - hence going for 70-200L IS

[bobs4c]

RobDickinson said:

I've seen examples of both which are OK.

The 70-300 is pretty good opticaly, the IS works well, but its slow f5.6 and it has slow focusing (no USM).

Interesting, 'cos my Canon 70-300IS has USM - or have I misunderstood the post?

Bob

[RobDickinson]

bobs4c said:

RobDickinson said:

I've seen examples of both which are OK.

The 70-300 is pretty good opticaly, the IS works well, but its slow f5.6 and it has slow focusing (no USM).

Interesting, 'cos my Canon 70-300IS has USM - or have I misunderstood the post?

Bob

It has micro USM which is canons way of saying USM without actualy putting in USM...

Its not ring USM which is the one you want - canon have 2 things they call the same so as to sell the cheaper one.

[flat-planedCrank]

I have the 70-300, its focusing is indeed not as fast as the ring-USM found on the L series tele-zooms like the 70-200 family.

Its fast enough for most uses, but for motorsports I find it a touch slow to focus


I've not used the 55-250 so can't comment on its focusing speed..


Cheers.