- This topic is empty.
canon 55 250 is kit lens or canon 70 300 is usm lens.
-
I was wondering if the extra 50 mm focal length of the 70 300
was worth the extra €250 against the 55 250 kit lens.
Please let me know what you think.
PS. Realy enjoying this forum.
Thank you in advance.From what I can see the biggest difference is that the
70-300 has USM so focusing should be faster and more silent.I notice the 55-250 is an EF-S lens, personally I would stay
away from EF-S. If you wanted to change up to full frame in
the future you would’nt be able to use any of the EF-S
lenses!It also depends on what you are using the lens for. The
55-250 is in fact a 88-400 lens and the 70-300 is
112-480 on your x1.6 crop camera (450d), so if
you need that extra 80mm with USM is may be worth
the extra cost.I know this isn’t quite answering your question, but I’d very strongly suggest considering the 70-200f4L. They are going second hand between €400 and €450. Optically, this is an absolutely superb lens.
b318isp wrote:
I know this isn’t quite answering your question, but I’d very strongly suggest considering the 70-200f4L. They are going second hand between €400 and €450. Optically, this is an absolutely superb lens.
I had one of these but for the type of photography I do I didnt really need it.
The one thing I found with this lens was it was slow F4 and could not be used with
the 2X converter.The image quality was great, the sharpness was spot on but I found that I would have
needed the IS.So if you are going to step up to the L go for the F4 IS or the 2.8 IS if you win on
a scratch card!aoluain wrote:
b318isp wrote:
I know this isn’t quite answering your question, but I’d very strongly suggest considering the 70-200f4L. They are going second hand between €400 and €450. Optically, this is an absolutely superb lens.
I had one of these but for the type of photography I do I didnt really need it.
The one thing I found with this lens was it was slow F4 and could not be used with
the 2X converter.The image quality was great, the sharpness was spot on but I found that I would have
needed the IS.So if you are going to step up to the L go for the F4 IS or the 2.8 IS if you win on
a scratch card!But on his case that he is talking about a 70-300 USM the 70-200L F4 would be wonderfull non of them have IS.
I would say the 70-200L is very good but if money is one issue, its hard to say, i have the 70-300 IS USM and it’s pretty decent.It also depends on the type of work the lens has to do.
I bought my 70-200L for aviation and motorsport use – the IS was therefore not important. The same would apply for tripod based work. I’d also note that the L lens is good even down at f4.
I sold my old 70-300mm (not the IS version) as it wasn’t very good either wide open nor at focal lengths above 200mm. If the OP is going to do something like handheld portrait or low light shots, then the IS becomes more important – but so also does performance at large apertures.
The 55-250 has a good reputation, so unless the OP can give us more details to justify a change, I’d advise him to stick with what he has got.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
