[micromacro]

I'm thinking about buying Canon EF-S 55-250 mm F/4-5.6 II IS.

However, after checking the member's samples on Canon forum, I'm not sure is it really good idea or not? It maybe photographers, not the lens itself. But frankly speaking, I get no less IQ with old preset Takumar 200mm f/5.6 when I use it on my Canon with M42 adapter; and I paid for that lens $30 including shipping.

What do you think about Canon EF-S 55-250 mm F/4-5.6 II IS? To get it, or to save more money for something better from Canon? I feel like that lens is overpriced, mainly because of image stabilization and AF? I need at least one telephoto lens with AF for Canon for fast focusing, just don't want to spend money for something not very good.

[Miguel]

Check out Fred Miranda forum reviews.
FM Reviews - Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS

They only have the older IS I.

What are you going to be shooting?

M

[micromacro]

Mainly I would like to have it for grandkids sport games.

[Miguel]

Mainly I would like to have it for grandkids sport games.

Sports is a big tent. What kind of sports events? How old are the grandkids? What's your camera body (sorry if I missed that prior).

M

[micromacro]

Soccer. Age 8 and 10. Canon Rebel SL1 (D100)

[Miguel]

That's such a fun camera, I try to steal my daughter's when I can get away with it.

I think the lens is very fairly priced. $250 is not a lot of money for a lens with those features and that focal range. It should serve you well through the next year for the older child's matches. Having 55mm on the short end will be good for near action if you shoot from the sidelines. If you plan on shooting from stands, or are not allowed sideline access, I'd just use the kit lens to take a few snaps and sit back and enjoy the game.
Alternatively, you can get the 70-300mm IS USM non-L for $650 new. Not the L version for $1450. This will give you very good reach that will serve you better when the 10-year old hits U12/13 and the field size expands significantly. I'd probably get the 55-250mm, use it for a couple of years, and then sell it for the 70-300mm. If you find yourself getting engrossed in shooting, then eventually you'll get a body that has a faster frame rate and more focus points. But that's not now.

M

[tibbitts]

I'm not a Canon user any longer and know almost nothing about their products now, but I thought this lens had been replaced with an improved model?

[Miguel]

I thought this lens had been replaced with an updated model?

You are right, the STM. I keep forgetting about that one. Just better for SL1 and all around. Add another $50 LOL!

M

[micromacro]

I don't use SL1 for video, so STM is not a big factor. I do have kit lens STM, and pancake 40mm STM. Image stabilizing matters since Canon does not have in-camera stabilization.
It's probably better to go to the store and try 55-250 and 70-300 at store. $650 is not my price range, used will be better. But again, I don't see IQ matches that price.

The other concern is those lenses change the length with different zoom and focusing. I used to have Sigma 70-300 for film Nikon. It was annoying to deal with lens size changing, and on 300 zoom my hands shake. With old Pentax-F 80-200mm there is no problem with shaky hands because that lens does not expand.

[Miguel]

I don't see IQ matches that price.

Well, how are you matching image quality, especially if you haven't used the lens? For shooting soccer, even at U10/11, I have a high confidence level that a modern AF lens, even the consumer level one under discussion here, will freeze action more consistently and more frequently than with a manual lens with stop-down metering. The value will be borne out from some of the excellent shots you will generate. I speak from experience here from my own initial forays into shooting sports years ago.

A monopod may help overcome shakes at 300mm. Most likely you can get an accessory tripod/monopod support foot for the lens.

M

[micromacro]

Well, how are you matching image quality, especially if you haven't used the lens?

Looking at someone's pictures taken with those lenses.
Somehow they remind me pictures taken with that Sigma I sold.