Printable View
Hello,
On this moment I have the Canon EOS 550D and the Canon EF-S 17-85mm IS USM. Now I want a lens with more zoom. So,. I found these two lenses:
- Canon EF-S 55-250mm 4-5.6 IS
- Canon EF 70-300mm 4-5.6 IS USM
Have any of you guys one of these lenses? Which one would you pick? What are youre experiences with it?
Hi, and welcome to the TDP Forums!
The EF-S 55-250mm lens is on the lower end of the quality scale. It's similar to the kit lens that is usually sold with the 550D/T2i (at least, here in the US) - the EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS. Both have plastic mounts, and provide ok image quality stopped down, and are soft wide open.
The 17-85mm lens that you have is a step up from the kit lens, much like the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 is a step up from theEF-S 55-250mm - the 70-300mm has better image quality and better build quality. I'd recommend the 70-300mm over the 55-250mm. The 70-300mm still has a couple of minor foibles - although it has an ultrasonic motor (USM), it's not the 'ring-type- USM, so it's pretty silent, but it's not quite as fast, and more significantly it does not offer full-time manual focus (meaning you cannot just grab and turn the MF ring, you need to flip the switch to MF first). Finally, the front element rotates with focusing - if you use a polarizing filter, that can be an annoyance. But optically, it's a pretty good lens, on par with your current 17-85mm. The 70-300mm loses a little quality between 200-300mm, according to Bryan's review on this site, and other reviews.
If you're in the budget range of the 70-300mm, you might also want to consider the EF 70-200mm f/4L. In the US, the 70-200mm is ~$100 more (and it includes the hood, which you'd want to purchase separately for the 70-300mm, adding ~$40, meaning a $60 difference between the lenses). It's an L-series lens - Canon's "Luxury"/professional series, meaning excellent optical and build quality. It also has a constant f/4 aperture (vs. the variable aperture of the 70-300mm lens). You'd be giving up the 200-300mm range, but that's not the best part of the 70-300mm lens' range. However, you'd also be giving up IS - and that can be very helpful in many situations. If you shoot mostly from a tripod/monopod, or if you shoot mostly in daylight or shoot action/sports where you need high shutter speeds, giving up IS may not be a big deal. But if you shoot in dimmer light, or really dislike the noise you get at higher ISO settings, IS may be a big benefit.
Bryan recommends the 70-200mm f/4L over the 70-300mm. However, it really depends on what/when/how you shoot. You can see how much benefit you get from IS by turning it off on your 17-85mm lens and seeing what you think. If you try that, keep in mind that IS will have greater benefit at longer focal lengths.
Good luck with your decision!
--John
Oke, thanks for your helpfull reply. But the 70-200 is a big lens, isn't it to big for the 550D? In Holland the 70-300 and the 70-200 is -100 euro than the 70-200. Ans also here in Holland, the lens hood is included and a pouch for the lens.
By the way, do you mean the Canon 70-200mm f/4L USM CPS? Because there are more types, also with IS USM. But this last one, is more than 1000 euro.
The 70-200mm isn't that big... [;)] Seriously, it's only 3 cm longer than the 70-300mm, and that's with the 70-300mm fully retracted. The 70-300mm extends with zooming (and extends further with focusing), so when fully extended the 70-300mm is actually 4 cm longer than the 70-200mm (which doesn't change length with zooming).
There's really no such thing as 'too big a lens' for the 550D or any dSLR. You can use your 550D with an 800mm f/5.6L IS lens if you like - that lens is longer than your arm and weighs nearly 5 kilos.
The lens and pouch are included with the 70-200mm f/4L - all L-series lenses include a hood and a pouch/case. The 70-300mm does not come with a hood or a pouch (at least, not as Canon packages them) - you need to buy those separately unless your retailer is selling you a 'bundle package' that adds the separate hood and pouch.
I was referring to the EF 70-200mm f/4L USM - that's the one that's close in cost to the 70-300mm IS USM. There are 4 (or 5) flavors of the Canon 70-200mm lenses - f/4 and f/2.8, with and without IS, and a Mark II version of the f/2.8 with IS. The f/4 non-IS is what I was comparing to the 70-300mm. The f/4 IS and f/2.8 non-IS run over 1000 €, the old version of the f/2.8 IS runs under 2000 €, and the f/2.8 IS II is over 2000 €.
Hoi Friso,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Friso
Yes that's the one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
The 70-200 f4L USM non-IS costs 565 euro vs 485 euros for the 70-300...sssuming you want a lens-hood it would cost you another 40 euros.
So in the end it's 565 euros for the 70-200 vs 525 for the 70-300.
The 70-200 f4L USM gives you better image quality and build. It also handles really good. I personally prefer the internal focussing and zooming. It's absolutely not too big for your 550D, I've used one myself on a 450D.
However the 70-200 gives you better image-quality, but it lacks the IS(image stabilization/beeldstabilisatie) and 300mm range. It's pretty much up to you if you need these factors.
I would choose the 70-200 f4L over the 70-300 myself, but I could have different purposes for my gear.
Good luck,
Jan
I second John's advice. If you can spare the cash, the 70-300 is better than the 55-250. (Though the 55-250 is veryimpressive in how much quality you can get for so little money.) For even more quality, and if you wont be needing I.S. or the full 300mm that often, the 70-200 f/4 is better still.
But there's another thing to consider. If the 55-250 is "good enough", then you could take all that saved money and put it into a totally different lens, like the EF-S 10-22mm, or the Sigma 30mm f/1.4, or the Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro, etc. Just a possibility.
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="content-type" />
Hi Guys,
Thanks for the info so far. Yesterday after my work I saw the 70-200 F2.8 in a large audio/video/photo/computer store. Is the F4 like thickness and length than the F2.8?
And is het wise to put a protection filter on the F4?
Have a look at the tools page, specifically:
[url="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Specifications.aspx?Lens=404&LensComp=687& Units=E][/url]
<div class="PageTitle"][url="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Specifications.aspx?Lens=404&LensComp=687& Units=E]Lens Specifications and Measurements[/url]</div>
<div class="PageTitle"]
</div>
<div class="PageTitle"][url="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Product-Images.aspx?Lens=404&LensComp2=0&LensComp= 687]Lens product images[/url]</div>
<div class="PageTitle"]
</div>
<div class="PageTitle"]The comparisons will give you an idea of the size differences. The 70-200mm f/4 is smaller, both in length and diameter, it's also lighter.
</div>
Like CFNZ said, the f4 version is significantly smaller and lighter and yes it's always advisable to put a protection filter on your lenses. A filter is cheaper to replace than a front-element. Also some lenses need a protection filter to complete the weathersealing, but it's not the case with the 70-200 f4L USM.
Indeed, smaller and lighter. It is lighter then my old sigma 70-300 lens (from the analogue period, who can't be re-chipped). And side by side with the canon 70-300, makes almost no difference.