55-250 stm vs 70-300 usm is ii on a 90D

Started 4 months ago | Questions thread
Michael Thomas Mitchell Forum Pro • Posts: 12,158
Re: 55-250 stm vs 70-300 usm is ii on a 90D

losifanatic wrote:

Well about 4 years ago I gave my daughter my 70d and all my lenses. My most used lens was the 55-250 stm. Super sharp and good colors with quick auto focus. Only complaint was wishing it had a little more reach.

So l got myself a 90D for Christmas with the 18-135 usm nano lens. I would say its optically the same as my old 18-135 stm but much much fast auto focus which is very nice. Anyways back to the topic l am looking at getting a zoom and trying to decide if l should get the stm again or try the 70-300 usm is ii with its super fast auto focus.

So does the 70-300 have as good color, contrast, and sharpness as the 55-250? Is it worth the twice the price?

Any insite would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you

If I were in your situation, I'd be asking myself the following questions:

Is size/weight important? That is where EFS lenses really shine if those elements are important. And there may not be a single answer for you. For instance, I love the 55-250 on my 80D when I'm traveling exactly because it's smaller, lighter and cheaper (theft risk). But where cartage is no issue, I'll prefer a bigger 5D/7D/1D body and big L glass. The 70-300 is a mid-range zoom compatible with full-frame. Much of its size and weight won't even be "used" by the APS-C 90D. But if that's not much of a concern for you, then skip this question entirely.

How beneficial are the extra features, such as manual focus override, digital display, and an extra stop of stabilization? I don't remember the last time I took over physical focusing from the lens, so it's not much of a consideration to me. Extra stabilization is always welcome, but it's not such a large leap between the two as to find it essential. Likewise, the extra focal length is welcome, though hardly significant, especially with 32 million pixels available for cropping. Is the IQ better on the more expensive lens? I don't know. There are charts and graphs available which will say. But it is not as if the 55-250 is deficient in this category. To the contrary, the interest is filled with testimony praising its optical quality reflecting far above its price point. I have had no complaints in that regard, so I wouldn't be looking at a 70-300 from the perspective up and IQ upgrade, myself.

How important is budget here? First in absolute terms: what can I best afford? And second in relative terms: is the advantages/disadvantages net worth equal to twice the price? For me, not so much. I keep APC-C bodies alongside full-frame gear specifically (although not exclusively) for their size/weight benefits. For instance, at any given wedding I might keep a 5DIV with a standard length L zoom as a main camera and a 7DII with either a 70-200/4 IS L or a 55-250 STM, either one an appropriate substitute for a second 5D and the much larger/heavier 100-400 IS L, while still offering the same basic results. Smaller, lighter, less expensive... what's not to prefer?

I would bet that the 70-300 you're considering would perform beautifully on your 90D. The two together are probably a technical marvel. If size, weight and price are of little concern, then absolutely go for that lens. If they are, however, then you won't be let down by the 55-250. It's such a damn good little lens, despite its lower cost.

 Michael Thomas Mitchell's gear list:Michael Thomas Mitchell's gear list
Canon EOS-1D Mark II Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EOS 80D Canon EOS 5D Mark IV GoPro Hero7 Black +6 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow