I was looking for a cheap zoom lens to use on my "pawn shop special" 20D. I have a 17-85mm IS, but need a little more reach.I didn't want to invest a lot into this project as I have a D300 and some decent Nikon lenses. Puls I don't know the history of this 20D and would hate to invest a lot in a lens and it dies in few weeks.Which one is a better deal?I like the ideal of having IS on the 55-250mm, but also like the extra 50mm of the 75-300mm plus it's about $80 to $100 dollars less than 55-250mm.My gut feel is that the 55-250mm is the better deal and I won't miss the extra 50mm.

In my opinion the 55-250mm IS is a rare bargain at $US275. It is very sharp indeed, and the IS is quite amazing -- far better than the IS on my 28-135mm IS. I was able to take sharp photos at 1/15 second at 250mm, which astounded me, as I do not have particularly steady hands. The lens is very light and this together with the IS makes it a good travel camera, as one can get by without a tripod under most conditions.Bob N.

I would’n be without my 55-250mm; I think it’s a fantastic lens for the money. Here are a couple of shots taken with it – the third is a crop of the second shot to show some detail. These planes are approaching for landing which, in the case of the BAE Hawk (not sure about the Tornado), is around 125 mph. Most of what I do is aircraft, sports etc., and I’m very happy with the way it copes in these situations.Will O

bwiggwrote:I was looking for a cheap zoom lens to use on my "pawn shop special" 20D. I have a 17-85mm IS, but need a little more reach. Which one is a better deal?The EF-S 55-250 IS lens is the much better performer optically.

Hi bwigg, I know that you are looking for a "cheap" zoom lens, and are asking about the 55-250 (which I'm advocating above) and the 75-300, but is there any chance that you might be in a position to consider the 70-300IS lens? There are some fantastic samples here:http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=28706532&changemode=1Will O

Both are Plastic. I'd say this is fair comparison. The extra money is for the extra 50mm and 2 modes of IShttp://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/194-canon-ef-s-55-250mm-f4-56-is-test-report--review?start=1http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/200-canon-ef-70-300mm-f4-56-usm-is-test-report--review?start=1

And get the 55-250mm IS one. The 75-300, just like the older Nikon 70-300mm G and ED lenses, disappoints a lot on the long end. The 55-250mm is a really rather good lens for the price and will not disappoint.

Another happy 55-250 user here - I wrote about my experience with the lens here: http://www.komar.org/faq/camera/canon-55-250/and it's just a great walk-around ... the extra 15mm on the wide-angle side ends up being quite useful..

Will Owrote:Hi bwigg, I know that you are looking for a "cheap" zoom lens, and are asking about the 55-250 (which I'm advocating above) and the 75-300, but is there any chance that you might be in a position to consider the 70-300IS lens? There are some fantastic samples here:Thanks for the advice. When I had my 30D, and then a 40D I did have the 70-300mm IS lens and it was a good lens. I switched to a Nikon D300 and sold my Canon stuff to finance the change.Problem was I still missed the 30D some, but couldn't afford to own both until I found a 20D in a pawn shop for $100 with the 17-85mm IS lens. This gave me the opportunity to get back in the Canon camp.I would get the 70-300mm IS, but I can't really justify or afford it right now. But the price of the 55-250mm is quite appealing.

bwiggwrote:...I would get the 70-300mm IS, but I can't really justify or afford it right now. But the price of the 55-250mm is quite appealing.I fully appreciate what you are saying. Well, if you go for a 55-250 IS, I'm sure that you won't be disappointed. Like I said above, most of what I do with it is action photography and it's coping marvellously. Before I got the 55-250, I was using the 28-135 IS. Now, however, the 55-250 is more or less permanently welded to my 40D!Regards, Will O

correct cromatic aberrations.

I cant really be the first one to point this out, but the 55-250 is an EF-S lens, meaning its built for the Crop body. Thats exactly 55-250mm FL. Now, all 70-300's are EF lenses, meaning, and since your posting in the 40D-10D Forum, you have a crop body and any FL on that 70-300 lens is effectively 1.6x longer. Your same 70-300 is actually a 112-480mm eFL lens now. What do you want in focal length(FL) I hear that the 70-300 IS USM is very nice, Id just go with that if you need the distance, which it sounds like you do. If you just want a little more reach, go with the 55-250, but know it will be absolutely if the industry every switches away from crop-bodies or you decide to upgrade to FF before then.Just my opinion.P.s. Im waiting till i can get the 70-300 IS USM.A little afterthought, Ive never heard of a 70-300 USM w.o IS, I dont think it exists. Do you mean the 70-300 III? or even II, because you may be able to find those at radio shak for aroun $110us.

Hi WillHow much PP did you do on these? I think they're quite nice and might just be the tipping point for me to jump on this lens. The samples I've seen on this site are consistently impressive.I also owned (briefly) the 70-300 but found its performance and amount I'd be using it to not justify the $550 price tag (for me, at least). It would be nice to have something in that range, however. Bonus is the images are this good!

ynoty3kwrote:I cant really be the first one to point this out, but the 55-250 is an EF-S lens, meaning its built for the Crop body. Thats exactly 55-250mm FL.Are you sure about this?Canons website has this "This high zoom ratio lens is equivalent to a focal length of 88-400mm in the 35mm format (when used on Canon EOS cameras compatible with EF-S lenses)"

Fairly sure, because youre running an APS-C sensor, and its talking about a full frame sensor. Thats the way I understood the way the eFL markings worked. I could be entirely wrong, Canon should after all, as the manufacturer, know what its talking about. Then again, it is worded pretty ambiguously.Another thing to consider, the 70-300,(which I just saw does come in III USM,) Is a USM lens, so less focus searching in low light, and is always gonna be quieter.)Id still suggest the 70-300 EF IS USM lens, it will give you 112-480, and thats not ambiguous, unlike the 55-250 IS.

I believe that's a negative.The EF-S 17-55mm does not give the APS-C camers 17mm at the wide end. You still need to tack on the 1.6x crop factor.Yes, it's confusing but what can ya do.For instance, if you look at p&s, or (the Pro1 I have), the lens states: 7.2-50.8mm. But the 35-equiv is 28-200mm due to the crop factor..

ynoty3kwrote:Fairly sure, because youre running an APS-C sensor, and its talking about a full frame sensor. Thats the way I understood the way the eFL markings worked. I could be entirely wrong, Canon should after all, as the manufacturer, know what its talking about. Then again, it is worded pretty ambiguously.Another thing to consider, the 70-300,(which I just saw does come in III USM,) Is a USM lens, so less focus searching in low light, and is always gonna be quieter.)Id still suggest the 70-300 EF IS USM lens, it will give you 112-480, and thats not ambiguous, unlike the 55-250 IS.No - it is NOT correct. Focal length is a property of the lens and it is independent of the camera you mount it on.55-250mm is exactly that focal length range in any camera. (as we know u can only mount it on EF-S aka crop cameras)What it does when mounted on a 40D is give you a field of view equivalent to 88-400 lens on a 35mm camera.Which is the exact same behavior if you used the 70-300, 17-55, 17-85 or any lens for that matter (EF or EF-S) -- focal length is a camera/sensor independent number.

I found some good prices on the 75-300mm and 70-300mm Tamrons. The 75-300mm is right around the hundred dollar mark with the 70-300mm about $35 more. They seem to get some good reviews for lenses in their price range.Even though the Canon 55-250mm IS looks fantastic, I think I can live without the IS for now as the Tamrons are close to one third the price.If I need a good IS lens I can always use the D300 with my 70-300m Nikkor VR lens.

D300 with 70-300 VR lens, huh?It's like a whole conversation asking about buying a used Honda Civic, then wrapping it up with "well if I wanna go fast I guess I can just hop in my Porsche Cayman S." Ha!!Seems like you just wantsomethingto put on the Canon in that focal length. Given the deal you got on the 20D (totally outrageous, btw), hell, why not get the Tamron for $100 and have a no-risk-if-it-gets-broken-or-stolen setup? I also recommend the Sigma 70-300 APO, but at $200 you're already getting into Canon 55-250 cost territory.Best of luck

Guvwrote:Seems like you just wantsomethingto put on the Canon in that focal length. Given the deal you got on the 20D (totally outrageous, btw), hell, why not get the Tamron for $100 and have a no-risk-if-it-gets-broken-or-stolen setup? Best of luckThat's exactly what I want to do, have a great DSLR setup at the price of a P&S without all the worry of losing two grand worth of camera if something bad happens.Of course I would still be upset if something happened to the 20D, it is a great camera. I was just lucky to have so little in it.Thanks for the good wishes!