Canon EF 55-250 mm

melanie.c · Oct 6, 2012

I have a Canon EOS 550D with EF 18-55 mm and I want a new lense.
Of what think you of Canon EF 55-250 mm ? Advantages ? Inconveniences ? etc... :wink:

PS: Sorry for my English, I'm French ^^

TCampbell · Oct 6, 2012

How do you plan to use the lens?

This is an entry-level zoom. Optics are ok, but not great. It doesn't have the fast USM focusing motor so it's not very quick to focus if you were planning to use it for action photography (e.g. sports). It's an f/4-5.6 zoom so it is fine for photography in great lighting (outdoor during the day) but not great for photography in poor lighting (e.g. sports games played at night under artificial lights.)

The end of the lens rotates as the lens is focused -- meaning that if you use the lens with a circular polarizer you will need to re-adjust the polarizer every time you focus the lens.

It is a good lens for it's budget price, but there are certain types of uses where it wont be adequate.

jaomul · Oct 6, 2012

If you are happy with your 18-55 you will be happy with the 55-250. Its a great budget telephoto lens

melanie.c · Oct 6, 2012

In fact I don't have a big budget but I would want a "teleobjectif" because with 18-55 mm i haven't zoom. I use my camera , more for portrait and nature , little sport . And i want lenses wich is fine for photography inside too. But with my budget, I think's Ef 55-250 mm it's a good deal no ?

melanie.c · Oct 6, 2012

jaomul said:
If you are happy with your 18-55 you will be happy with the 55-250. Its a great budget telephoto lens

Yes , I'm not very happy with 18-55 for moment ... It's why I want a new lense

TCampbell · Oct 6, 2012

The 55-250 is not a substitute or replacement for the 18-55. They are "complimentary" lenses. If you do not like your 18-55 (which is a "standard zoom -- meaning a little wide angle through to a little telephoto -- but nothing extreme) then you should get a different lens that covers the range. Canon makes an EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 USM which is a much better lens... although it's also considerably more expensive. A major design goal of the 18-55 is to create a lens which is adequate for the needs of most people AND affordable.

There are many aspects of a lens to consider. "Optically" I always thought the 18-55 was a good lens. I've got some extremely good photos with it. It's limitations are in other areas. It doesn't have a "fast" focal ratio. It also doesn't have a fast focusing motor. It rotates when you focus. etc. Essentially it's not the optics that are weak... it was 'everything else'.

When I moved from film to digital, I didn't want to invest too heavily too soon, so I bought a Rebel T1i (which at the time was the newest Rebel) -- aka 500D. I bought the 55-250 in addition to the 18-55 kit lens. I was _never_ satisfied with the 55-250. It's possible that I owned a bad copy (it happens). I could get good results with any lens _except_ that one. I was never particularly happy with that lens. I actually _gave_ it away.

You can take a photography situations, ignoring the artistic element of the photo and just go with the technical element (the ability to get a correct exposure) and give it a "difficulty" score. Some shots are "easy" to shoot. There's plenty of light. You can shoot at ISO 100, f/8 ... or even f/16 if you'd prefer ... and use a reasonably fast shutter speed such that the blur from any movement in the photo (either the camera or the subjects) is not a problem. Those are "easy" shots. Then you can switch to more challenging shots... which are testing the limits of your equipment. These are shots where you've maxed out the ISO, you've opened the lens to wide open, and yet it's still actually really hard to get a good exposure. You need to use every trick you can to improve the cameras chances at getting a clean shot and still can't be confident that you will succeed. THOSE are the shots where you wish you had that "faster" lens (or supplemental lighting, or whatever else may have helped.)

The 55-250 is a good lens for those easy to moderately easy shots. For the moderately difficult to extremely difficult shots, you'll want a better lens. If your budget cannot afford a better lens, consider two things:

1) Do you actually _need_ the long focal length? If you are shooting subjects that you simply may not approach for a closer shot, then yes. But if it's simply a matter of "you'd prefer not to have to walk closer to take the photo" then NO. A major element of good photography is in "knowing where to stand". Use a zoom lens because it gives you the right focal length and angle of view. Do NOT use a zoom as a substitute for just not wanting to take the time to walk to the better location for the shot.

I found that I _needed_ the long focal length a lot less often than I would have imagined. Almost every shot looked better with a normal to slightly-long focal length.

2) An "affordable" lens which does not _technically_ meet your needs is providing you with NEGATIVE value. If I have a cheap lens and an expensive lens, but the cheap lens will almost certainly miss the shot but the expensive lens will nail the shot, then the expensive lens is technically the "cheap" lens and the "cheap" lens is really just a waste of time and money. That's because you'd be spending the money and STILL not getting the shots. Meanwhile... there goes some money you could have saved to put toward the lens that WOULD have gotten the shot.

I say this as though the lens is a substitute for the photographer's skill. It is important that YOU know how to get the shot (that's #1) and then your GEAR is capable of making it possible (that's #2).

You probably wont use a 55-250 lens for the indoors of average sized houses because the focal length is too long (you'd have to stand far away to get your subject in the photo.) But some people DO want these lenses to shoot inside large buildings, schools, arenas, stadiums, etc. In those situations the 55-250 is fine for situations where the subject isn't moving. If the subject IS moving (e.g. sports) then you'll probably be disappointed.

At 55mm, the lens has an f/4 focal ratio. At the 250mm end, it has an f/5.6 focal ratio. f/4 collects twice as much light as f/5.6. An f/2.8 lens (which is more expensive) collects twice as much light as an f/4 lens or FOUR times as much light as an f/5.6 lens. The 55-250 is "image stabilized" which means it will attempt to compensate for any minor amount of movement when you are taking a hand-held shot. But image stabilization is _only_ helpful when the reason the shot would have been blurred is due to camera movement. If the subject was moving, it can't do anything to help that. The only way to help that is to use a faster shutter speed. That calls for either increasing the ISO (which will increase the amount of digital "noise" in the image) or using a lower f-stop on the lens (and hopefully the lens is capable of going to a lower f-stop.)

I am not trying to talk you out of the 55-250. I'm really just explaining it's limits. Stay within it's limits and it's a good lens. Challenge it's limits and it's a bad lens.

The EF 70-200mm lens series (Canon makes an f/2.8L in both IS and non-IS versions and also makes an f/4L in IS and non-IS) are all excellent lenses. They are superior to the 55-250mm in many ways. But they are also considerably more expensive.

melanie.c · Oct 7, 2012

Thank you for this description very complete . I take a note of these inconveniences, but not really major my use I think ... ( But there are things wich I retain )
This description puts all the same very useful.I am going to reflect,I don't know what to do anymore.
I would like different notices to be able to compare .
Thank's still

bratkinson · Oct 7, 2012

TCampbell, as usual, gave a very well detailed, excellent explanation about the positives and negatives of the 55-250. Jaomul also went on to say that the 55-250 is the 'complement' to the 18-55, as the 55mm focal length on each lens 'meets'. That way you have all the focal lengths available from 18 to 250. I agree with them completely.

As Mr Campbell pointed out, though, is 'do you need the 250 focal length?' That's a question only you can answer. 18 months ago, I moved from a point and shoot to a used Canon 30D DSLR and picked up an EFS 18-135 f3.5-5.6 and a 55-250, just 'in case' I wanted/needed the extra 115mm zoom capability on the high end. After a week long vacation using both lenses, I found that when I had the 55-250 mounted, most of my shots were in the 55-150 range. The number of times I zoomed past 150 or so was very rare. I decided to sell the 55-250 shortly thereafter, as it would have spent most of its life in its case.

As for the 18-135, I loved it. That is, until I tried using it indoors under low light conditions. You may have found out the same limitations as well using your 18-55. It forced me to learn how to use an external flash, as it wasn't "fast" enough (low f-stop numbers like f2.8 or f2.0) to allow a faster shutter speed needed to stop motion. Note that I said 'external' flash, not the 'pop up'. Every new photographer will quickly learn that the pop-up flash is good for about 10 feet (3 meters) and that's about it. It also makes very 'harsh' looking photographs.

So what will work for you? If you can, perhaps borrow a friends 55-250 and see if it has the zoom range you want to use. If you discover, like I did, that the 'extra reach' (longer focal length) isn't what you need, then consider other lenses. Be sure to look at some used ones, as well, as the prices are frequently much better.