Canon 100-300 or 55-250 IS?

[dafoomie]

I've been looking at 300mm lenses under $250 for a 20D, primarily for indoor sports photography. I've basically narrowed the field to the Canon 100-300 f/4.5-5.6 USM or the newer 55-250 IS.

The 70-300 IS is probably out of my price range, and I've been told the 75-300 4.5-5.6 is not real good. I was going back and forth on the ancient 100-300 5.6l but its probably out of my price range anyway.

The 55-250 seems to be very well regarded for the price, but is it better enough to give up the extra reach? Is it also worth paying about $50 more?

 

[Aeros]

If its sports your shooting, and it's indoors, then you will need IS. That being said - I have the 55-240 IS and it's not intended for low-light shooting. Your shots will be blurry. It's not fast glass as they say, it's still faster than the 100-300 and has IS which helps a little.

If you want to try out different lenses I strongly recommend renting them and trying them out before any purchases. For that I use http://prophotorental.com.

For indoor low light fast moving sport photography I would recommend the 70-200 f/2.8 IS, that's some fast glass.

Hope this helps.

 

[randomlinh]

Originally posted by: Aeros
If its sports your shooting, and it's indoors, then you will need IS. That being said - I have the 55-240 IS and it's not intended for low-light shooting. Your shots will be blurry. It's not fast glass as they say, it's still faster than the 100-300 and has IS which helps a little.

If you want to try out different lenses I strongly recommend renting them and trying them out before any purchases. For that I use http://prophotorental.com.

For indoor low light fast moving sport photography I would recommend the 70-200 f/2.8 IS, that's some fast glass.

Hope this helps.

Depending on the sport, IS might not be essential. And he said $250 was his budget, not $1700 =)

I'd get the 55-250 IS, it's a seemingly well regarded kit zoom. And depending on what you're doing, get a monopod if it fits your flow.

 

[dafoomie]

I probably didn't give enough info the first time. The sport is mostly hockey and the ice is generally well lit.

I've got a 50mm f/1.8 but 50mm doesn't do me much good. Perhaps in time I could get a 135mm f/2.8 for around $350 but I need more range than that right now. Results are not going to be optimal in my price range but I'd still like to get the best I can for the money.

 

[Aeros]

I have the 55-250 IS and it is not ideal for sports. If this is all that's in your price range I suggest renting the lens first. Most local shops (ma & pa joints) also rent glass out. I don't know if this glass will do well with hokey, sure the ice is bright but are the players faces. I'm just saying I regret my buy and don't wanna see other make the same mistake. If I could have tried it out first...

 

[dafoomie]

Thats probably good advice, I'll look into renting a couple of the options. Thanks.

 

[randomlinh]

Originally posted by: Aeros
I have the 55-250 IS and it is not ideal for sports. If this is all that's in your price range I suggest renting the lens first. Most local shops (ma & pa joints) also rent glass out. I don't know if this glass will do well with hokey, sure the ice is bright but are the players faces. I'm just saying I regret my buy and don't wanna see other make the same mistake. If I could have tried it out first...

nothing is particularly ideal for sports at $250, but you do what ya gotta do. If you're upping your budget some, you could try a used 100/2. 100 might not be enough reach still though.

If you decide to double your budget, you could try a 70-200 f4L. I'm not sure if f4 will cut it in an ice rink though, but the IQ is amazing out of this thing. But again, this is doubling your budget if you can find a used one.

as for renting glass, good luck. My local choices are basically Penn Camera and... nothing. And they don't rent out anything other than higher end stuff. You could also try finding some local photo groups and maybe someone there has something for you to try out.

 

[SAWYER]

The 55-250 IS is awesome for the money, is can be had refurbed from adorama for 178 with Bing CB

http://forums.slickdeals.net/s....php?sduid=0&t=1546345

 

[bobdole369]

I have the 55-240 IS and it's not intended for low-light shooting.

Isn't that the truth. We thought our copy (that is my wife and myself - no pics - fuck you) - was busted at first. Even with IS you CANNOT shoot at less than the focal length inverted for your shutter speed.

I get AMAZING pictures, provided I never shoot at longer than 1/250th at any focal length. So I dunno how useful the lens is for sports, I manage to totally fuzz up completely inanimate objects because the durn light dropped and the f/5.6 at max focal length won't get me anything really usable. So moving objects..... hmmmm I don't think so. Granted I did get lucky in the keys this weekend and nabbed a nice seagull in flight that I'm pretty proud of, but it took easily 40 shots.

I would tend to think you need L glass or something that is f/2.8 at full telephoto at MINIMUM. Your budget doesn't allow that, so you gotta work with what you get. I suspect the 55-250 will be inadequate.

narrowed the field to the Canon 100-300 f/4.5-5.6 USM

Absolutely will not work for sports. I own that lens and its so slow its not even funny. Resulting pics at full telephoto are only usable if in full outdoors sun and you can keep the shutter speed down under 1/400 or so. Decent IQ for the price at 100 though. Stuff is just an order of magnitude less sharp than the 55-250 and several orders worse than L glass.

you could try a 70-200 f4L. I'm not sure if f4 will cut it in an ice rink though, but the IQ is amazing out of this thing.

Rented that one for fun a couple months back. WOW. Still don't think f/4 will work though, but just WOW.


Welcome to the expensive world of photography!

 

[magomago]

Well considering you said 250 dollars...and everyone is suggesting substantially more expensive lenses, I'd say go with whatever gives you the biggest aperture with IS and call it a day. Then push your ISO up as high as you can take it (typically iso1600-3200. I was comfortable pushing ISO1600 on my K100D without giving it a second thought and I still thought iso3200 was acceptable. With my new K-20 it seems I'm not going to be worried as well with ISO1600 and probably go even further once I figure out what I do or don't like). If its still no perfect, under expose the shot and bring it back up in PP. You'll need overall more work on PP and time, but once you get a flow going and know what you will do it should be fast.

so my view would be this: largest aperature in the range you will use it --> turn on IS (note: won't help if you are trying to freeze action - you'll need high shutter speeds no matter what) --> jack up the ISO (some people seem to be scared of anything high than 400 lol) --> underexpose --> bring it all up and edit in PP. Its all much cheaper than a 70-200/2.8

 

[Agentbolt]

To actually answer your question, in YOUR price range, without doubling it or anything, the 55-250 is the better buy. IS doesn't help w/ subject movement, so it's actually not the IS that makes it better for sports, but the optics in general seem to be better (from reviews). And it's a more versatile lens, it won't help much w/ sports but it WILL help quite a bit for darker use if you want to bring it to a play, a concert, wildlife shots, etc...

I own it and I like it quite a bit. I don't find myself using a telephoto lens as much as I would've thought, but when I do use it the IS makes a huge difference for photos. If you're really super poor like I am, get the 55-250. Between it, the 1.8 50 MM, and the 18-55 kit lens, you've got some VERY inexpensive glass that you can take a lot of great pictures with.