EF-S 55-250mm f/4.0-5.6 is II Telephoto Zoom Lens

I bought this lens at same time as the Canon T2i to pick up where the 18-55 kit lens leaves off, and have taken some very good photos with it. However, I learned taking photos at the Patriots vs Rams pre-season game that I will never get "pro" quality photos at night, not even at professional football games where the lighting is very good to ensure tv viewers get good visibility. Even with ISO at 1600 I was able to manage a shutter speed of only 400 at f5.6, not enough to get crisp shots of moving players. Shots taken when there was a slow down or pause in the action were very good, even at the above mentioned settings, but when the players were moving rapidly, the shots were a little soft. Post processing made them very satisfactory for personal enjoyment, but not for more more ambitious use. Earlier I might have given the lens a 4, maybe even a 3, because of my game experience, but since the game I have learned a lot about lenses and I now know that the relatively low-light photos I got were the best I could expect from this f4.0-5.6 lens. If I were going to shoot a lot of night sports, I would be saving for a 2.8 zoom lens, but they are very, very expensive for a good one. An f2.8 lens is a much faster lens than a 4-5.6 In day time settings, I have consistently gotten clear, sharp shots but have not yet tried shooting kiteboarders, something I enjoy doing. However, my expectation is that I will get good shots because I'll be shooting during the day and able to shoot at 800 at a minimum, more likely 1000. I have been practicing taking sports photos by photographing the batters in action for several local teams. Two of these games were in the late afternoon and I was shooting at 5 pm or later in October, meaning that light was becoming low. For these shots I put the camera in Tv mode and set the shutter speed at 1000. ISO was on auto and the camera was allowed to select the best ISO up to a maximum of 1600. At this time of day, even in the autumn light, I got very crisp shots. Many required some processing to improve exposure, but the results were very satisfactory because the subjects were sharp. People to whom I have shown the photos said they were "great". In summary, for what I do most of the time, this lens is excellent. And I really appreciate the image stabilizer. I can't imagine buying a lens without it since 98% of the shooting I do is hand held.

5 stars for the image quality considering the price! If you are looking for an inexpensive zoom lens, this is the one for you! After much research, it seemed that this lens was the best in my price range. No, it is not as good more expensive L lenses, but I think that would be expected. If you want the best, you have to be willing to pay for it. But the 55-250 gives excellent performance for under $300! We have lots of wildlife where I live, but I have never been able to get decent shots with my 18-55mm kit lens or 50mm because they don't reach the distance needed. Since I will be using my zoom lens less often and as more of a hobby, my budget was low...especially since I am looking to buy a prime lens for portraits where I hope to make money. I was not expecting too much because I was not paying for an L lens, but after using the 55-250mm for myself, I am extremely happy with it (considering what I paid for it), and very pleasantly surprised! I bought it over the 70-300mm because of the IS, and honestly, the extra 50mm wouldn't be worth it unless you used a tripod. The IS allows for handheld shots, which makes it great for a walk-around lens. It is plastic, but that means it is lighter than most other lenses of this focal length. Images with this lens are very crisp, and the bokeh is beautiful. At 250mm, you can easily capture birds in the trees and amazing close-ups of plants. I know some people have complained about slow auto focus, but that has not bothered me because I manual focus 95% of the time. You will probably need to correct color slightly in Lightroom, Photoshop, or GIMP, but I always edit my photos slightly anyways. I look forward to shooting even more with this lens! Overall, this lens is the best bang for your buck!

First things first: If you own a pricey, high-performance sports car, you don't saddle it with tires made for a sensible family sedan because, gosh, they were such a great deal. You'll be sorely disappointed in the results, and you'll look like a dang fool in the process. Similarly, if you own a sensible family sedan, you don't throw a bunch of money at fat, sticky tires made for a sports car to put on it in the hopes you'll feel like Mario Andretti eyeing checkered flags. See outcome above. In other words, pro-quality glass goes on top-notch, full-frame cameras. APS-C cameras like the Rebel series get the EF-S glass. That way, everybody should be happy. That out of the way, on to this lens. I had no qualms ordering this lens owing to my experience with other of Canon's more popularly-priced offerings. My Rebel T3 has proven to be a gracious amount of camera for the price of a song (or close to it). Plus, my experiences with my Canon EF-S 18-135mm and 50mm f1.8, and past experience with their Powershot SX30 "superzoom," has taught me that Canon knows how to pack a fair amount of punch into modestly-priced glass. So when my 55-250mm arrived at my workplace, today, I tore out of the office as soon as possible to take advantage of the remaining daylight to see what this baby could do. And I'm not at all disappointed. Even at twilight in my local cemetery, the IS held true for full-zoom shot after full-zoom shot. The darker things got, the more the auto-focus hemmed and hawed, but that was to be expected. When this happens, I look for the sharpest amount of contrast at the focus point to help the lens out, or know it's time to go to manual focus. These are quite the handier options to having to haul out the tripod (not that I don't value having my tripod for when it's absolutely necessary, but it does tend to cut the feeling of spontaneity one gets hand shooting). Reviewing the results on my computer screen, I am thrilled at the amount of detail this lens can capture, and at the remarkable DOF and purdy bokeh it can generate. I can tell we're going to be best buds for years to come. And let's not forget -- the ostensible 250mm reach translates into 400mm when multiplied by the 1.6X crop factor. Say hello to the craters on the moon. Prior to purchasing this lens, I was toying first with the idea of the Canon 75-300mm lens. But the lack of IS was a deal breaker, for me, and I'm not in a position to spring for the IS version of that lens. Then I toyed with the idea of a 2X converter. But that's an automatic two full stops down on the max aperture of the lens you couple it with. Like the lack of IS on the 75-300mm, this just seemed like unnecessary baggage to burden myself with. And so the 55-250mm with IS became the sweet voice of reason. Finally: My goal with my pictures is mood and effect, so I believe heavily in the transformative powers of Photoshop. However, I've posted some unadorned shots made with this lens as a taste of what it can deliver.

The Canon EF-S 55-250mm is a perfect choice if you shoot mostly wide angle shots and don't want to blow a ton of money on a telephoto zoom lens that you only use occasionally. This lens offers you reasonably sharp photos at a very, very good price. Here's a more indepth evaluation of this lens. - Sharpness The sharpness is on par with that of the 18-55mm kit lens. In the right conditions, it's almost (but not quite) pro-grade. For a budget lens, it's really about as sharp as they come. I think it's safe to say in terms of sharpness this lens will satisfy all but the most fastidious of prosumers. You best bet for seeing how sharp this lens is is to seek out professional review sites that show you a 100% crop of pictures taken with this lens and then decide for yourself. - Chromatic Aberration (CA) In bright sunlight, where chromatic aberration is most pronounced, the chromatic aberration on this lens is barely noticeable and probably imperceptible to the untrained eye. In more even lighting, this lens shows no signs of CA. - Auto-Focus (AF) The auto-focus is fast enough for still subjects, but for very fast-moving subjects, it's a hit-or-miss. I gave this lens a good workout shooting cheetahs running close to their top speeds at the Animal Ark, Reno, NV (OT: cheetahs can run at speeds of 70 mph or greater). Most of my shots came out blurry (and that's not due to motion blur) because the auto-focus wasn't fast enough. Like the kit lens, the auto-focus has trouble in lowlight conditions. It also has trouble with surfaces that lack texture. The motor whirs back and forth trying to lock on to a focus. It can be a little annoying at times. - Image Stabilization (IS) The image stabilization is amazing, even at 250mm. Interestingly, you can hear a click when the image stabilization mechanism kicks in. For handheld shot, especially at the 250mm end, the IS is immensely helpful for steadying your shots. I'm very impressed. (Bear in mind, too, the rule of thumb: the shutter speed should be at least as fast as the reciprocal of the focal length.) - Internal Focus (IF) The lack of IF would not ordinarily be a problem unless you're using circular polarized filters. The turning of the barrel throws the filter out of adjustment, so you would have to readjust the filter after the subject is brought into focus. - Build In terns of build quality, the lens is built a lot like the kit lens. There are complaints that it looks plasticky - maybe so - but it doesn't look cheap to be sure. It's lightweight but it feels well-built and sturdy. The zoom ring feels tight, but not overly so, so there is no zoom creep. - Alternative Just FYI, the Canon EF 70-300mm is reputed to be sharper than this lens. You might want to give this lens some consideration if the focal range is right and if you can afford to splurge a little. --- I suspect the Canon EF-S 55-250mm is the best mid-telephoto zoom lens you can get at this price. For the budget conscious, and for people who need telephoto zoom only once in a while, this lens is a very good choice.

I love this lens because: --> It's affordable. --> It takes great, sharp pictures throughout all apertures, throughout all focal lengths. I find myself using this lens a lot at 55mm, and 250mm, with no worries. --> Quick focusing compared to the cheaper Tamron/Sigma lenses I've demo'd --> Superb optical image stabilization, especially at 250mm --> Solid feel (for being light). --> Precise, and responds accurately to input I considered the Tamron 18-270 (and other 18-200's/250's), but after reading a lot of reviews and speaking with experts, quickly realized that there are no 'miracle' all-in-one lenses, and changing lenses in the field is a necessary evil. I'm glad I didn't sacrifice image quality for laziness. I highly recommend this lens to beginners, but only being an f/5.6 @ 250mm, I sometimes find it a bit 'slow'. UPDATE: After owning this copy for two and a half years, it's not quite as crisp as it once was (could have to do with me dropping it onto concrete from about 2.5 feet); however it is still very usable. I ended up using it for a lot of macro work along with Canon's 25mm extension tube. I find I rarely shoot less than 250mm, and it's done an awesome job for the price. We recently upgraded to the 100-400mm L, and that really helped me appreciate the value in this 250. I also shoot the 70-200 f/2.8 frequently, and find this little guy to render great pictures given its size, weight, and price. The bottom line: If you're a beginner, you NEED this lens.

Low price, great value. Zooming about as far as I can go while handheld. Wish the focus ring was a little smoother in operation. I am an amateur photographer. I have only owned a Canon t3 and now a Sony a5000. The kit lens, a 16-50mm f3.5 piece, works but I miss out on wildlife shots. To get the Canon to work with my camera I also needed the Viltrox adapter, both used. The lens and adapter cost me about $160, the same price for a used Sony zoom lens. However, now that I have the adapter, I can use the Canon 50mm f1.8 lens that I plan on getting next, for $150 less than the Sony brand. This lens arrived 3 days before Amazon said it would and the same day as my adapter. I was able to put them on my camera and head out for photos right away. The lens came with a UV filter installed. The lens was recognized by my camera right away. I can't seem to use my W-T switch to zoom and have to do it manually, which is not a big deal as every thing else works so far. Going from the 55mm max of the kit lens to 250mm was like night and day. I was able to pick out birds and even a gator about 50 yds away from me. It is a little tricky to get the focus right manually. The auto focus was very slow but it could be due to the adapter it is connected to. I have heard that the adapter will cause slow focus. It was just easier and faster to do it manually at long ranges anyway. The focus ring has a little play in it so it is a little tricky to get the focus just right. Plus my low resolution camera screen makes it hard to tell if I'm focused. Overall, I rate this lens 5.0/5.0. I am an amateur so take that with a grain of salt. But the lens works as advertised and for being used and cheap, along with super fast cross-country delivery, I can't complain.

I purchased a Sigma 18-250 zoom lens to replace my Canon kit lens (18-55)and this Canon 55-250 IS. After months of owning all 3 lenses I just now decided to do some testing/comparisons between the Sigma and the 2 Canons (cold winter boredom I suppose). The Sigma looks and feels like a great lens, but as far as image quaility (i.e. sharpness), not so great in my tests. I took identical photos with these lenses comparing variuous aperatures, focal lenghts, IS on/off, flash on/off, etc. (I was the same distance from subject, used the same subjects, used a tripod, etc.) This Canon 55-250 IS is diffinately sharper than the Sigma, especially at the 250mm end where it counts the most to me. The Canon, though inexpensive and seemingly not built that great, took sharper pictures, hands down. The Canon peaked at around f8 for sharpness at 250mm (and it was pretty sharp), while the Sigma was around f10-11, and still not near sharp. I didn't compare all of the image quality parameters, and perhaps the Sigma might fare better in others respects, but for me if I can't obtain relatively sharp pictures, the lens is, at best, only good for very general photography where sharpness doesn't matter. Not only this, but at 250mm the Canon photos are obviously zoomed in further than the Sigma. There appears to be some where around 30mm differance. Either Canon has under rated their lens or Sigma has over rated theirs, or something. In any case the Canon gives you considerably more zoom than the Sigma. If you should happen to own both lenses as I do, try this for yourself to see if I'm just imagining this. Also the Sigma did not seem to do any better than the Canon 18-55 IS kit lens, or maybe not even as good. But there wasn't a great difference on this end of the spectrum. The Sigma does OK here on this end. I might add, though, that the kit lense at 18mm was slightly wider than the Sigma at 18mm. So now I don't know what to do. I guess I'm sort of stuck. If I don't care what my pictures look like the Sigma is an OK one-size-fits-all lens for vacations and long hikes. But why not just use my really nice point & shoot that takes better pictures and has an even longer focal range? Or I can just go back to changing my el-cheapo Canon lenses again. Bottom line, the Cannon 55-250 IS lens is 5 star for what it is and what it does. Its not an L lens by any means, but for 250 bucks, give or take, its a pretty respectable lens. I've taken some pretty awesome pictures of birds-in-flight with this lens at 250mm! I might add here that pictures from this lens usually require a little post-prossessing, at least that has been my experience. This, however, usually involves quick, farely minor enhancements.

I bought this lens mainly for the focal length and the IS feature. I figured that I would replace the lens within a year, once I had enough money because I was expecting this lens to be a typical mediocre lens. When I took picture of this lens to test it out, I was amazed. This lens is sharp at wide open apertures. I have taken pictures with many lenses (L class included) and this lens is a rarity in that it was sharpest wide open at each focal length. The IS on this lens is unbelievable. I was able to take pictures at such low shutter speeds that I could have never been able to do without IS. The IS makes a little bit of noise (VERY minimal) which makes me happy because it shows you that it is working. I know you may not believe me, but I was able to take a picture at 1/15 at a focal length of 250mm and the image was sharp at 100% ... no blur. The focus is pretty good, but not as fast or sure as USM focus. The construction of this lens is not that of an L class, but for the price you paying, that is expected. In my opinion, you get a lens to take good pictures and this lens does that, and some. I don't buy lenses for their construction because I am not a photographer that would ever need a metal lens construction. Actually I would prefer this construction because it is so much lighter and easier to carry around. The only legitimate complaint about this lens is the focus, but it is still not an issue at all if you are in a place that is not dark. But then again, why would you be using this lens in the dark with f/4..0-5.6 as its largest aperture. In summary: if you want a lens that takes sharp pictures with a nice telephoto range of focal lengths and some great IS, then this is the lens for you.

Habe dieses Telezoom von meinem Umstieg auf Vollformat in Kombination mit dem EF-S 18-55 IS an meiner 500D verwendet. Sehr gute Abbildungsleistungen - könnte etwas lichtstärker sein, aber für diesen Preis völlig Ok. Leicht und gut verarbeitet - Plastikgehäuse tut jedoch der Bildqualität keinen Abbruch. Abbildungsqualität sehr gut über den gesamten Brennweitenbereich sehr ordentlich - Vergleich mit L-Objektiven ist natürlich nicht angebracht. Diese kosten ja auch das 8 bis 10-fache und weisen das 3 bis 4-fache Gewicht auf. Für den ambitionierten Hobbyfotografen jedoch durchaus ausreichend. Streulichtblende für Außenaufnahmen unbedingt gleich mit dazu bestellen (leider nicht enthalten - ist bei Canon nur bei L-Objektiven Standard). Sehr gut für Urlaub und Reise. passt mit dem Kitobjektiv und Cam incl. Speicherkarten und Reserveakku in eine mittlere Fototasche. Von mir eine absolute Empfehlung!

Me gusto porque lo necesito para tomar fotografías de lejos, hay tele fotos mas grandes, sin embargo creo que este es basico y bueno para comenzar. Considero que tambien es bueno para fotografía de exterior.

ネットで、望遠を調べていて このＣａｎｏｎのダブルズームセットの望遠レンズにたどり着きました。 以前はシグマのレンズとかも使いましたが、コレは軽くていいです。 白箱でも中身は一緒。値段はお得。 購入してから、お月様を撮影してみました。 けっこうキレイに撮れましたよ。

superb lens . very good result . amazone selling this product with half of the actual market rate. I am happy with this product.

Dopo un anno di test posso dire di aver fatto un ottimo acquisto! L'obiettivo è solo per fotocamere che NON sono full-frame e non da un senso di compattezza e solidità a causa del materiale molto plasticoso. L'obiettivo è leggero e tutto sommato anche molto compatto vista la sua "notevole" escuriosne (55-250mm). E' stabilizzato e ha un autofocus molto veloce ma quello che più colpisce è il notevole rapporto qualità/prezzo. Non è un obiettivo per professionisti ma consente tutti gli altri di avere un qualcosa con cui lavorare e fare molta pratica. E' sensazionale per il prezzo a cui lo vendono, ha una buonissima nitidezza e qualche volta sfocheggia leggermente ma solo in condizioni di luce scarsa. Nella sua fascia di collocazione ha un unico contendente: il tamron 70-300 4-5.6, quest'ultimo però costa di più ed è di poco superiore. Non è paragonabile ai 70-200 di casa canon e va visto solo come un back-up di questi ultimi. Da usare con paraluce. Consigliato a tutti i non professionisti.