canon 70-300mm vs 55-250mm vs 70-200mm F4

[magic1980]

dear senior,

i am using 450d with 17-55mm currently.

i am looking for a tele lens to complete my range.

whats your opinion on the above 3 mentioned lens?

i know L lens is a good investment, but its lacking on the reach.

in comparison, how is the image quality of the other 2 lens?

 

[Yoh]

dear senior,

i am using 450d with 17-55mm currently.

i am looking for a tele lens to complete my range.

whats your opinion on the above 3 mentioned lens?

i know L lens is a good investment, but its lacking on the reach.

in comparison, how is the image quality of the other 2 lens?

If you have budget constraint, then go for 55-250mm. Otherwise get 70-200mm f/4.

As for 70-300mm, you can simply disregard it. Be it IS or non IS version unless its 70-300mm DO IS.

 

[diver-hloc]

The 70-300mm would be a good choice if you don't plan to get the L lens. But the best choice would still be 70-200mm f4 IS L.... I would gladly give up some 'Reach' for the L :bsmilie:

If you are low on buget...... EF-S 55-250mm IS is also a good choice.... just avoid the EF 75-300mm III :sticktong

 

[playplay]

I have tried 55-250mm previously. I would say its quite a good copy. Able to produce good contrast and 250 is more than enough to cover alot of shots. I think most telezoom lens at 300mm suffer some photo quality degrade unless you are using L lens or prime lens which suffers slightly lesser.

Its a good lens. 55mm end can take alot of portrait shots with 450D.

You can check out 1 of my shot taken at 55mm
http://klchua78.multiply.com/photos/album/17/Marina_Barrage#15

 

[charlesleong]

70-200.
not for the L.
for the constant aperture throughout the zoom range

 

[magic1980]

oh, 70-300mm usm IS not so good?
even cheaper 55-250mm wins it?
ok, that narrow down my choices.

hmmm, but no money for 70-200mm F4 IS.

does F4 no IS lose out a lot apart from the 3 stops?

 

[Yoh]

oh, 70-300mm usm IS not so good?
even cheaper 55-250mm wins it?
ok, that narrow down my choices.

hmmm, but no money for 70-200mm F4 IS.

does F4 no IS lose out a lot apart from the 3 stops?

Well, the money use for getting 70-300mm IS USM is better off spent on 70-200mm f/4.

And nope, f/4 variants of 70-200mm from Canon are relatively good.

 

[ballwackers]

If you have budget constraint, then go for 55-250mm. Otherwise get 70-200mm f/4.

As for 70-300mm, you can simply disregard it. Be it IS or non IS version unless its 70-300mm DO IS.

There are a number of different lens in this range (9 in fact).

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/telephoto_zoom.html

I had the 75-300 USM and it was not good. I now have the 70-300 USM IS and i am very pleased with it. In fact it seems to outperform the more expensive DO lens that costs almost 2x as much.

Head to www.fredmiranda.com for a lot of useful reviews

 

[Yoh]

There are a number of different lens in this range (9 in fact).

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/telephoto_zoom.html

I had the 75-300 USM and it was not good. I now have the 70-300 USM IS and i am very pleased with it. In fact it seems to outperform the more expensive DO lens that costs almost 2x as much.

Head to www.fredmiranda.com for a lot of useful reviews

As for the outperform part, I would say they're equally the same though. Price wise, yeah, DO IS is priced way higher than typical 70-300mm IS.

 

[engrmariano]

55-250IS for me

 

[ditikolon]

55-250is.

 

[Lost Dog]

55-250IS.. it's already my second copy. regretted why i sold the 1st one. will keep this one until have cash for a 70-200.

 

[ditikolon]

55-250IS.. it's already my second copy. regretted why i sold the 1st one. will keep this one until have cash for a 70-200.

70-200IS you mean... IS really saving grace. Same! I'm saving up for a 70-200IS too.

 

[fleaz]

I didn't want to start a new topic for this. Comparing the 55-250 & 70-300, does the difference from 250mm to 300mm justify the higher price?

 

[corneliustoh]

actually the 70-200 L is an EF lens so theres the crop factor. making the max zoom 320 i guess.
so if u got the cash get the 70-200, or else, 55 250 EFS.

 

[fleaz]

actually the 70-200 L is an EF lens so theres the crop factor. making the max zoom 320 i guess.
so if u got the cash get the 70-200, or else, 55 250 EFS.

and your point is? not as if the 70-300 will remain at 300. it will be 480 on a 1.6 crop.

i cannot afford the IS version of the 70-200.

 

[Snoweagle]

In fact, 200mm to 300mm is not much difference optically.

 

[shaw shank]

55-250 anytime on budget.....

 

[fleaz]

Is that right? Ok, thanks for answering my query.

 

[Snoweagle]

Is that right? Ok, thanks for answering my query.

250mm to 300mm is even less noticeable difference. If u don't believe me, u go try a 70-300 lens, then put to 200mm, look into the viewfinder then zoom to 300mm.