Recommed a Upgrade to the 55-250 Canon

gothgirl

gothgirl

Messages
1,589
Edit My Images
Yes
I have the 55-250 but have a little spare cash and would like to PX it.

Now I LOVE the quality of this lens , but would like to invest in a better lens.

The one I have is the Original version (Not STM and I think it might even be the MKI and not the MK2)

Now my original thought was to get the 55-250 STM version , but wanted to know if there was something else that might be worth getting ?

I don't have the budget to get a L lens , but would like to look at the next thing up from the 55-250
 
Really the next step up is the 70-200 f4L. If you can't afford that I'd stick with the 55-250
 
Firstly, if you love the quality of that lens (and it punches well above it's price) what is it that makes you want to invest in something else?

(On lenses, the Tamron 70-300mm Di VC is a very well regarded piece of kit - ~£240)
 
mike_6480 said:
Really the next step up is the 70-200 f4L. If you can't afford that I'd stick with the 55-250
Click to expand...

RichardtheSane said:
Firstly, if you love the quality of that lens (and it punches well above it's price) what is it that makes you want to invest in something else?

(On lenses, the Tamron 70-300mm Di VC is a very well regarded piece of kit - ~£240)
Click to expand...

I'm very happy with it , but why not improve if you can ?

If I can't improve within my budget , I'm happy enough to hold onto it , or maybe just upgrade to the STM for the video capabillites too
 
gothgirl said:
I have the 55-250 but have a little spare cash and would like to PX it.

Now I LOVE the quality of this lens , but would like to invest in a better lens.

The one I have is the Original version (Not STM and I think it might even be the MKI and not the MK2)

Now my original thought was to get the 55-250 STM version , but wanted to know if there was something else that might be worth getting ?

I don't have the budget to get a L lens , but would like to look at the next thing up from the 55-250
Click to expand...

At the same focal length, there's no better lens in that price range (which in your case, is nothing since you already have it). If you want different focal lengths, different conversation, but no lens you buy outside of an L lens, that covers that focal length, will result in 'better' pictures. The Canon L lenses will give you better pictures if you need the extra speed at the long end, or enjoy the bokeh that brings, or if you value very sharp images (and that depends on your camera as well), but won't cover that exact range.

If you upgrade a small amount to improve on that lens for stills, I'm afraid you'll be disappointed at the lack of difference.
 
If you're planning on doing any video work then I'd recommend the 55-250 STM. I got it recently to compliment my 7D MkII and 18-135 STM specifically for videos and the lens is excellent and I've also used it on the 7D MkII for quite a few stills as well and I've found it sharper than the non STM version but not massively so. The 70-200 f4L is a great lens, but you lose the extra 50mm range and the IS of the 55-250. I part exchanged my old 55-250 MkII for the STM version and ended up paying less than £100 difference so I'm really pleased with it.
 
gothgirl said:
I'm very happy with it , but why not improve if you can ?

If I can't improve within my budget , I'm happy enough to hold onto it , or maybe just upgrade to the STM for the video capabillites too
Click to expand...

You have by far the best lens already in that price bracket. If you want to "improve" it you're looking at the Canon 70-200 L, possibly the f/2.8 variant or the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 OS and that's a fair few hundred quid more.

In fact, I wish I still had my mk1, loved that lens on my 50d.
 
Last edited:
I love the 55-250 , I know the L lens is the next step , I guess I was secretly hoping there was another lens in between , but I just can't afford to upgrade to L
 
The Tamron 70-300 VC as Richard said, after that you're in 70-200 2.8 territory, again a Tamron or Sigma second hand may be near budget, BTW you mention budget a few times but don't actually say what your budget is.
 
Hogboy said:
i would reccomend this Sigma 100-300mm f4
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Sigma-100...620791?hash=item3f44b484b7:g:kH4AAOSw2s1Ur8uz
You can often pick these up for just over £300. one of the best lenses i've ever used, and wish Sigma would reissue it.
Click to expand...

JohnN said:
The Tamron 70-300 VC as Richard said, after that you're in 70-200 2.8 territory, again a Tamron or Sigma second hand may be near budget, BTW you mention budget a few times but don't actually say what your budget is.
Click to expand...

About £200ish (That's including the cost of putting my 55-250 towards it) , if I could spare £300 I'd save it towards the L , sadly I can't.

The 55-250 can be had for about £80... i can afford more than that, but not £300 / £350 for an L.

I'm just a bit dubious about going the sigma or tamron route , the Sigma 18-50 I bought didn't agree with me , as shooting with my STM lenses it's quite slow in comparison
 
Last edited:
Not that I recall, as to the shots I've some in my flickr galleries in my signature
 
gothgirl said:
Now I LOVE the quality of this lens , but would like to invest in a better lens.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but I'm not convinced this makes a lot of sense.

If you're shooting professionally, then the only relevant question is whether the lens delivers results which are good enough for your target clientele. If it doesn't, then you need to either change it or change your clientele. If it does, then you don't need to do anything. Whether or not you love the image quality is irrelevant. It's not about you.

If you're shooting as an enthusiast, then surely the key question is whether you're happy wih the images you're getting from the lens, and clearly the answer is yes. So what exactly is driving the desire to change?

No if you'd said you want/need a lens which focuses faster, or has a longer focal length range, or has better image stabilisation, or has a faster aperture, or has a better minimum focus distance, then those are all valid reasons for wanting to change. But I'm not hearing any of that. What I'm hearing is sounding a bit like GAS.
 
StewartR said:
Sorry, but I'm not convinced this makes a lot of sense.

If you're shooting professionally, then the only relevant question is whether the lens delivers results which are good enough for your target clientele. If it doesn't, then you need to either change it or change your clientele. If it does, then you don't need to do anything. Whether or not you love the image quality is irrelevant. It's not about you.

If you're shooting as an enthusiast, then surely the key question is whether you're happy wih the images you're getting from the lens, and clearly the answer is yes. So what exactly is driving the desire to change?

No if you'd said you want/need a lens which focuses faster, or has a longer focal length range, or has better image stabilisation, or has a faster aperture, or has a better minimum focus distance, then those are all valid reasons for wanting to change. But I'm not hearing any of that. What I'm hearing is sounding a bit like GAS.
Click to expand...

Looking back , I probably should have given more detail in my original post or worded it better, you're right.

I'm happy with a lot of the images I get from the lens, especially in it's sweet spot.
It's been one of my favourite lenses to date ... however.

There are certain areas where it falls down, such as searching in low light and it can be quite soft above 200 ( Generally the whole reason I put this zoom on is because I need the reach of it , so when it starts going soft above 200 it can become a problem )

With the VR on it's also quite slow to focus at full reach , compared to at the lower end of things, which again becomes a problem.
 
Last edited:
gothgirl said:
I love the 55-250 , I know the L lens is the next step , I guess I was secretly hoping there was another lens in between , but I just can't afford to upgrade to L
Click to expand...

Then you'll not be happy with another lens that you "can" afford now, best bet is to save up for a bit longer to you can get the lens that you want.

If you don't, then I suspect it'll cost you more in the long run as you'll buy something and then upgrade this lens to the one that you actually wanted first time round...
 
andyred said:
Then you'll not be happy with another lens that you "can" afford now, best bet is to save up for a bit longer to you can get the lens that you want.

If you don't, then I suspect it'll cost you more in the long run as you'll buy something and then upgrade this lens to the one that you actually wanted first time round...
Click to expand...

if I got the results I was after with a different lens, then I would have no reason to upgrade again
 
gothgirl said:
Looking back , I probably should have given more detail in my original post or worded it better, you're right.

I'm happy with a lot of the images I get from the lens, especially in it's sweet spot.
It's been one of my favourite lenses to date ... however.

There are certain areas where it falls down, such as searching in low light and it can be quite soft above 200 ( Generally the whole reason I put this zoom on is because I need the reach of it , so when it starts going soft above 200 it can become a problem )

With the VR on it's also quite slow to focus at full reach , compared to at the lower end of things, which again becomes a problem.
Click to expand...
Searching in low light is down to your camera, not the lens.

I never found my mk1 soft over 200mm, it was sharp all the way to the zoom stop.

The IS won't slow down the focus either?
 
JohnN said:
Here you go :)

I had the Tamron 70-300 when I had Canon and wouldn't hesitate to get another if I had the need

£196 from MPB https://www.mpb.com/en-uk/used-equi...n-sp-70-300mm-f-4-5-6-di-vc-usd-canon-ef-fit/
Click to expand...
Thats not an upgrade at all.

Its about the same in all areas and you wouldn't notice the extra 50mm which actually reduces with a bit of focus breathing, although the focus motor is a little quicker than the Canon.

Start looking past L lenses too. Look at the Sigma 70-200 OS f/2.8 and the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 (used) if you're looking at lenses in this focal range. They are an upgrade in all areas, not something thats only slightly different.

Do your research and spend your money well, not waste money buying similar products for no gain :)
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
Thats not an upgrade at all.
Click to expand...

I take it you've used them both extensively then? Hell maybe you have, we can all disagree. At the time I thought it was worth the upgrade or I wouldn't have advised it.

Still you are right about the 2.8 70-200 - a third party second hand can be had for pretty good money and while they're not the "L"'s they are an improvement, but at a cost - size and weight, I didn't get on with one all those years ago - I do now but things change.
 
Size wise , I don't mind big heavy lenses , as long as they're not slow.
 
Buy a mark 1 canon 100-400L since the mark ii is out there's some really good deal to do with the mark i and it is still a great lens, compact and light for the focal lenght too.
 
JohnN said:
I take it you've used them both extensively then? Hell maybe you have, we can all disagree. At the time I thought it was worth the upgrade or I wouldn't have advised it.

Still you are right about the 2.8 70-200 - a third party second hand can be had for pretty good money and while they're not the "L"'s they are an improvement, but at a cost - size and weight, I didn't get on with one all those years ago - I do now but things change.
Click to expand...

With regards to the Canon 55-250 and whether the Tamron is an "upgrade", my point was its not really an upgrade as it's one mid range variable aperture mid zoom to another. The IQ is about the same, they both have stabilisation, it's just not really an upgrade. Yes I've used both and wish I still had the Canon :) But, a constant f/2.8 mid tele *is* an upgrade as its faster, will AF faster and has better optics. That's an upgrade and worth the money. If you constantly "upgrade" like for like its a bit of a waste.
 
Last edited:
A real upgrade isn't happening on that budget. Period, without a serious compromise in one direction or another, I'm sure the op already has one but the nifty fifty would be one direction, or something like the Sigma 50-500 (APO, not OS obviously), but it depends on what's required
 
Actually I've just gone back through the thread, stick with what you've got for now, save if possible or try a different area
 
JohnN said:
A real upgrade isn't happening on that budget. Period, without a serious compromise in one direction or another, I'm sure the op already has one but the nifty fifty would be one direction, or something like the Sigma 50-500 (APO, not OS obviously), but it depends on what's required
Click to expand...

Exactly, so she should stick with what she's got until she can afford something worthwhile.
 
I still don't agree as there are levels of upgrade, the 2.8 is a jump though and would give a visible difference to the image, but it depends on the subject, if it's head and shoulders shots then 200 is great, if it longer shots the the longer the better.

Completely different range but I saw a 50mm 1.4 in budget which if it's okay would bring something different altogether, but that's not what's being asked, what was being asked was for an upgrade on a limited budget
 
Another vote for stick with it. Its a great lens. Then just keep saving and more options will open up if you still want somethin else, such as a used L lens.
 
Think I'm going to stick with my 55-250 , until the time comes i can afford a good sigma or a L

If I feel the need for extra reach , I may invest in an extender to use with this lens.

Took it to knowsley and fell in love with it all over again .

This was taken from a moving car , through the window and in the pouring rain , not tecnically the best , but for the conditions it was shot in . I'm chuffed to bits


by Wolfy, on Flickr
 
Here is my advice I had a 55-250is lens it was really good. I did upgrade to a 70-200 I looked at the sigma 2.8 and the canon. In the end I went for the f4is version. It travels the world with me
 
gothgirl said:
Think I'm going to stick with my 55-250... If I feel the need for extra reach , I may invest in an extender to use with this lens.
Click to expand...
That would not be a good investment.

Canon Extenders are not compatible with this lens. Some third party ones may be, but then you have to ask yourself why Canon decided not to make it compatible. (Hint: image quality.) Plus of course you wouldn't have autofocus.
 
StewartR said:
That would not be a good investment.

Canon Extenders are not compatible with this lens. Some third party ones may be, but then you have to ask yourself why Canon decided not to make it compatible. (Hint: image quality.) Plus of course you wouldn't have autofocus.
Click to expand...

That's a fair point , I'll just hang onto this until I can afford a real upgrade
 
The 70-300 IS is a very good model; I've had one of those and found that it performs very well, at maximum aperture as well as stopped down a tad. Very highly recommended, but you will get the itch for an L lens soon ;)
 
LCS said:
The 70-300 IS is a very good model; I've had one of those and found that it performs very well, at maximum aperture as well as stopped down a tad. Very highly recommended, but you will get the itch for an L lens soon ;)
Click to expand...

Again it's a good lens but not an upgrade. The same IQ, same variable aperture and the extra 50mm will barely be noticeable (even nonexistent with focus breathing). And it's heavier and bulkier, so might be considered a downgrade in effect. The 70-300 is designed as a FF lens, the 55-250 (give or take) almost the direct crop equivalent which is more suitable IMO as it offers the same performance in a smaller, lighter package.
 
Last edited:
When I was shooting Canon I used to love my old 70-210 f/3.5-4.5 USM lens. A bargain alternative to a 70-200 f/4 that punches well above its weight with a reasonably fast aperture and quick USM focussing. Downside is that there's not many around and they are quite old now, upside is that they're quite cheap and looking on eBay there's one going for £70 currently. [No, not the seller or linked in any way etc...]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top