The Canon 55-250 IS lens is not a good beginner lens

(You don´t need to read this post if you are an experienced Canon SLR shooter.)

What is a beginner lens? I suppose people, who characterize the lens as such, think of pretty good optical ability and low price, but at the same time they indicate that it is time to upgrade, when you are no longer a beginner (and have the funds.)

First I will say that there are several good reasons to upgrade to a more expensive lens such as: demands for better build quality, weather protection and more light gathering. Also be aware, that the 55-250 lens is an EF-S lens and it can only be used on cropped bodies.

When it comes to upgrading because of demands/dreams of better optical qualities the answer is much more complicated. The only thing that is straight away is that you have to spend a lot of extra money if you upgrade.

Before thinking of optical qualities you must consider the zoom ratio. Does your “dream” lens have a sufficient zoom ratio? The 55-250 has a ratio of 4,55 and a 70-200 only a ratio of 2,86. A 70-300 lens has a ratio of 4,29. You must also decide if  f.l. such as 70-300 suits you better than 55-250.

Now to my main point: From f.l.: 55 to about 100 mm it is difficult - and very expensive - to find better performance in a zoom lens about sharpness, contrast and colour rendering. From f.l. longer than 100 mm it is possible, but still very expensive, and you must be sure you need better performance, because the 55-250 lens is also very good at these longer f.l. I will say, if you – like me - don´t make prints bigger than A3+ (13x19 inches) you probably will see no- or very little difference.

I sold my Canon 70-200 F. 4.0 L IS lens because I was satisfied with optical quality of the 55-250 lens and I had a need for a smaller and lighter telezoom.

Of course you shall not trust my opinion, but if you look at resolving results in Photozone.de you might be surprised. Sadly Photozone doesn´t test the 55-250 lens at 70 mm and 100 mm, but my copy of the lens is at least as good at 70 mm and 100 mm, as it is at 55 mm. The copy tested in SLRgear had its best performance at 100 mm (F.8.0) where it is described as tack sharp from corner to corner.

According to Photozone the 55-250 lens outperforms the Canon 70-200 F4.0 L IS lens set to 70 mm from  F4.0 to F8.0 both in centre and borders. It beats the 24-105 F4.0 in the borders when this lens is set to either 40 mm or 70 mm. In the centre the two lenses perform pretty equal.

When I also - in Photozone - compare the 55-250 lens to the Canon 70-300 F. 4.0 L IS lens set to 70 mm the resolving results are almost identical.

Compared to the Canon 70-300 F4.5-5.6 USM these two lenses are pretty close in resolving power, but at most comparable settings the 55-250 lens has sharper borders – also according to Photozone. I have owned the 70-300 USM IS lens, and my copy had lack of contrast at longer f.l. compared to my 55-250 lens. I don´t think it was less sharp, but as I have sold the lens several years ago, I can´t make an exact comparison of the two lenses myself.

All these lenses except the 55-250 are full frame lenses, and I find it very impressing that the EF-S lens compare so favourable in border resolution.

At a beach in Thailand

A food seller in Vietnam

Another beach photo

So what is the canon 55-250 IS lens?

I.m.o. it is an extremely cheap, small and light lens taking the the zoom ratio and optical value in consideration. It is optically excellent at al focal length up to about 100 mm (except vignetting, when used wide open), and at longer f.l. it is very good, but as always you have to take copy variations in consideration. So it is a very valuable lens for all shooters who want a small light zoom lens in these f.l.

I will upload three photos from my 550D mounted with the 55-250 IS lens, one at 55mm, one at 7omm and one at 250mm. You can then judge, if the lens optically is good enough for you.

Hope you will be satisfied whatever you choose.

RS_RS wrote:

Perhaps your post would be better headed like this response. I see no reason why the 55~250 should not be an excellent lens for a beginner (unlike, say, a 50/1.2 or a TS lens).

+1.

It has excellent optical performance, and is suitable for any user unless they have specific additional needs (and additional budget), like ruggedness for heavy use, or want non-rotating barrel for use with polarizer filter.

RS_RS wrote:

Perhaps your post would be better headed like this response. I see no reason why the 55~250 should not be an excellent lens for a beginner (unlike, say, a 50/1.2 or a TS lens).

Yes, I don' t get the point of the original headline either, this would be better.