Lens Helps

JD007F

JD007F

Messages
215
Name
James Franklin
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi

i have finally got myself a dslr and i have brought a canon eos 500d which comes with a ef-s 18-55mm, i'm lookin to get a new lens so that i can zoom in on cricket matches and motor sport and air days, i have been looking at the canon ef-s 55-250mm is lens but i was wonderin is it always best to buy the same make lens as the camera or is there other makes out there which are worth buyin if so how do i know which ones will fit my camera.

hope someone can help me please

cheers james
 
The 55-250IS is an amazing lens for the price. It's sharp, has great focal length and image stabilising.
 
AndyWest said:
The 55-250IS is an amazing lens for the price. It's sharp, has great focal length and image stabilising.
Click to expand...

Okey dokey buddy, cheers for that, i was wonderin if there was any other lens that had a bit more zoom maybe up too 300mm but not as expensive as canon but might have just as good quaility

cheers
 
The 55-250mm IS lens is a good inexpensive lens for a beginner. I'd imagine that you would have to do some cropping of the final image to get close to the cricket, but I would certainly think it is a good starting point.
 
DaveKing said:
I have no experience of that lens, but if you are looking to spend that much I would consider getting a used Sigma 150-500mm non-IS for shooting cricket.
Click to expand...

okey dokey thanks for that dave, i was only goin for the is 55-250mm is lens cause of the is i thought you would need that really, ill have a look at the sigma lens do u have any experience at using that lens

cheers
 
Definitely consider the Canon 55-250mm IS. I have one and it is a great lens for the money, however it might be a bit short for the Cricket.
 
oh rite i c thats cool, i have a picture here from where i take my pictures from at the cricket ground where i play, and this was taken with a 15x zoom, the first picture is a picture of the ground without being zoomed in so you can see the club house and i normally take pictures from the balcony, and the second one is a picture from the club house out to the square where i'm batting sorry if the pictures arnt the best my gf took them whilst i were playing lol its just to give an idea of how far etc
SAM_0443.jpg


SAM_0487.jpg


cheers
 
55-250 or tamron 70-300 vc

the sigma 18 250 is good but as its an all rounder maybe not as good as the others
 
The WB600 camera you took that picture with has a maximum equivelent zoom of 360mm, so the 55-250mm IS would be a clear winner for the money. At full zoom the 250mm will give you an equivelent focal length of 400mm - this is a longer maximum focal length than the WB600. If you get one from a reputable HK importer you will be able to get one for less than £150 including shipping.

The next lens up Image Quality (IQ) wise, with a similar focal length, would be the 70-200 F4L. This doesn't have IS but as you have a wider aperture you can use a faster shutter speed, so that should negate the requirement of IS with sport.
 
Last edited:
Go for the 55-250mm IS.

I have that one and it's a great lens for the money - £150 inc postage brand new off ebay = winner!
 
DaveKing said:
The WB600 camera you took that picture with has a maximum equivelent zoom of 360mm, so the 55-250mm IS would be a clear winner for the money. At full zoom the 250mm will give you an equivelent focal length of 400mm - this is a longer maximum focal length than the WB600. If you get one from a reputable HK importer you will be able to get one for less than £150 including shipping.

The next lens up Image Quality (IQ) wise, with a similar focal length, would be the 70-200 F4L. This doesn't have IS but as you have a wider aperture you can use a faster shutter speed, so that should negate the requirement of IS with sport.
Click to expand...

Thanks Dave thats awesome help, cleared things up within minutes haha, so looks like the canon 55-250mm IS it is then, i have seen a few used ones on ebay not sure on ** views but on amazon you can get that lens at the mo for £147 so thought that was a good price, thats the older lens whats the new 55-250mm IS II like is there any differance

thanks guys
 
JD007F said:
Thanks Dave thats awesome help, cleared things up within minutes haha, so looks like the canon 55-250mm IS it is then, i have seen a few used ones on ebay not sure on ** views but on amazon you can get that lens at the mo for £147 so thought that was a good price, thats the older lens whats the new 55-250mm IS II like is there any differance

thanks guys
Click to expand...

the IS II from what i've heard is mostly cosmetic changes and so doesn't really justify the extra cash.

The 55-250mm IS is a great lens and you'll be quite satisfied with it considering how little it costs :)

I got mine from ebay but amazon is the same price really, so go there if it makes you feel a little safer ;)

If i can help with anything just let me know:thumbs:

:canon:
 
inlineadam said:
the IS II from what i've heard is mostly cosmetic changes and so doesn't really justify the extra cash.

The 55-250mm IS is a great lens and you'll be quite satisfied with it considering how little it costs :)

I got mine from ebay but amazon is the same price really, so go there if it makes you feel a little safer ;)

If i can help with anything just let me know:thumbs:

:canon:
Click to expand...

okey dokey thats awesome thanks for all the help, sorry to of ask so many questions

cheers
 
DaveKing said:
I have no experience of that lens, but if you are looking to spend that much I would consider getting a used Sigma 150-500mm non-IS for shooting cricket.
Click to expand...

Sorry to disagree Dave, but I wouldn't recommend a lens as heavy as the Siggy 150-500 without IS. It's a real beast and would need to be on a tri, or monopod permanently. The 55-250 is a great lens, but a bit short for cricket.

I found my 55-250 too short for birds and wildlife, so bought a Siggy 150-500 with IS and find that perfect, even without support.
 
killwilly said:
Sorry to disagree Dave, but I wouldn't recommend a lens as heavy as the Siggy 150-500 without IS. It's a real beast and would need to be on a tri, or monopod permanently. The 55-250 is a great lens, but a bit short for cricket.

I found my 55-250 too short for birds and wildlife, so bought a Siggy 150-500 with IS and find that perfect, even without support.
Click to expand...

You will disagree, but most people will tell you not to use IS for sports/motorsport. Images which involve fast action don't tend to produce the results you want when using IS.


To the OP, get it without IS if it's cheaper, makes very little difference to be honest.

Not alot of people actually use IS when they have it anyway!
 
inlineadam said:
You will disagree, but most people will tell you not to use IS for sports/motorsport. Images which involve fast action don't tend to produce the results you want when using IS.


To the OP, get it without IS if it's cheaper, makes very little difference to be honest.

Not alot of people actually use IS when they have it anyway!
Click to expand...

oh rite i for the is was to make the picture clearer if you shaked etc when taking pictures as it stabilises the lens to take the picture, so if u say u dont really need the IS, i could go for the 70-300mm lens or is that not as good as the 55-250mm lens

cheers
 
JD007F said:
oh rite i for the is was to make the picture clearer if you shaked etc when taking pictures as it stabilises the lens to take the picture, so if u say u dont really need the IS, i could go for the 70-300mm lens or is that not as good as the 55-250mm lens

cheers
Click to expand...

The IS ( Image Stabilizer ) really should only be used when photographing still objects.

In your case, you'll be doing some cricket, which isn't still and so the IS wouldn't change anything because what you see in the viewfinder is moving, and the IS tries moving because it thinks it's camera shake,( but it's the cricket ball ) which then messes up the shot.

To be honest , in my opinion IS is just a waste of money - i'd never buy a lens over another just because it has IS. Considering the amount of times you'd use it.

It's just a technological way to take away the tripod. If you really need things to be so still and no camera shake ( which really doesn't affect images )then you'd use a tripod because it's better. I'd always choose a tripod over IS.

So basically, IS is a tecnological tripod but not as good as a tripod.

I bought the 55-250 because of the glass and range, not the IS - i NEVER use it.


:canon:
 
After buying my camera with the 18-55 kit lens, I bought a Sigma 70-300 non IS, I quickly replaced this with the 55-250 IS canon, I think a much better lens,
As for sport, I was asked to do a football cup final, I took my Sigma 150-500 IS but soon took it off in favor of the 55-250 IS, the 55-250 IS is a great lens for the price
 
Okey dokey guys thats awesome help, when looking to buy a lens what exactly do i need to look for, eg zoom etc what else, when u say the u brought it cause of the glass etc, hope u dont mind me asking just would like to make sure i get the best lens for my use, the 3 lens i have seen are

Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS Telephoto Zoom

Canon EF 75-300mm F/4.0-5.6 USM III Compatible with Filter Size - 58mm

Canon EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III Lens

cheers guys
 
Last edited:
anyone recommened a lens out those 3, also what do i look for in a lens, like people say about the glass etc

cheers
 
The USM will be a bit quciker at auto focussing and is more quiter, hence " ultrasonic motor " ( USM )
 

okey dokey then thats cool, so out of theses 2 lenswhich one would you say is best for sport

Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS Telephoto Zoom

Canon EF 75-300mm F/4.0-5.6 USM III Compatible with Filter Size - 58mm

cheers
 
JD007F said:
okey dokey then thats cool, so out of theses 2 lenswhich one would you say is best for sport

Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS Telephoto Zoom

Canon EF 75-300mm F/4.0-5.6 USM III Compatible with Filter Size - 58mm

cheers
Click to expand...


I've got the 55-250mm and i'm very satisfied with it.

I can't offer a review on the 75-300 USM as i've never used it, but looking at statistics i'd go for the 75-300.

Don't take my word for it though , allow some of the more experienced toggers on here to tell you before you buy anything :)

Adam
 
oh rite yeh thats cool, yeh ill hopefully i get a few *** *** write on here that have used both lens and maybe give me a bit of a helping hand with which one to buy lol

thanks for ** help

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