55-250mm - 70-300mm worth the upgrade?

Chilt

Chilt

Messages
738
Name
Nick
Edit My Images
Yes
Is it worth upgrading from a 55-250mm canon lens to a 70-300mm canon?

Thanks

Nick
 
As the 70-300 is twice the price of the 55-250 you would assume so, however I've heard quite a few people on here raving about the 55-250 so perhaps not. Of course I'm assuming that you're not talking about the 70-300L?
 
No (twice)
 
Last edited:
I was always going to get the 70-300mm IS USM as an upgrade to my 55-250mm.

After reading reviews I decided the only way I could go would be one of the 70-200 L models.
 
pmcgsmurf said:
I was always going to get the 70-300mm IS USM as an upgrade to my 55-250mm.

After reading reviews I decided the only way I could go would be one of the 70-200 L models.
Click to expand...

Now THAT is an upgrade! :thumbs: well worth the extra money too!
 
wontolla said:
Now THAT is an upgrade! :thumbs: well worth the extra money too!
Click to expand...

You only have to look at the difference in pricing at Amazon as an example.

£400 for the 70-300mm against £500 for the 70-200 F4 L.
The L lens has to be a no brainer for me.

OK it's not got IS but then save the extra and get an IS version.
Amazing how much the L will hold it's value.

I'd always prefer selling an L then any other lens, if you get what I mean.
 
I have the 55-250mm as well and thinking of upgrading but as mentioned, the logical upgrade would be to a 70-200 (although I haven't read up on the 70-300). I'm thinking of the Sigma 70-200 2.8 as I think the extra stop over the Canon 70-200 f/4 will be useful.
 
Chilt said:
Is it worth upgrading from a 55-250mm canon lens to a 70-300mm canon?

Thanks

Nick
Click to expand...
I've owned both. The answer is - it depends. I found that:

  1. IQ on the 70-300mm is slightly better but there isn't much in it
  2. The 70-300mm focusses faster (USM)
  3. 70-300mm has much better build quality
  4. 55-250mm is lighter and smaller
  5. The focal lengths are obviously different (amazing how often people ignore this!)
 
Was there a noticeable drop off in quality at the 250-300mm focal length? I read the 70-300 got a bit softer in this extra focal range or alternatively both lens were a least as good as each other up to the 250mm.:shrug:
 
AndyB1976 said:
Was there a noticeable drop off in quality at the 250-300mm focal length? I read the 70-300 got a bit softer in this extra focal range or alternatively both lens were a least as good as each other up to the 250mm.:shrug:
Click to expand...
I don't have any test shots to prove this but my impression was that the 70-300mm was a little better at 250mm than the 55-250mm. Not much in it though.

The main reason I went for the 55-250mm in the end was that I found a few times that 70mm is too long a starting point for me, and also I didn't want that much money tied up in a lens I hardly ever used - I spend very little time shooting at more than 50mm.
 
I had the 55-250 for a couple off months and upgraded to the 70-300 is usm, and i would say no. I liked the 55-250 better actually. The 55-250 will also come in a mark II variant i July http://www.canon-europe.com/About_Us/Press_Centre/Press_Releases/Consumer_News/Cameras_Accessories/20110613_Canon_unveils_ideal_telephoto_lens.aspx. I acually thought the 70-300 was weak beyond 220, at 300 it was bad. It is extremely noisy and its got micro usm,not ring usm, got a rotating,extending focus.I also found it slightly unbalanced, front heavy.Build quality is better on the 70-300.The 55-250 is better balanced and lighter.The mark II will probably be even better. The 70-300 IS USM is a much older lens.I used the 55-250 quite a bit, but hardly ever the 70-300, my new(used)70-200f4 IS has almost become my walkaround lens. Silent and fast, razer sharp and good build. Wait for the mark II nifty-twofifty or save up for the 70-200f4 IS variant.The is variant off the 70-200 f4 has different optics aswell as the IS, sharpest 70-200 lens before the 70-200 f2.8 markII came out.
 
Last edited:
There are a couple of versions of the 70-300 around. I had the IS USM version which was very good indeed. Now, I have never used the 55-250, but if it gets anywhere close to the 70-300 IS USM then I don't know how Canon do it for the money. I've used the 70-300 for motorsport ant wildlife and it's given me great images in return.

Steve
 
Jelster said:
There are a couple of versions of the 70-300 around. I had the IS USM version which was very good indeed. Now, I have never used the 55-250, but if it gets anywhere close to the 70-300 IS USM then I don't know how Canon do it for the money. I've used the 70-300 for motorsport ant wildlife and it's given me great images in return.

Steve
Click to expand...

Bought both the 55-250 and the 70-300 is usm new, i must say, its not better than the 55-250, a little longer and feels more solid. It was "highly" recommended to me by a guy at a store innplace off my 55-250. I believed him, but it wasnt better. I have taken good photos with it, but are they better?,no.
My "new" 70-200 f4 IS beats them both hands down. I am not trying to **** all over your 70-300, but i didnt find better, infact i found it alot more anoying,sorry. The 70-300 is not worth the double off a 55-250. MY opinion, you are allowed to disagree, but i have owned and used both.;)
 
Last edited:
Jelster said:
There are a couple of versions of the 70-300 around. I had the IS USM version which was very good indeed. Now, I have never used the 55-250, but if it gets anywhere close to the 70-300 IS USM then I don't know how Canon do it for the money. I've used the 70-300 for motorsport ant wildlife and it's given me great images in return.

Steve
Click to expand...

I used to have the 55-250 and now have Jelsters 70-300 IS USM. For motorsport the 70-300 is much faster at focusing and maintaining lock on moving objects. I prefer the 70-300 over the 55-250 for this reason but obviously you pay a premium for that advantage. If you aren't going to be shooting fast moving objects then the 55-250 is a bargain and still a very good lens.
 
The Warlock said:
Bought both the 55-250 and the 70-300 is usm new, i must say, its not better than the 55-250, a little longer and feels more solid. It was "highly" recommended to me by a guy at a store innplace off my 55-250. I believed him, but it wasnt better. I have taken good photos with it, but are they better?,no.
My "new" 70-200 f4 IS beats them both hands down. I am not trying to **** all over your 70-300, but i didnt find better, infact i found it alot more anoying,sorry. The 70-300 is not worth the double off a 55-250. MY opinion, you are allowed to disagree, but i have owned and used both.;)
Click to expand...

Like I said, the 55-250 is said to be very good, but at that price it has to under perform somewhere, and I would suggest that is probably both AF and sharpness wide open. Let's face it, most telephoto zooms get a lot of use at the longest focal length and wide open. As such I would be very surprised if the 55-250 compares, but for the money it's great value.

Steve
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top