Busted my Canon 55-250 Looking to upgrade

[Patrickktown]

Long story short my choice is to buy another Canon 55-250 or upgrade.

What you recommend to upgrade?

Thanks!

 

[goooner]

I have the older version of the lens (not the stm). I would upgrade to a 70-200 2.8 (Sigma or Tamron). I plan on eventually going full frame so I'm not too keen on crop frame lenses.

 

[fjrabon]

70-200 Mk II f/2.8 L

 

[TCampbell]

Well.... the gold standard is the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM. But that's $2k (roughly).

There are a number of other 70-200 f/2.8 lenses (not quite as good at that particular model). But any f/2.8 zoom will be pricey (though many are quite a bit less spendy than the Canon).

On the budget side, the EF-S 55-250mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM is an upgrade from the non-STM version. It's about $50 more than the non-STM version, and worth the extra.

 

[KenC]

Do you use it much at the long end? If so, a 70-200 may not be a good replacement. I have both the non-L and L versions of the 70-300 f 4/5.6 IS. I know I would not be happy with a 70-200 because I do use these at 250-300 fairly often. Yes, you can use a 1.4x teleconverter on the 70-200's but who wants to change back and forth? The converter also adds to the overall cost.

If you're interested in 70-300, the non-L is much cheaper and as expected not as good optically which is why I got the L version. However, I don't know how the non-L stacks up against any of the 55-250 lenses. It has very good reviews for a non-L lens, so I suspect it is at least as good, but you would want to research the 55-250 STM and look at relative cost before you decide.

 

[lambertpix]

Years ago, the 55-250 was one of my first lenses -- I traded up to a 70-300 (non-L) that's been pretty good to me, though it's not a huge improvement in IQ. There are really quite a few decent choices in this range nowadays, though, depending on how you trade off cost, weight, and reach. Here are a handful I'd consider:

(small price difference)

• Canon 70-200 f/4 -- small, light, sharp, (relatively) cost-effective for the non-IS lens. The IS version costs as much as a non-IS f/2.8, which makes for an interesting choice.
• Canon 70-300 f/4-5.6 -- in my bag now. Small, light, fairly cheap. Hard to beat at the price, but easy to beat with a few more bucks (you get what you pay for, right?).

(larger budget)

• Tamron or Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 -- not quite up to Canon IQ, but pretty good considering the cost savings.
• Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II -- the gold standard. Everyone wants this in their bag at some point -- just a matter of whether the budget works for you right now.
• Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 -- This might leave a hole in your near-tele range, but it's an interesting combination of speed & reach. I'm renting one for a race in a week -- shooting alongside Canon's Mark 1 100-400. Also fairly pricy, but a really unique offering.
  
• Canon 100-400L -- the Mark 1 is selling pretty cheap on the used market since everyone's now looking at the Mark 2. Still a nice lens, though. Like the Sigma, this could leave a hole in your zoom range, depending on what else is in your bag. The Mark 2 is just starting to become available now, I believe, so we should start seeing a flood of reviews soon.
  
• Tamron and Sigma both have 150-600 lenses (two versions for Sigma) that have a lot of reach for the buck.

Lots of choices; lots of tradeoffs. What else can you tell us about what sorts of things you're looking to use the lens for?