Zoom lens for 40D

[SilverGS]

Just interested in some opinions on

Canon EF-S 55-250mm F4-5.6 IS vs Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

The 250mm is more budget but is spending the extra for the 300mm worth it?

Also if you have any other options as well to look at. My budget is not terribly high so that is a consideration.

[Melinda]

What other lenses do you currently have and what will you be using this zoom lens for?

[C4S]

the 55-250IS .. is in fact very good lens for it's price .. it is just not a FF lens, however, if you dont plan on upgrade to FF, that is good ..

I read good review for it .. and for $300 .. can't go wrong .. :)

It is good to hv the IS . 250mm is a lots .. that is app. 400mm already !!! you will rarely use that range ... and with the IS .. you can still do app. 1/50 sec with that lens ..

I am going to buy that lens too, when I go trip next time.. :)

[SilverGS]

Just starting out so I currently only have a EF-S 17-85 /f4.0-5.6 IS USM

I am going on a trip to Europe in a week and would like to take all sorts of pictures. I am planning on getting a 50mm 1.8 (going to use this for some friends weddings as well) and a telephoto as well so I am looking at my options at this point.

Yeah the price in the 250mm is very attractive and is why I am considering it.

Didn't realize before but the 70-200mm /F 4L is also $680 so would be the same price as the 300mm IS. Do you guys think it is worth to get that lens even though no IS?

[AccentAE86]

First of all, I think the 55-250 is a great lens and an amazing deal. Who would have thought you could get IS lenses at that price? I mean, in the 70-200 collection, the IS versions are $600 EXTRA above the non-IS versions. You won't miss the extra 50mm, because 250mm is actually quite a lot!!

So I think it would be the perfect lens for a 40D.

Second, I would buy the 70-200L over the 70-300IS ANY DAY. But that's just personal preference.

[DJ Lazy]

Originally posted by AccentAE86


Second, I would buy the 70-200L over the 70-300IS ANY DAY. But that's just personal preference.

I'll echo that statement!

If you are considering the 70-300IS.. You would be better off going with the 70-200L/F4.. It hard to beat L glass... especially when there is basically no price difference... not to mention you will rarely use the 300mm spectrum of that lens, and if you do, you would probably have a small amount of image degradation.

[Maddog55]

The first lens I bought was my f4.0L 70-200.....and I'm hooked on the "L" quality of glass. I later bought the 17-85 IS, but its not an "L" series lens.....TOTAL difference in picture quality. I'd definately go for the 70-200 L...not to mention they look way cooler!

[SilverGS]

Thanks for all your input so far

I am now down to:
Canon EF-S 55-250mm F4-5.6 IS ($3XX) vs EF 70-200 /F4 L ($7XX)

Budget vs Quality

decisions decisions :)

[Maddog55]

I got mine off ebay for about $600 something.

C'mon....how cool is this:

http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h313/Dave_n_Heather/Misc%20Pics/PICT5490.jpg

Just walk up to any stage with a band playing and everyone will part like the red sea, thinking you're some hotshot freelance pro photographer

[SilverGS]

Heh Heh dang thats a bit bigger then I thought but yes very impressive looking.

Maddog, how heavy is it? I am going to Europe and will be carrying the equipment with me on a daily basis. Also do you find it hard to shoot zoomed in handheld with no IS?

[Maddog55]

I've lugged it around all day and don't find it heavy. It's not like the big 2.8 300L...those things hurt!!

And I don't find the non IS a problem at all. I shoot almost always outside. And the f4.0 is plenty fast enough. Most of my shots are are around the 1/500 and up...so shake is a non issue. Even later in the evening...dusk....I'll adjust the ISO up to 800 and I can still shoot at 1/125 at 4.0. I've never felt the need for the IS at all. That might make a difference if you were shooting a lot indoors with low light...but even that...just bump up the ISO.

[Maddog55]

click on these and you can see the exif details. I think you'll see the non IS not a problem:

http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o312/CalgaryDave/th_IMG_9344.jpg (http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o312/CalgaryDave/IMG_9344.jpg)
http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o312/CalgaryDave/th_IMG_9350.jpg (http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o312/CalgaryDave/IMG_9350.jpg)
http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o312/CalgaryDave/th_IMG_9385.jpg (http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o312/CalgaryDave/IMG_9385.jpg)
http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o312/CalgaryDave/th_IMG_9404.jpg (http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o312/CalgaryDave/IMG_9404.jpg)

[483hp]

If you can swing the extra $, go for the 70-200 f4. It's 1 stop faster than the other lens at the long end. If you feel you need more than 200m, you can always add a 1.4x extender which will give you roughly a 300 f5.6

[SilverGS]

Okay so I was able to find someone selling a used 70-200mm /f4 L and picked it up with a Hoya Filter.

Plugged it in while I was there and everything seemed to work just dandy. Now I just to have to learn how to take pictures :)

Thanks for the input from everyone. Now I can be just like Maddog55 and maybe catch a crime in action.

Next opinion request. B+W UV Filter vs Hoya or Other Filter. Who thinks the B+W filters are worth the extra $$?