Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 22
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Central Coast, CA.
    Posts
    77

    XSI - Telephoto Lens Recommendation

    I have the new XSI with the kit lens (which I like) - I want to get something for telephoto but since I am a novice and would mostly be taking outside scenic shots (perhaps 10% of my shots would be indoors and I figure my 18-55 IS should take care of that) - so I don't want to spend more than $500 for my next lens (but would prefer lower but with decent quality) - therefore, I figure the 70-300 IS or the new 55-250 IS should most likely be sufficient for my needs (unless someone should try and talk me into the 70-200 L - but I want IS and don't want to spend $1,000!)..................I have read that the new 55-250 IS is fairly equal in quality to the 70-300 IS but for 1/2 the price - even if the 70-300 IS is 10% - 20% better - wouldn't the 55-250 IS be the way to go?

    Thanks

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    3,109
    Quote Originally Posted by palermo22 View Post
    ...wouldn't the 55-250 IS be the way to go?
    Yes. Sounds like the perfect choice for you.
    Canon A720 IS, 40D w/ BG-E2N, 28 1.8, 50 1.4, Sigma 70 2.8 macro, 17-40 F4 L, 24-105 F4 L IS, 70-200 F4 L IS, 430 EX, Kenko 2X TC & Ext Tubes, AB strobes and more...
    View my photo galleries here: imageevent.com/24peter

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    SW Missouri
    Posts
    177
    I have the 55-250 IS and I like it (:
    AmiMaija

    Rebel Xsi 450D, Canon 18-55mm IS, Canon 55-250 IS, Canon EFS 50mm f/1.8, Tamron 28-75 2.8, Tamron 70-200 2.8.
    Promaster 5550 flash and 300 series, Gary Fong puffer and Lightsphere deluxe kit.

    Adobe Lightroom and Photoshop.

    PowerShot S5 IS

    http://prophotoannebrown.com/

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/amimaija/collections/

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Central Coast, CA.
    Posts
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by amimaija View Post
    I have the 55-250 IS and I like it (:
    That's great to hear but I would love to know how photos compare with the 70-300 IS and the 70-200 L f4 (non-IS). All three lens are within a few hundred dollars of one another and while the 70-200 L is a better all-around lens - I am wondering whether the IS on the 55-250 brings it to within a reasonable range of what the 70-200 L is capable of?

    Also, as a non-professional would I notice any great detail differences between the 70-200 f4.0 (non-IS) and the 55-250 IS when the IS is employed?
    Last edited by palermo22; 04-24-2008 at 02:57 PM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    1,651
    Quote Originally Posted by palermo22 View Post
    That's great to hear but I would love to know how photos compare with the 70-300 IS and the 70-200 L f4 (non-IS). All three lens are within a few hundred dollars of one another and while the 70-200 L is a better all-around lens - I am wondering whether the IS on the 55-250 brings it to within a reasonable range of what the 70-200 L is capable of?

    Also, as a non-professional would I notice any great detail differences between the 70-200 f4.0 (non-IS) and the 55-250 IS when the IS is employed?
    I usually go to www.pbase.com and search the pictures shot with the lenses I'm researching.

    Some 55-250 IS pics: http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon/ef_s_55_250_mm_is

    Some 70-200 f/4L IS pics: http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon/ef_70_200__4l_is_usm
    Some 70-200 f/4 pics: http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon/ef_70200_4u

    And even some 70-200 f/2.8L IS pics: http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon/ef_70200_28is

    http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon <-- scroll down for lenses

    You will definitely "get what you pay for".
    Last edited by FLiPMaRC; 04-24-2008 at 03:15 PM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Central Coast, CA.
    Posts
    77
    I agree (that you get what you pay for) - but looking at those photos: I saw some pretty good quality in the 55-250 lens - OK, the 70-200 was better - but was it $300 better? I am not sure! What is you opinion between the two lenses (based on the photo site you sent me to)?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    3,109
    A good place to see how lenses perform: http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Cano...20Lens%20Tests
    Canon A720 IS, 40D w/ BG-E2N, 28 1.8, 50 1.4, Sigma 70 2.8 macro, 17-40 F4 L, 24-105 F4 L IS, 70-200 F4 L IS, 430 EX, Kenko 2X TC & Ext Tubes, AB strobes and more...
    View my photo galleries here: imageevent.com/24peter

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    1,651
    Quote Originally Posted by palermo22 View Post
    I agree (that you get what you pay for) - but looking at those photos: I saw some pretty good quality in the 55-250 lens - OK, the 70-200 was better - but was it $300 better? I am not sure! What is you opinion between the two lenses (based on the photo site you sent me to)?
    I think it will have to come down to your own personal opinion. Just like you said, "is it $300 better?". Just like when I was looking to by my first DSLR. Is the XSi worth $300 more than the XTi? After all my reading a research, it was worth it to me

    For me personally, if I can afford it now, then I will buy it. If I can't and I really want it, then I'll wait until I've saved enough for it Some people buy what they can afford "now", and then get what they really want later on and sell their old lens

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,560
    If you wanted to try for some serious dynamic focal length ... w/o IS, of course, you could look at the Tokina AT-X 840 D 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 II. This is one long zoom gun that doesn't weigh anywhere near as much as most 400mm lenses. If definitely reaches well beyond typical 300mm shots.

    Name:  ATX840DII.jpg
Views: 2498
Size:  51.8 KB

    Mount availability: Canon EOS, Nikon-D,

    Focal length: 80 to 400mm

    Maximum aperture: f/4.5-5.6

    Minimum aperture: f/32

    Optical construction: 16 elements in 10 groups

    SD glass: One elements

    Coatings: Multi-layer

    Angle of view: 29 50’ to 613’

    Minimum focus distance: 2.5m (8.2 ft.)

    Reproduction ratio: 1: 5.4

    Zooming system: Rotary type

    Number of diaphragm blades: 8

    Filter size: 72mm

    Maximum outer diameter: 77.2mm (3.0in.)

    Dimensions: 3.1 in. (79mm) X 136.5 mm (5.4in.)

    Weight: 1020 g (35.9 oz..)

    Lens Hood BH-725

    I saw it at Regal Camera for $489 (Canon mount)

    My model 1 version (not optimized for digital) delivered this shot of Pike's Peak, @ 400mm, when I was recently out in Colorado.

    Name:  Pikes-Peak-400mm.jpg
Views: 2361
Size:  220.2 KB

    With a 100% crop of the top delivering this ...
    Name:  pike-top.jpg
Views: 2295
Size:  228.9 KB

    Just a thought, when you are looking to go long ... and don't need 4+ lbs of lens to do it.
    Last edited by DonSchap; 04-25-2008 at 08:46 AM.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Georgetown, KY
    Posts
    1,627
    Quote Originally Posted by DonSchap View Post
    I saw it at Regal Camera for $489 (Canon mount)
    If it is this Regal Camera http://www.resellerratings.com/store/Broadway_Photo then you might want to look at a few things other than price in the future.
    Dennis

    Canon 5D
    Canon 20D


    Georgetown, KY Photographer
    Retouching

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •