Telephoto lens advice

[tooone7]

Hi, I'm very new to photography and just bought a Canon 650D.

I only got the 18-55mm lens on it and would like to get an additional telephoto lens with the purpose of taking photos of sport events and wildlife on safaris etc.

I'm looking at the Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS II Lens from Orms which is currently on special.

My question, is this a good buy? It seems that it's intended purpose aligns with mine and it seems to be a great price.

Is there other better options I should be looking at?

Thanks!

 

[froot]

/waits for Bwana or another authoritative figure to say something useful.

"better options" almost always relate to "pricier options" so it depends on your budget.
But for starting out, it's not a bad lens. Someone might suggest you look at Sigma lenses, however I cannot as I have never used a Sigma lens.

 

[Dave]

Do a search around the net for reviews, but the 55-250IS is probably the best budget zoom you can buy for Canon. I remember in one review they found that optically it was not far off the 70-300IS. Build quality it is a bit plasticky, but if not abused not a huge problem for the average user.

 

[DTBA]

I have one, for the price its fine will do great job but like the OP said its all about what u want and what u have to spend one thing is that the auto-focus on lens likes to (bleh whats the word I am looking for) it takes bit long sometimes

 

[adsl2]

If you can, save up and get yourself a Canon EF 70-200mm f4 USM. You won't regret it. Also consider 2nd hand.

 

[tooone7]

"better options" almost always relate to "pricier options" so it depends on your budget.

Yeah I had a look and they become expensive real fast. Seeing as I just bought the whole shebang I'm low on cash and this seems to be a good deal

Do a search around the net for reviews, but the 55-250IS is probably the best budget zoom you can buy for Canon. I remember in one review they found that optically it was not far off the 70-300IS. Build quality it is a bit plasticky, but if not abused not a huge problem for the average user.

The reviews I've seen seem all to agree that it's a great one for it's price. I think I can live with the plastickiness

one thing is that the auto-focus on lens likes to (bleh whats the word I am looking for) it takes bit long sometimes

Yeah I read that about the auto-focus in one of the reviews as well. But that's not too bad I guess as this is all I can afford at the moment.

If you can, save up and get yourself a Canon EF 70-200mm f4 USM. You won't regret it. Also consider 2nd hand.

Just had a look at the price. Yikes. Second hand will probably be a bit cheaper but since I'm just starting out at the moment I think I'll go for this one.

 

[froot]

If you can, save up and get yourself a Canon EF 70-200mm f4 USM. You won't regret it. Also consider 2nd hand.

I've got the 70-200 f/4.... it's really nice and everything, takes magnificent photos, but if you don't have a nice lens covering your short end you've got a problem. (Ok, admittedly I've still got a problem... I've got a 16-35 f/2.8 and then the 70-200, so I'm still missing that 35-70 area, and yeah, you do notice it).

 

[bwana]

/waits for Bwana or another authoritative figure to say something useful.

Haven't really spent that much time with this lens so I'm probably not the best one to talk about it but… from the little time I have spent shooting one it seems pretty capable. It's easy to recommend more expensive lenses but tbh most people will never really need one. The f/4 70-200 is a fantastic lens but it aint cheap.

I've got the 70-200 f/4.... it's really nice and everything, takes magnificent photos, but if you don't have a nice lens covering your short end you've got a problem. (Ok, admittedly I've still got a problem... I've got a 16-35 f/2.8 and then the 70-200, so I'm still missing that 35-70 area, and yeah, you do notice it).

My 24-70 is in for repairs at the moment - it's a sigma and probably the smartest buy I've ever made. I'm not sure how I've been coping without it but I have. It doesn't hurt that my three bodes all have different crop factors so my 16-35 is also a 20.8-45.5 and a 25.6-56 and my 50mm is also 65mm and a 80mm. Plus I've still got that 18-55 that came with my first body.

 

[vash87]

I would personally go for the EF 70 - 300. It is a bit more pricey than the EFS 55 - 250 but you get 50mm extra on the telephoto side, better build quality, and its an EF mount so you don't have to worry about the lens being useless if you upgrade to a full-frame camera down the line. I've got one and I must say that it serves my needs very well.

 

[adsl2]

I've got the 70-200 f/4.... it's really nice and everything, takes magnificent photos, but if you don't have a nice lens covering your short end you've got a problem. (Ok, admittedly I've still got a problem... I've got a 16-35 f/2.8 and then the 70-200, so I'm still missing that 35-70 area, and yeah, you do notice it).

Agree, but its not like 50 -> 70 is that big of a deal. I think it is worth it to save up for the 70-200, you just can't compare the IQ of the 55-250 and the 70-200 f4. And its not like the 70-200 will be his widest lens, he has the 18-55.

 

[adsl2]

OP, what do you want to photograph?