18-55 & 55-250 vs 17-85 & 70-300

JJ!

JJ!

Messages
5,813
Edit My Images
No
I own the 18-55is and 55-250is which I have only just bought! But have been offered a PX for the 17-85 & 70-300 from a mate who is selling all his Canon gear.

There will of course be a change of money too, which is yet to be negotiated!

Would this be a change for the good if the money is right?

Its for a 500D.
 
How much was he planning to give you? LOL

You don't specify which 70-300 but unless it is the IS version I'd keep your 55-250. The 18-55 IS is a decent entry-level lens and I would say the 17-85 is not a huge upgrade. I'd enjoy what you've got and then upgrade once you've found a specific limitation of your existing kit.

If, for example, you need a faster lens for subject isolation or low light performance then you could add a fast prime or upgrade to a faster zoom, but then I'd be looking for an f2.8 aperture throughout the range, not the 17-85.

The 17-85 is supposed to be a competant lens and I'd rather have it than the 18-55 but I don't think it makes sense as an upgrade. I might consider the 70-300 trade if it was the IS version, but definitely not if it is the 'plain' 70-300.

Hope this helps,

Phil
 
Yeah its the newer 70-300is, should have mentioned that lol!
 
JJ! said:
Yeah its the newer 70-300is, should have mentioned that lol!
Click to expand...

Well in that case I'd consider it although I've not used either lens. I still think you should know exactly what you want to achieve by the change before deciding. I've done a lot of lens swapping and now have a set I'm happy with, but several of the changes were made without clear planning and I've re-bought lenses that I'd sold in error given the benefit of hindsight.

Phil
 
I have the standard 18-55mm, and the 55-250mm; I've also played with the 17-85mm and 70-300mm lenses, albeit only for short periods of time.

I would say that in my experience, you will get little difference in PQ terms between the two pairings, so would suggest the only real reason to upgrade would be if the focal lengths suited you better.
 
Agree with the above.

There is little difference between 300 and 250mm, they both have IS, both are essentially F5.6, and thr 55-250 performs way above it's price tag.

Save your money and upgrade to something you choose based on requirement, for example a lens with a faster aperture to get subject isolation or shutter speed.
 
Thanks for the pointers, I think I will keep with what I have got for the time being.
 
The weight difference is quite substantial! The size does not bother me, but it seems most people rate the IQ of my current set up to be similar to the 17-85 & 70-300is.
 
I have a non-IS 70-300 and I'd say the 70-300 lenses are fairly poor [they share the same basic optics, IS or not IIRC]. There are several measured tests on the net showing poor sharpness at all apertures and I'd agree in practice. I use my ancient 70-210 USM telephoto in preference - it's still sharper than the 70-300 when zoomed in to match the 300mm length in post-processing.

The 55-250 on the other hand has an excellent reputation for its price point.

I'd stick with what you've got personally.
 
Deckard said:
I have a non-IS 70-300 and I'd say the 70-300 lenses are fairly poor [they share the same basic optics, IS or not IIRC]
Click to expand...

The Canon 70-300 IS is a bit of an exception, and if often referred to as a 'Hidden L' lens. I'm of course biased, as I have one and absolutely love it, the only thing that could convince me to sell it though will be the arrival of a 100-400 L (not for a while though :( )

Just another note though, if you're thinking of going full-frame in the future, the 70-300 will still work, whereas the 55-250 won't....

Chris
 
Oops, I stand corrected!

What's 5mm between friends, I was talking about the 75-300 lenses not 70-300.

Ignore me, I'm a muppet :nuts: :LOL:
 
^ lol!

I think I will give the current lens set up a abash for a bit!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top