Canon 55-250 IS a pretty darn good lens!

[Limbwalker]

I was looking for an affordable mid range telephoto lens that I plan to use for sports photography (daughter swims and plays volleyball) and came across this one at Houston Camera Exchange. I'd never heard of it, but that's not surprising since I haven't really kept up in recent years.

It's the EFS 55-250 IS lens. They call it a "kit" lens since it has the plastic lens mount, but I call it one heluva deal. Man is it sharp for a budget lens! And I've never had a lens with IS before, and it's blowing me away how well it works.

I got good photos of my daughter, indoors, hand-held at 250mm at just 1/4 sec. exposure. Don't try that with a non IS lens!

I shot this against a 28-135 Canon lens that I'm selling, and there is really no comparison. Although the 28-135 is a more expensive lens, the image quality is far better on the 55-250, nevermind the IS.

I got mine for just $159 used, but I've seen them for less than that on C-list, probably from folks "upgrading" to more expensive lenses.

It's definitely worth a look if you don't have a lot of money to spend and need a zoom in this range.

One last thing - its incredibly small and light. That's one thing I really love about it. It doesn't even look like a telephoto lens, so it doesn't make you stick out like a "pro-wannabe" photographer at youth sports, which is something I wanted.

[Limbwalker]

Here's a sample from the first day I had it. This was hand-held at just 1/60 sec., f5 at 150mm. ISO set to 1000.

[Hunter_Man]

my buddy just got one of those... it's pretty slick. amazing pic quality.

[Limbwalker]

Here's how small it is. It's one of the lightest lenses I've ever owned too.

[jrwest66]

I just bought me a Canon T3 last month and also purchased a 55-250 lens and it is awesome.

[Henry]

Well, I'm not as enthusiastic as the rest of you folks :-)

it'll get the job done but isn't as sharp, and gas chromatic aberration. I suppose for the price it's fine, but no where near the 70-200mm

[Limbwalker]

Henry, I think it's incredibly sharp for a lens in this price range. Are you comparing it to the 70-200 L ? If so, then that's not really a fair comparison.

I was looking at images from this lens at 55mm compared to my 50 1.4 (one of the sharpest lenses I've ever used) and they were amazingly close in quality. Sharpness was nearly identical but the 50 1.4 beat it slightly in contrast. But I can't think of another lens that does what this one can do, without drawing attention to the "overenthusiastic" parent in the bleachers. ha, ha. It's a stealthy little 250 for sure!

[Limbwalker]

From today (all with the 55-250 IS)

[iamntxhunter]

For the money great buy.

[Henry]

Yes, for the money and for non critical photos it's a great buy.

[Limbwalker]

"non critical" LOL.

Henry, you crack me up.

[Henry]

By that I mean paying clients.

[georgec]

There is nothing wrong with the 55-250 lens. I no longer use it cause I purchased a 100-400L but took some good shots with it before I upgraded.
But then again I am no pro by a long shot.


Woodpecker by georgec8, on Flickr


Heron by georgec8, on Flickr


1-24-13 012 by georgec8, on Flickr


goose by georgec8, on Flickr


Hawk by georgec8, on Flickr

[Limbwalker]

Henry, stop that 55-250 down to f/8, make sure you nail the focus, and let your clients try to pick which lens is which. LOL.

You and I both know that this lens at f/8 will be indistinguishable from a 70-200L wide open.

It's all in how you use them. Besides, they're paying for the image, not the lens it was taken with.

[Henry]

I suppose that will work for say maybe some daylight engagement photos with little to no bokeh, but not for low light stuff.