Make sure this fitsby entering your model number. Maximum aperture: f/4.0-f/5.6 Optics: 12 elements in 10 groups, UD glass element Canon EF-S Mount (not compatible with full sensor DSLRs)
Yes, its a kit lens. But, that doesnt mean it makes crappy pictures. Ive got 20x30 prints on my wall that impress friends and family that prove otherwise. Its got its compromises, but if youre on a budget, its better to have a lens you need than none at all. A lot of people whine about the plastic body, but thats never been a problem for me because I dont drop-kick my gear. For me, the biggest drawback may be the minimum f4-5.6 aperture, which, coupled with my camera, means I have a very limited aperture range contained within the lens sharpness (avoiding diffraction) and my camera sensors limitations. If youre a casual amateur photographer, this lens may be all you need. If youre an advanced amateur, consider this lens as a placeholder while you get the funds for something better. If youre making money regularly with your photography, youre not even reading this review. :)
William Sidney Porter
4
As a former professional photographer I know how important it is for pros to own the best. Thats why Canon can ask and get $1500+ for their bestselling L-series zoom. Those who need pro-quality lenses should expect to spend that amount and far more. Those non-pros who have the money and just want the best, should definitely buy Canon L-series--why not? When I decided to sell my dated professional cameras (the "D" was on the other side of the model number) I did a lot of soul searching and researching before I decide where to go next. My lenses were still top quality and fit the newer EF bodies, but lacked modern technological advances like IS. I no longer saw a reason to spend $1000+ on a camera body and $1500+ on a lens. I didnt need video capability. Most of what I take goes up on the Internet, so 10-12 megapixels provides all the cropping room I need. I wanted light weight, good picture quality, and a reasonable price. I found it in the lowly but capable Canon XS (read my review elsewhere). I have no problem with the 18-55 kit lens, but I frequently used my older 28-105 USM lens instead, because it focused faster and was slightly sharper. In anticipation of an upcoming hiking excursion on Kauai, I decided to pick up a new longer-zoom lens with image stabilization and I again set about doing my due diligence. What I found was that there just wasnt any good reason to go to Canons middle ground when it comes to lenses. A wide array of testing and reviews showed that Canons S-series 55-250 was not that far removed from anything short of an L lens -- except in price of course. I was almost embarrassed and feeling a little cheap when I ordered this lens. But now that Ive had it for a couple weeks, there is no question in my mind that I made the right choice. I love the size and light weight. The stabilization works like a dream. Ive always be a stable base for hand-holding a zoom lens, but Im now shooting at 250mm 1/200 sec and getting tack sharp results. There is no question that his lens is worth far more than what I paid--thank you Amazon. What do I wish this lens had that it doesnt? I suppose a metal attachment flange would make me feel more secure. A stop or two more speed, sure. But my only real complaint is the exterior focusing movement that I didnt have to deal with in my older EF USM lenses. The front of this lens moves around a lot, and even if you set your zoom and focus first, using a circular polarizer is a royal pain. For the same reason, I cant use a tulip hood, which is far and away preferable to the ET-60 "Dice Cup" Canon designed for the 55-200. (I did, however, just order one--what choice did I have?) Is the Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4.0-5.6 IS Telephoto Zoom Lens perfection? Absolutely not. Does it perform far above this old ex-pros expectations? You bet it does, and for a price that is, in my opinion, way below its worth. Addendum: I forgot to put in my two cents re: the noise mentioned by other reviewers. Noise levels may vary depending on the lens you get--I cant speak to what others are experiencing. However, my lens makes no more noise during focusing than any autofocus lens Ive used or been around. The stabilization mechanism makes a mild, almost humorous crackling sound--kinda like paper being wadded up--but on my lens, there has to be dead silence around me in order to hear it. I never notice it under typical shooting conditions--and believe me, no one is more sensitive to noise than I am.
Alexander S.
4
This is a good lens for those wanting to step up from an 18-55mm kit lens. It feels nice in hand and is easy to hold and switch out. The base is plastic, which isnt a big problem unless youre really throwing your camera around. I used this lens with an old Canon Digital Rebel (300D) and had no problems with it. The stabilization is great, but sometimes the focusing is a little slow. I havent missed any shots because of it, and at last resort, you can put it in manual focus and go from there.
Sujit Kumar Mahapatra
4
I was using the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III Telephoto Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras For last 4 years. I am a ameture photographer who loves nature and animal photography. I use Canon XTi. Everytime i would visit a zoo or a botanical garden i try to shoot as many good pictures as i can and share them in Flickr with my friends. The 75-300mm is a great lens, the picture quality is better than this one in my opinion. But the issue is without a tripod and in little dark condition i was getting many be 2 out of 10 pictures that are of some quality (At around 250-300mm). The lens is very poor in shooting a moving object and you need real luck to be able to get a good focus at longer distance. This lens is really handy in that case. Using this lens i am getting may be 5 out of 10 shots which are of good quality, and 7 out of 10 are OK quality. Of course not a great great lens but much better than the other one. Also this lens is much lighter and smaller than the EF 75-300mm III. It is made of composite plastic, but i dont care. for me it is more important to have a lighter, smaller lens which i can carry easily and fits my camera bag. I am missing the tele-shots from 250mm to 300mm, But i am getting 55mm - 70mm range which makes it more versatile in my opinion. Both these lens are slow in focusing (Non-USM) and make the same level of noise while focusing (Maybe the 55-250 makes a little less noise). Cost of both these lens are almost comparable (55-250 is 30/40 more). So all in all i am happy with my purchase and decision to replace my old one with this one. A must have for the ameture photographers owing a canon APS-C Camera like my XTi.
Cosmic_Charlie
4
I bought this lens to use as a walk-around lens -- one thats capable of most any shot most of the time. It does that pretty well, but bear in mind that there is no magic bullet for this sort of thing. Any time youre using a lens with this range, its gonna have some trade-offs. For daylight, its hard to beat. Quick to focus and lots of aperture room to play around with your shot. At lower light, its a little slower to focus, but at f5.6, its remarkably faster than my Tamron 18-200 at f6.3. That lens drove me crazy trying to focus in lower light conditions. The Image Stabilizer works well. Most of my shots are casual, family photos, but I do like to try to get some bird shots now and again. At 250mm, there is a marked difference with the IS on. Ive read here and there that the IS gives you three or four more stops in lower light. Not sure I can confirm that, but I wont disagree, either. Im glad I chose a lens with this feature. Pros: Weight is decent. Relatively quick to focus. IS works well. Zoom is very smooth and Ive not noticed any zoom creep. For a lower-end lens, bokeh is really nice. Cons: 55mm can be a little tight for some shots. Id prefer if the lens were ~25 to ~250, but then the cost skyrockets if you want anything faster than f6 or so. Bear in mind that like all superzooms, there are compromises. Fast, big zoom, or affordable. Pick two. Bottom line: a great all-purpose lens provided you understand the limitations.
JS
4
I bought this lens because I wanted a single walk-around lens that would cover a broad zoom range, and in that capacity it performs well. I knew I would sacrifice some quality for the sake of versatility, which is certainly true, but the lens is still able to produce good quality images. The obvious: This is not an L series lens, so build quality is noticeably cheaper. Image quality is not as great as an L series or as a Primal lens. Pros: A very light lens, easy to carry around. The zoom range is pretty nice, and if you have a 18-55 kit lens, it complements pretty well, on a crop frame the long end of the zoom is pretty long (around 400mm equivalent on full frame) which probably suits most tele-photo needs, and the shorter-mid zooms are great for portrait work. This is a very affordable lens, if you take its versatility into account, thats pretty great bang for your buck. Cons: Autozoom seems to have trouble locking on under less than ideal lighting conditions, especially at the longer end of the zoom. The lens extends quite a bit (about double length, or almost) with zoom and focus, which can be impractical in some situations. Lens does not include a hood, so you might want to add that to the price. Theres no FTM (Full Time Manual) which means you have to flip a switch to go into manual focus mode, instead of just moving the focus ring with your hand. As all EF-S models, it wont work on a full frame camera, so if youre planning to upgrade, this lens is probably not a good choice. Conclusion: if you want a versatile and affordable lens, and youre willing to live without the build and image quality of higher end lenses, this is a good choice, you will be able to get very nice shoots in portrait and tele-photo ranges. If you really want high end image/build quality, and you are willing to pay for it, you should go for the L Series 70-200, thats a great lens and the non-IS version is quite affordable. This is my go-to lens for carrying around when traveling, and I really appreciate the benefit of not having to switch lenses ever 5 minutes.
Ben M.
4
I use this on a Canon t4i, and it is overall a pretty good lens. I have it on my camera most of the time because the 55-250mm range is pretty useful for everything and it produces quality shots. The autofocus is accurate though not particularly fast. Zoom works well for either shots in the distance or something closer with a pretty good depth of field and bokeh if you can get nice and tight to the subject (close ups of flowers, for example.) Pictures generally look good and sharp. I dont know if its my own imagination, as I havent done any real testing, but I feel like color saturation drops off in low light compared to my other lenses with the same settings and I occasionally have to tease out the color a bit in Lightroom. It does also show some slight vignetting at certain f-stops and focal lengths. Not enough to really ruin a picture, but it can become apparent when adjusting contrast in Lightroom. 4/5 because its a good, dependable lens, but doesnt blow me away. Its my go-to workhorse but not my favorite lens.
Please sign in so that we can notify you about a reply
