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.

This is a very good lens given its price. Like with any lens selection there are compromises, and a more expensive lens is not necessarily better in all respects. These are the main considerations for me: * The lens comes with an excellent IS. One could probably save a hundred bucks buying a non-IS lens in this focal range which may even be a bit better optically. However, long range shots without IS are difficult, especially in low light. The IS on this lens works very well, better compared to my Canon 28-135 IS and even compared to the 100-400L. The IS really makes a lot of hand held shots possible that one could not do with a non-IS lens. * The lens is fairly cheaply built and has a plastic mount. However, the trade-off is that it is also fairly small and light (the small size is also due to the fact that it is a EF-S lens). My other tele-zoom is a 100-400L lens which is built like tank, but it is also huge and weighs 3 pounds. In many cases one does not want to carry that much weight around, and that is where this lens comes in really handy. * Image quality: No, it cannot quite match the 100-400L, but it comes surprisingly close. Of course, the 100-400L costs 5 times as much. Lack of good color saturation is the most notable deficiency. On the other hand images are very sharp. For outdoors one should get a hood, there is quite a bit of glare in shots with frontal sunlight. * Zoom range: the 55-250mm range makes the lens quite versatile. 250mm is long enough for most outdoor sports, many nature shots, people from afar, etc. At the other end 55mm is still good for close action, for example at a soccer field. That is almost a factor 2 shorter compared to 100-(300/400) lenses. It also provides a nice overlap with walk-around lenses, like the Canon 28-135 IS. * Aperture: F4-5.6 is nothing to brag about, however, a faster lens would also have to be much bigger, heavier, and costlier. And as long as you objects don't move too much the IS makes the lens effectively faster. If Canon's 4 stop improvement holds it would be equivalent to a non-ISF1-1.4, although F1.4-2 is probably more realistic. A F1.4-2 with that focal range would have to be big, heavy, and expensive, if it even existed. In summary, this is an excellent second lens to complement a short zoom or a walk-around lens. Very versatile and a lot of bang for the buck. In my case, even though I own a 100-400L I still keep this lens because it is often more practical because of the shorter focal length and the smaller size.

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.

As a former professional photographer I know how important it is for pros to own the best. That's 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 didn't 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 wasn't any good reason to go to Canon's middle ground when it comes to lenses. A wide array of testing and reviews showed that Canon's 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 I've 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. I've always be a stable base for hand-holding a zoom lens, but I'm 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 doesn't? 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 didn't 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 can't 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-pro's 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 can't speak to what others are experiencing. However, my lens makes no more noise during focusing than any autofocus lens I've 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.

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 f/4.0-5.6IS Lens boasts great performance for the reasonable price. I shoot with this lens on a Canon Rebel XSi as my primary telephoto lens while I collect my funds for an L series zoom. Image quality on this lens is great, especially outdoors on a bright day, it captures great colors and details. Images tend to loose sharpness in most cases when set at 250mm although the images still turn out nicely. The auto focus works well and generally fast, though a few times it struggled find the right object to focus on and a few times struggled to focus on anything at all; these few cases by no means drop the quality of this lens. the image stabilizer also works very nicely. I was shooting an Indiana Hoosiers game in Assembly Hall (anyone who has been to Assembly Hall knows how poorly lit the arena is unless you are right down on the floor) and was worried about the poor quality of the shots since I did not have floor seats and knew this lens wasn't the fastest. Much to my chagrin, the vast majority of the pictures turned out to be a boon to my collection. While there are many other lens that have much superior optics and build quality, I simply must give this lens five stars for the fact that it gives GOOD performance at a GREAT price. It is not without its quirks, but i would recommend this lens to anyone with a limited budget looking for a good telephoto lens.

Canon's EF-S telephoto lens is probably one does it's job amazingly well for its price. I have access to Canon's more expensive L series of telephotos (70-200mm f2.8) and this lens does an amazing job comparing up with the more expensive lens. In daylight, it is hard for me to tell any difference between both of them. The color for the 55-250mm lens seems a bit faded compared to other lenses I've used. In indoors conditions with low light, the performance of this lens starts to falter. Get this lens for shooting outdoors on a budget; don't expect any strong performance in low lighting conditions. IS works as advertised. However, as other reviewers have noticed, IS makes a clicking noise that got me worried about the lens. Pros: 1. Low cost for a high quality telephoto zoom 2. Image stabilization works wonderfully 3. Small and light 4. Works wonderfully for getting good pictures Con: 1. Cheapish build; made out of plastic. Feels flimsy 2. Slow focus in low light conditions, sometimes failure to focus. (Take this with a grain of salt, I'm usually shooting with Canon's USM lenses so it just may seem slow to me.) 3. Lack of inner focus makes the front end of the lens moves in and out during any focusing. This sometimes causes me to need to recompose my shots. And you need to keep your hand off the focus ring when it focuses. 4. Color rendition off, skin tone seems grayish and everything seems faded (Not much of a con, easily fixed in post.) If you intend to shoot in good lighting conditions, this is lens great! If you want good low light conditions spend an extra 2,000 dollars and the buy the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L II IS USM Telephoto Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras . Perfect for amateur use.

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.

Llegó más rápido de lo esperado. Muy buena opción para fotografía deportiva. Hasta el momento me ha gustado mucho.

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!

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.