Canon 70-300mm vs Canon 55-250mm

[HorseLvr83]

I apologize if this is in the wrong area...I'm new here.

What's your opinion on these two lenses and which one would you recommend? I currently have the old, crappy Canon 75-300 mm w/o IS and it's time to replace it. I also have a Canon 18-55 mm that came with my Canon T2i. I shoot mostly landscape/nature/animals/wildlife and occassionally sports (equestrian). I use my 18-55 for my landscape/nature shots and my zoom for animals/wildlife and sports. Thanks in advance!

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens, USA 0345B002 Canon 70-300mm

Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS Lens, USA 2044B002 Canon 55-250mm

 

[sovietdoc]

55-250 has better IQ than 70-300 but it has less zoom. What's more important to you?

 

[HorseLvr83]

Hmmm...going to have to think about this one. If only I could have both...lol.

 

[TwoTwoLeft]

I've owned both, and the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens much better than the 55-250 in about every way. Not to say the 55-250 is a P.O.S. it's actually really sharp for a kit lens. The 70-300 controls CA much better but gets a little soft at 300 and the focus is slow for a USM. You can get them used for about $350-$380.

 

[MLeeK]

IQ is supposedly a quite a bit better on the 55-250, however it is an EF-s lens so if you are wanting it to carry over to a full frame camera down the line it's not going to.
I can't honestly say on the 70-300 IS version. I've never played with it, but if you are going to spend that much why not bump up and go to the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 for canon or a used 70-200 f/4L. Wildlife from afar you want the sharpest image you can get from your zoom.

 

[TwoTwoLeft]

If you're shooting wildlife wouldn't you want something longer than 200? I ended up with the 70-300 L, and sometimes its too short. I spend a lot of time at 300mm and I wanted the best IQ I could get at the long end in the smallest physical package. Great lens, just not fast or with a constant aperture, so for some it doesn't justify the cost. For me, if it doesn't fit, it cant go (no 100-400s or 50-500s). So I'd rather spend the money on a quality long lens I would actually use.

 

[ronlane]

I got the 55-250mm and use it as my main lense. I like it but already find myself wanting to go to an L lense in the same range but can't justify the grand just yet. Add it to my want list.

 

[TheBiles]

Get a used 70-200 f/4L for only a couple hundred more. In the long run, you only waste more money jumping from junk to junk.

 

[usayit]

I too would recommend the 70-200mm f/4L BUT it is more than 2x (or more) the cost of either of the options.... I assume its beyond budget so its not a very helpful recommendation. I would think the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 is a far better balance between budget and performance. On the other hand, I haven't found a 200mm all that helpful for wildlife.....

With that.. there's not much choice left over except the 70-300mm linked by the OP. As you will probably discover very soon, fast telephotos aren't cheap... but are often a necessity for sports and wildlife.