I'm trying to decide between these three lens but cant find any reviews comparing them. Besides the extra reach of the first two, how do they compare ? I picked up the 55-250 on Amazon with their free promotion but am considering selling it and getting the 70-300. I own a Sigma 75-300 ( or 70-300 i forgot at the moment ) with macro but its over 10 years old and has some issues - namely poor AF and the IQ is not the best.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
70-300 vs 75-300 vs 55-250
- Thread starter jejton
- Start date
HyperYagami
Forum Enthusiast
55-250 and canon's 70-300 have very much the same IQ, general opinion is it's not worth 2x the price just to get 50mm more reach.
If you must have a 70-300, take a look at Tamron's new VC one, it's $400 after rebate right now. I like the colors better on the Tamron's.
Canon's 70-300 is a little bit less than $400 in the used lens market, $520 for a new one in my opinion it's not worth it.
If you must have a 70-300, take a look at Tamron's new VC one, it's $400 after rebate right now. I like the colors better on the Tamron's.
Canon's 70-300 is a little bit less than $400 in the used lens market, $520 for a new one in my opinion it's not worth it.
Hi,
A good copy of Canon's 55-250 should be as sharp as a 70-300. The 70-300 vignettes less. The 55-250 is at best at f8 all the way. The 70-300 is good even wide open up to about 180mm. Beyond that it needs to be stopped down for sharpness, at 300mm even towards f11 to get really sharp. Not much difference in focus speed between the two, but I've experienced some focus inconsistancy with the 55-250 (on a 40D and sometimes it would not even focus at all with a 350D at longer focal length).
Since the range from 250 to 300mm on the 70-300 is not it's best part I see no real advantage of it over the 55-250, except for focus with older DSLRs.
A 70-200 f4 non-IS is not thát much more expensive than a 70-300. It has a much faster full time USM, is constant f4, has superior build and optical quality. No IS though, but maybe something to consider.
If you go for a 55-250 be sure to get a good copy. Both my father and brother needed two copies to get a good one. The one my dad has now is really good.
Regards,
Sandor.
A good copy of Canon's 55-250 should be as sharp as a 70-300. The 70-300 vignettes less. The 55-250 is at best at f8 all the way. The 70-300 is good even wide open up to about 180mm. Beyond that it needs to be stopped down for sharpness, at 300mm even towards f11 to get really sharp. Not much difference in focus speed between the two, but I've experienced some focus inconsistancy with the 55-250 (on a 40D and sometimes it would not even focus at all with a 350D at longer focal length).
Since the range from 250 to 300mm on the 70-300 is not it's best part I see no real advantage of it over the 55-250, except for focus with older DSLRs.
A 70-200 f4 non-IS is not thát much more expensive than a 70-300. It has a much faster full time USM, is constant f4, has superior build and optical quality. No IS though, but maybe something to consider.
If you go for a 55-250 be sure to get a good copy. Both my father and brother needed two copies to get a good one. The one my dad has now is really good.
Regards,
Sandor.
dootlebug
Member
I have owned all the lenses mentioned here. My (sold) 70-300 IS was a good bit sharper than the 55-250 IS at equal FLs. It softened ast went past 250-270mm, but was still a better lens.
Of course it's more money and heavier.The IS on the 55-250mm is very good.
Diane
Of course it's more money and heavier.The IS on the 55-250mm is very good.
Diane
Dwightxm
Active member
I bought the 55-250 and used it for a week. I was surprisingly impressed with the image quality of such a cheap lens. It was used on the 7D.
I have no experience with the other two lens so I can't comment on those.
Dwight.
I have no experience with the other two lens so I can't comment on those.
Dwight.
slartz
Senior Member
Stay away from the 75-300.
It's an old old lens and it is extremely soft.
As a matter of fact it is so soft that when I tested my old 75-300 against a 55-250, you could shoot the 250 and crop the extra 20%, and still get sharper images than what you got from the 75-300 (at least on my 7D).
Also the 75-300 is without IS.
I'd look at the Tamron SP 70-300 VC (not the old Tamron, but the VC one which is very new) - it seems to be the best 70-300 lens in the market right now (except for the Canon 70-300L of course, but diff price range)
If you are concerned with weight, however, get the 55-250. It's nice and light and delivers decent results.
It's an old old lens and it is extremely soft.
As a matter of fact it is so soft that when I tested my old 75-300 against a 55-250, you could shoot the 250 and crop the extra 20%, and still get sharper images than what you got from the 75-300 (at least on my 7D).
Also the 75-300 is without IS.
I'd look at the Tamron SP 70-300 VC (not the old Tamron, but the VC one which is very new) - it seems to be the best 70-300 lens in the market right now (except for the Canon 70-300L of course, but diff price range)
If you are concerned with weight, however, get the 55-250. It's nice and light and delivers decent results.
I have been contemplating which one to buy too. Am torn between going for a Canon 17-85mm IS and 70-300mm IS kit or 18-55mm DG IS and 55-250mm IS kit. The former will cost me $150 more. Which kit is better considering cost and performance?
hemantsanghvi
New member
- Messages
- 2
- Reaction score
- 2
Noted...
olmail
Senior Member
i have owned both.enjoyed the 70-300. sold it when i got a 300 f4L. finding that 300mm is actually too much reach in some situations i got a 55-250. my experience is that the 70-300 is a little better. but, i think you would be disappointed in the very slight improvement in iq for the money. if you are wanting some improvement on the long end. save up for a 300f4;400;100-400. or, similar offering from other lensmakers. that decision will not be an easy one either
tonyjr
Veteran Member
It will depend on what other lenses you have .
There is a pretty big gap between 55 - 70 / 75 mm . If you don't shoot in that range , it does not matter .
If you have the 18-55 , I would keep the 55-250 .
If you have the 15-85 , go for one of the 70-200 / 300's . Even jumping to the 100-400 .
A better question is what does your lens no do that you want ?
IQ depends on F stop , speed , MF / AF and ISO more than the lens .
There is a pretty big gap between 55 - 70 / 75 mm . If you don't shoot in that range , it does not matter .
If you have the 18-55 , I would keep the 55-250 .
If you have the 15-85 , go for one of the 70-200 / 300's . Even jumping to the 100-400 .
A better question is what does your lens no do that you want ?
IQ depends on F stop , speed , MF / AF and ISO more than the lens .
lumigraphics
Veteran Member
I got a 75-300 USM used because it was cheap, lightweight, and longer than my Sigma 70-200 f/2.8. Stopped down to around f/11, the Canon is plenty sharp on my 6D. I pretty much use it for shooting models with studio flash.
This is a screenshot from Aperture at 100%. SOOC with just default Aperture settings. Be sure to view it at 100%.
--
David M. Converse
Lumigraphics
http://lumigraphics.tumblr.com 18+
http://www.modelmayhem.com/328211 18+
http://www.modelinsider.com/85 18+
This is a screenshot from Aperture at 100%. SOOC with just default Aperture settings. Be sure to view it at 100%.
--
David M. Converse
Lumigraphics
http://lumigraphics.tumblr.com 18+
http://www.modelmayhem.com/328211 18+
http://www.modelinsider.com/85 18+
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum