 |
|
|
Kitrix
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 21, 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Dec 21, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $190.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Wide-zoom-range: 55-250mm (x1.6) = 88-400mm
Size: Small-compact and light-weight
Price: Very low, New under $200
and ... it has IS
|
|
Cons:
|
If I am being picky, the front-element-rotate is the only thing I can think of.
I strongly disagree with other reviewers putting poor-image quality as Negative aspect when we are only paying $200.
|
|
|
This is my first review after being a follower of FM for a couple years ... I finally have to leave a comment ... since I can't see this best dollar-to-value lens rated just under 9, when it should be easily a 9.5+ lens ...
There many competitor lenses in this zoom range:
- 70-200 f2.8 IS II USM ($2,500)
- 70-200 f2.8 IS USM ($1,800)
- 70-200 f2.8 USM ($1,300)
- 70-200 f4 IS USM ($1,200)
- 70-200 f4 USM ($550)
- 70-300 f4-5.6 IS USM ($550)
- 70-300 f4-5.6L IS USM ($1,450)
- 28-300 f3.5-5.6L IS USM ($2,400)
- 35-350 f3-5.6L IS USM ($2,400)
- 55-250 f4-5.6 IS ($200?? seriously only $200?)
etc ...
Actually, I am sorry I made a very wrong mistake when I am comparing an apple to an orange ...
Because none of them above without costing me a fortune ...
and none of them above can fit in my travel size carrying case ... To me, shooting picture shall be fun ... but when I can't afford or carrying a huge Canon Cannon to travel, the fun just isn't there ... on the other hand, carrying the 55-250 is just a size of a soda can, I can handle it much easier.
and for those who said it is EF-S, it can't be used it on FF ...
then you should not leave a review here ... just like you should not leave a Nikon lens review in Canon session.
Sorry, enough of my disagreement.
Simply, I found myself shooting pictures with a lot of joys when using this little plastic. With the range 55-250 (88-400mm after 1.6), I can reach anything about 6ft away. My 24L 1.4 is my main walkaround lens, since it has 1.4 I can basically catch any pictures with just a little bit of light with no flash. Then, the 55-250 covered the range beyond.
Nothing can be done beyond 150mm when handheld without IS.
The IS works fantastic in this lens. I shoot wild animals or zoo animals, sport players in a game, etc ... SHARP, SHARP SHARP!
oh, and I just shot Lunar eclipse last night, as Sharp as I can clearly draw the texture of Lunar with this $200 piece of equipment.
Front-element-rotate is the only Neg. as I mention, since I got an after-market hood, when I put-on/take-off the hood, I also would turn the front element by force, every time I do that, I am afraid I might hurt the rotor inside.
Thank you Canon for making it with plastic without USM, so it can be priced only $200. I am loving it~ =D
|
|
 Dec 21, 2010
|
|
Bopperkat
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 11, 2010
Location: Finland
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Dec 19, 2010
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $250.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
IS, price, range, weight
|
|
Cons:
|
picture quality in the tele range
|
|
I used to own this. It´s fantastic for the money - on the other hand, there´s not so much of it. I firmly believe to manufacture a decent tele zoom will require a multiple investment. Probably this is better on the short focals. From http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=251&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=456&CameraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=2
you can see that it is definitely better than EF-S 17-85 mm f 4/5.6 IS USM, at 70mm with f 5.6. On the other hand, it is inferior to EF 24-105 mm f 4 IS USM by a landslide, as well as to its kit partner EF-S 18-55 mm f 3.5/5.6 IS, but as the range is different the comparison is not fair. (I hold on to this view even if the comparison at 55mm would not support it ).
I don´t like the colors of this lens, overall it produces smudgy pictures. These days I only shoot RAW, but I never shot in RAW with this one, so it´s difficult to say if shooting in that form would make a difference. To contradict myself, here´s a decent one (and the whole set, for that matter)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bopperkat/4653468476/sizes/l/in/set-72157624043027681/
|
|
|
Dec 19, 2010
|
|
rhrm
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 27, 2006
Location: Brazil
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Sep 25, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Weight, sharpness, compact, 5x usable zoom
|
|
Cons:
|
for the price, none!!!
|
|
|
I bought this lens for 2 years ... The best value that could exist! Excellent optics, autofocus is good for the price. There are people putting too much cons, for example, made of plastic, which rotates external zoom, which is not USM, which is not f: 2.8 ... but also what they want through a lens of less than $ 200.00?
This lens is AMAZING. I never believed that Canon would make an amateur lens with such clarity, and succeeded. I always had to buy L lenses because of lack of sharpness of the lens does not "L" in this aspect Nikon has always been the ultimate in cost-effective.
Retired my 70-200 2.8L IS, and I'm only using this 55-250, and I'll say I do not miss any of that anvil to take everywhere. Yes, I replaced the 70-200 2.8L, someone here will say I'm crazy? If I was ok, but at least I have clear pictures and my back is intact in 10 years ...
|
|
|
Sep 25, 2010
|
|
jasonpatrick
Online
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Jul 8, 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 982
|
|
Review Date: Aug 23, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $200.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Light, great zoom range, fast focus (even though it's non USM) Image quality is excellent for price, uses 58mm filters etc.
|
|
Cons:
|
when compared to the price...nothing's really a negative. Just par for the course.
|
|
|
I picked this lens up after I sold my 75-300. I couldn't be more pleased with the result. I didn't think the 75-300 was too bad of a lens despite the poor reviews. I have a crop camera, so it only uses the center of the shot. Yeah it was soft pretty much at all ranges...but I wasn't using it to capture landscapes. Primarily I used it to take pictures of a single object (animal, bird, person) at long ranges. You don't need the edges sharp when you're purposely blurring them...
Anyway, enough about that lens. This one blows that one away! Image stabilization on a telephoto makes shooting handheld a ton of fun! Despite being super light (feels like a toy) it produces sharp images! Your keeper rate will triple if you're use to a telephoto without IS. The focus is fast and tracks well. I compared this lens to the 70-200 f/4 and the 70-300 IS recently because I was considering upgrading. The "L" lens produced photos that were sharper (I'm a closet pixel peeper). Colors were better too...but I still have more keepers with my far less expensive image stabilized lens. The images from the 70-300 were basically identical. Unless you're able to swing for the 70-200 f/4 with IS, I'd hang onto this one. I wouldn't bother with the 70-300 IS unless you need the extra 50mm or don't want to sell when you upgrade to full frame. When I can upgrade, I will, but as the "L" lens with IS costs 5x more then the one I have...I'll be shooting with it for some time. It's the best value out there for someone looking to add reach to their crop camera.
|
|
|
Aug 23, 2010
|
|
LPrimeFreak
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 29, 2010
Location: Belgium
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jul 29, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $250.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
feather light, compact, super range, sharp, IS, cheap
|
|
Cons:
|
f4-5.6
|
|
Price rating is definitely a 10, you get so much for the price!!!
Just like the 'fantastic plastic', best price/quality.
Had this one on my 40D, superlight, cheap, sharp, IS and great range (250mm x 1.6).
The ideal budget starter together with the Tamron 17-50 2.8!
My 2 friends both this set to start on my recommendation and are very happy with this!
Don't spend your money on a kit with 17-85 for example, better buy a body only with above 2 lenses!
I had to sell it cause I went to fullframe, but I was just on the edge to sell it for a 70-200L f4 IS. This is a class higher, it's white but it's also light.
With this lens I took one of my best portrait pictures at 200mm with great bokeh, so I have good memories on this lens 
Now for the 55-250 range I use primes 85-135-200mm.
Don't mind to change lenses, for the best image quality ever
|
|
|
Jul 29, 2010
|
|
Allan Gobin
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 17, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: May 23, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $250.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Cheap price, light weight, IS, good IQ.
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
|
I both this lens and the 70-200 f4. The bottom line is, if IQ is your highest concern then get a L-Class len. The 70-200 is easily 20% sharper. Color and contrast is close. This is a good walk around lens but for critical work the L-class is a must.
|
|
|
May 23, 2010
|
|
bartoszwozniak
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 3, 2010
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: May 3, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
FANTASTIC IS, Good AF speed, very sharp (even at 250mm), decent wide open, VERY CHEAP, 58mm thread, good range
|
|
Cons:
|
plastic mount, rotating front element
|
|
|
I think that this lens is absolutely amazing value for money. It is a great lens to extend from the kit lens and has a really usable range. The IS feature works so well, that you can see that its helping with your bear eye. The aperture is also wide enough for concerts (Ive shot successfully concerts before with this one) especially that you get the extra 1 or 2 stops with the IS. Of course you could argue that the build quality is not the same, however at this price it is an absolute fabulous piece of glass.
The optical quality will surprise many on how good it is. A real gem!
HIGHLY RECOMMENDED!
|
|
|
May 3, 2010
|
|
riversen
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 7, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 6
|
|
Review Date: Mar 6, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $255.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Good lens for the price... nice features for a steal
|
|
Cons:
|
Yeah, things could be said, but NOT at this price. It's like comparing a Honda to Rolls Royce
|
|
|
This is a great lens for the price. Please, for $255, do not expect 'L' quality... but do expect great shots for some surprisingly good glass. The base is plastic connection works, the IS works, and the focus works in decent lighting. If you photographing candles or insides of church for a big publication, then you are not going to use this anyway... so don't expect it to be a 27-70mm f/2.8L or 70-200mm f/2.8L lens. It is not, but for $255, it is downright amazing. Remember, you get what you pay for and for the price... I got a little more with this lens. Nice cheap lens that gets the job done.
|
|
|
Mar 6, 2010
|
|
platypus
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 29, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Aug 12, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Light, mostly sharp, very usable IS feature, small filters, inexpensive, reasonable colour quality and contrast
|
|
Cons:
|
Rather plasticky, could be sharper at longer end, bit fragile
|
|
|
Have had this one for about a year now and overall I am pleased with it. Certainly, considering the price I paid for it, it performs admirably but it's far from perfect.
Pretty sharp at shorter end from 55 to about 120mm, but really needs stopping down to f11 at longer and longest lengths. However, due to the IS this is practical. Only drawback is that you then don't have desired control over depth of field.
In dull conditions if I set my EOS40D to about 1000 ISO shooting AV mode @F11 then sharpen and reduce noise in DPP or preferably Lightroom I can get pretty nifty results. Have got the feeling that other samples are sharper than mine at longest focal length (I've seen internet samples suggesting this) but as I say I'm pretty satisfied for the money paid.
Considering the range it offers for little weight/bulk or financial outlay, I would recommend this.
This is the first IS lens I've owned and I have to say it makes quite a difference particularly on dull days or at the long end in all conditions.
Effectively you have a 400mm lens with IS which opens up quite a few creative possibilities.
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2009
|
|
Dickers_2009
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 7, 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 7
|
|
Review Date: Aug 10, 2009
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
|
I was looking for a lens to continue where the 15-55 kit lens left off. Thinking that a Canon lens with AF and IS would cost the proverbial arm and leg, my search centred on Sigma and Tamron until, out of curiosity, I looked at the Canon website and found this little gem.
I have been using it for about three weeks mainly at Horse Trial Events and am absolutely delighted with the results. It has also been used for my other passions, flowers and wildlife to excellent effect. Even with the f4-5.6 limitation and the focus hunting problems in low light, for the money, it is almost impossible to fault it.
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2009
|
|
Dickers_2009
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 7, 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 7
|
|
Review Date: Aug 10, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
For the price, it is extremely hard to beat this lens. It is light to carry around and is a good general purpose lens. The picture quality is excellent.
|
|
Cons:
|
Apart from the lump of lens sticking out the front when on full 250mm focal length, none.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2009
|
|
ashy
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 22, 2009
Location: N/A
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Aug 6, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
+ fairly effective IS system
+ very unique & useful zoom range
+ OMG, look @ the price tag!
+ fairly sharp! stopping down doesn't improve much though
+ chromatic aberration a.k.a color fringing is pretty well controlled
+ fairly quick & accurate AF under full light
+ small & light weight for a tele-lens
+ good color & contrast (personal preference)
|
|
Cons:
|
- normal focusing motor, easily hunts when light gets dim
- plasticky bayonet, so-so build quality
- focus markings are absent
- ....... but kill yourself if you ask for more from the price X D
|
|
|
a F-ing great-bang-for-buck lens! gosh it's such an amazingly sharp little lens for its price! it's one among those few but finally, it is from Canon! thumbs up!
IMO it's just, really, a must-have in every Canon DSLR user's line-up X D
|
|
|
Aug 6, 2009
|
|
aladyforty
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 3, 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1361
|
|
Review Date: Jul 31, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
small light fairly sharp
|
|
Cons:
|
non for the price
|
|
|
I got this as a stop gap lens while I made my mind up over two different L lenses. It does produce some reasonably sharp images, I stop it down a little if possible. Its not L quality but there have been a few shots Ive taken that would rival my F4 L photos. The IS on this is VERY good, Ive shot images at 1/5s handheld. I have passed it on to my husband as he is more of a casual photographer and he is really impressed with it
|
|
|
Jul 31, 2009
|
|
Dustin Gent
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Apr 3, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 3789
|
|
Review Date: Jul 17, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $200.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Price, Sharpness, lightweight, 58mm filters
|
|
Cons:
|
Plastic mount, really none at this price!
|
|
|
I saw reviews about this little gem, and also saw pictures shot with this lens. I just HAD to have it. It was sold out at a lot of camera stores around where i live, but I finally found one.
I am VERY pleased with this lens! If i just looked at the pictures and not had known what lens they were shot with, I would have guessed an L lens! It is a MUST have for any Rebel/xD owner!
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2009
|
|
EOS20
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 6, 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 13409
|
|
Review Date: May 14, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Cheap, Light weight, Sharp, IS, 58mm filters.
|
|
Cons:
|
Slow Auto focus, Hunts in low light, No full time manual focus, Front element rotates, Manual focus ring rotates when auto focusing. Some CA, No focus limiter, no lens hood included.
|
|
|
Got this lens as a part of a 500D twin lens kit to use as a light weight kit.
This lens has good optical quality and is better then the other kit lenses I've owned (55-200 and 75-300 III). Build quality is ok, but not as good as Canon's "Gold Ring" consumer grade lenses.
The all plastic construction means it is very light weight, and when combined with one of Canon's plastic d/SLR's makes a nice light weight setup.
The IS does seem effective and offers about 2-3 f/ stops of hand hold ability.
The lens does seem to hunt allot in low light and the autofocus is noisy and a bit slow, if you plan on shooting anything that moves you should look at one of Canon's USM lenses.
The front element rotates when autofocusing, so using a polarising filter means you need to adjust the filter after you've focused.
There is some chromatic abbreviation, but this is easily corrected in post production.
There is no focus limiter so the lens can become very out of focus and also results in the lens hunting. But this is only a small issue and wouldn't really be a problem for the shooters that Canon is aiming this lens at.
Colours and sharpness seem good for a consumer lens and better then the older non-IS kit lenses.
Overall it's a decent lens for those looking for something lightweight, or are on a budget.
|
|
|
May 14, 2009
|
|
Diamond Dave
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 16, 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 105
|
|
Review Date: Apr 29, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
price, weight, size
|
|
Cons:
|
autofocus hunts in low light
|
|
|
I'm new to the DSLR world, so take this for what it's worth. This has become my "walk-around" lens for outdoor shooting. I love the added range. Compared to the low-end Tamron and Sigma super zooms, the Canon is by far the best value. The IS is great. Don't even try to shoot without a tripod without the IS on.
The AF does hunt in low light, though. Like anything less than full sun. Not a major deal, just be aware of it.
|
|
|
Apr 29, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
50
|
172013
|
Dec 23, 2012
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
88% of reviewers
|
$231.80
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
7.42
|
9.74
|
8.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
