Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

New PortraitPro 12 SALE + 10% OFF code EPZROS814
Leave a Comment
    • «
    • 1
    • »
    marktc
    marktc e2 Member 347 forum postsmarktc vcard United Kingdom13 Constructive Critique Points
    28 May 2011 - 10:59 PM

    I would like to buy a lens for capturing images of wildlife. Budget is around 400.

    I have a canon 500D body and my question is which would provide me with the best value for money the 55 - 250 canon IS or the 70 - 300 IS USM?

    Please can someone give me some guidance?

    Many thanks

    Mark

    Sponsored Links
    Sponsored Links 
    28 May 2011 - 10:59 PM

    Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

    steve_p
    steve_p  81096 forum posts England
    28 May 2011 - 11:58 PM

    The 55-250 is not a brilliantly constructed lens and has a plastic mount .
    The 70-300 is better made, has a metal mount.
    The image quality though on either lens is good for the money in both cases- if press reviews are any thing to go by. I can vouch for the 70-300 having owned one. When I sold it to buy a 70-200L it was pretty difficult to distinguish the sharpness between the two- the L series is much better made though and has the lovely "warm" image that L lenses give.
    For wildlife the longer reach is something to take into account, too.
    Steve

    Helpful Post! This post was flagged as helpful
    marktc
    marktc e2 Member 347 forum postsmarktc vcard United Kingdom13 Constructive Critique Points
    29 May 2011 - 12:12 AM

    Thanks Steve

    MalcolmS
    MalcolmS e2 Member 91068 forum postsMalcolmS vcard England13 Constructive Critique Points
    29 May 2011 - 7:40 AM

    Bought a 70-300mm becuse I wasn't sure how much use I would get out of it. I wasn't disappointed, it's a terrific lens for the price.

    Helpful Post! This post was flagged as helpful
    DOGSBODY
    DOGSBODY  51432 forum posts England30 Constructive Critique Points
    29 May 2011 - 8:29 AM

    I own a 55-250 and I am quite satisfied with it. However, if the lens is to be used mainly for natural history I would opt for the 70-300, which will give you about 480mm at the long end, and that extra reach could be very important where wildlife is concerned.

    Helpful Post! This post was flagged as helpful
    mikehit
    mikehit  56320 forum posts United Kingdom9 Constructive Critique Points
    29 May 2011 - 3:16 PM


    Quote: which will give you about 480mm at the long end,

    No it doesn't. It gives you 300mm just like it does on 35mm. It gives you the field of view of 480mm on a 35mm film/sensor but that is due to the sensor not the lens and if marktc has never used a 35mm camera then the reference is irrelevant. In wildlife the subject rarely fills the frame and the image size on the sensor is the same whichever camera you use.

    Yes, this is pedantic but this sort of advice has become a mantra with regards APS-C sensors which for most photorgaphers is just plain misleading.

    marktc
    marktc e2 Member 347 forum postsmarktc vcard United Kingdom13 Constructive Critique Points
    29 May 2011 - 3:37 PM


    Quote: which will give you about 480mm at the long end,

    No it doesn't. It gives you 300mm just like it does on 35mm. It gives you the field of view of 480mm on a 35mm film/sensor but that is due to the sensor not the lens and if marktc has never used a 35mm camera then the reference is irrelevant. In wildlife the subject rarely fills the frame and the image size on the sensor is the same whichever camera you use.

    Yes, this is pedantic but this sort of advice has become a mantra with regards APS-C sensors which for most photorgaphers is just plain misleading.

    So the 300 mm is still the lens I want?

    Thank you all for your comments!!

    mikehit
    mikehit  56320 forum posts United Kingdom9 Constructive Critique Points
    29 May 2011 - 10:23 PM

    Don't get me wrong. I used the 70-300 non-L very happily for 5 years shooting wildlife - bears in Canada, birds etc. But at the end of the day, the longer the lens, the 'closer' you can get, and telling someone that putting a 300mm on a APS-C camera is a cheap way of getting a 480mmm lens is, as I say, misleading and raises expectations.

    I have not used the 55-250 but everything I have read says that the 70-300 gives better quality as well as being better built and would choose the 70-300 for that reason.

    marktc
    marktc e2 Member 347 forum postsmarktc vcard United Kingdom13 Constructive Critique Points
    29 May 2011 - 10:36 PM

    Thanks very much Mike

    marktc
    marktc e2 Member 347 forum postsmarktc vcard United Kingdom13 Constructive Critique Points
    1 Jun 2011 - 7:32 AM

    Thank you to all those that contributed... I opted for the 70 - 300 in the end and it arrived yesterday! Can't wait to get out and try it!!!

    adrian_w
    adrian_w e2 Member 73305 forum postsadrian_w vcard Scotland4 Constructive Critique Points
    1 Jun 2011 - 10:18 AM

    You won't be disappointed. I love mine.

    Alan_Coles
    13 Jun 2011 - 10:52 PM

    You haven't shot much wildlife since you got it?

    marktc
    marktc e2 Member 347 forum postsmarktc vcard United Kingdom13 Constructive Critique Points
    13 Jun 2011 - 11:26 PM

    Haven't had a chance!!! But thanks for your interest. Weekends at work and wet weather preclude i'm afraid!

    • «
    • 1
    • »

    Add a Comment

    You must be a member to leave a comment

    Username:
    Password:
    Remember me:
    Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.