Those who have 55-200, was it worth getting the 55-250?

User1303423862 wrote:

jackwelch wrote:

DerGuator wrote:

I already had the 55-200 when I bought the 55-250. I only bought it because I wanted a compact super-tele lens and I saw here on the forums how some folks were using it with a 1.4x extender.

For normal use I prefer the 55-200 though because it's a native lens and therefore so much smaller.

That extender is quite pricey where I'm at, I too also thought about getting one, but at nearly $200, it's like buying a new lens. I would prefer to put that money into something like the tamron 100-400mm or sigma 150-600mm.

Or even this ef-s 55-250mm STM

And you're right, who knows 1 year down the road someone might want to sell his kenko 1.4x teleplus hd cheaply so it would be cool to pair it with the 55-250mm STM.

You can find older EF 1.4 Kenko teleplus extenders on ebay for a lot less than $200. You then just need to follow Larry Rexley's instructions to remove the pcb from the inside and then you have a sharp 77-350 setup. That gives you a full-frame equivalent of 560m at the long end, which is capable for wildlife etc. A worthwhile investment in my opinion. I have a 2X extender made by Larry, but the 1.4X is the easier conversion. You'll need an EF rear mount plate conversion for the lens as well. They can also be found on ebay.

55-250 + Rexley-Kiron 2X extender

Thank you for the info, definitely something I'm looking out for. And I've been monitoring but even these other models/variants are pricey where I am at.