WOW impressed with EF-S 55-250 IS STM, can 70-300L get sharper than this?

Just received the 55-250 IS STM from Canon refurb site, for a little over $130 USD I can't believe how sharp it is! never got a image this sharp unless I borrowed my friend's L lens! Are there better zoom lens bargain out there?

For zoom, 55-250 STM and 10-18 STM are bargains compare to others with same focal lengths

It's a very good lens, even the original version is good. I have one and a 70-300mm L and sometimes they aren't a million miles apart but it's circumstantial.

The EF-S is impressively sharp at full reach and wide open in the centre but still not as good as the L. The edges and corners are noticeably softer. The L has less CA and less axial CA (the colour fringing you get in foreground and background bokeh) and the L lens has more pleasing bokeh, much lower vignetting and better contrast and flare resistance.

All that being said, with some shots you have to look twice to tell the difference, it's really a phenomenally good lens for the price.

The L is a class above and focuses better and faster and I find is more consistent in getting good results but it's definitely a case of diminishing returns. The 55-250 has to be one of if not THE best performance/price ratio telephoto out there. I found mine to be sharper at 250mm than all 4 copies of the Tamron 70-300 SP I tried either at 250 or 300mm

I have both, and yes 55-250 STM is a truly good buy. Very sharp for the price. But there are more than just sharpness. Namely, color, contrast, micro contrast, at which the 70-300L wins. I use my 5yo 70-300L on my 5Dsr and it is very sharp even at 300mm. The downside of 70-300L is that it's quite a dust sucker (as are most zooms) and distortion is somewhat heavy at 300mm (pincushion).

Unless Canon comes with something as good and longer, this one is a keeper. I also get good and sharp results with it.

Easy to get spoiled with the 55-250 STM. Yes L series telephotos can be better (remember by virtue of being complicated tele zooms, sample variation also might matter, etc). That said the Nikon, Sony, and Pentax consumer teles are kind of...crap in comparison?

The 55-250 IS STM is good enough to the point that I see really little point of buying a Sony APS-C + the more expensive Sony 70-200 f4 which is over priced, and likes to snap in half like so -

http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R2R8K71AZMG1QV/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B00I8BICEO

With the Canon 80D sporting improved DR, I see myself going back to Canon APS-C soon enough.

IMO only Canon, Fuji, and Pentax give APS-C lens mount any real love...and only Canon and Pentax does so at relatively good prices, but only Canon does so at good prices *and* good resale (without screw drive AF).

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/03/just-the-lenses-the-70-200mm-f4-comparison/

Didn't realize this was published. Before reading the LensRental measurements already from my eyes looking at sample shots the Sony 70-200 F4 was some of the least impressive shots I've seen. LensRentals seems to only confirm that as being the overall worst performer of the three. Canon does well at 200mm at center which translates to good performance on APS-C crop IMO.

I am not exaggerating when I think the budget 55-250 wide open would give the Sony 70-200 f4 even more embarrassment (besides occurrences of the lens snapping in half during shipment or its bottom of the pack optical performance despite being 2 decades newer than the Canon).

Every brand has certain 'gems' in the lineup that give each systems certain pros and cons and IMO the Canon APS-C budget lenses are up there in establish Canon APS-C as some of the most cost-effective for IQ vs price. I also really am enjoying my cheap Pentax primes, etc. Most of the Sony gems are not made by Sony but Sigma...