---

• Focal Length & Maximum Aperture – 55-250mm f/4-5.6
• Lens Construction – 12 elements in 10 groups, including one UD-glass element
• Diagonal Angle of View – 27° 50′- 6° 15′ (with APS-C image sensors)
• Focus Adjustment – DC motor, gear-driven (front focusing design)
• Closest Focusing Distance – 3.6 ft./1.1m (maximum close-up magnification 0.31x)

Product Description
This telephoto zoom lens is designed with Canon’s Optical Image Stabilizer technology while retaining compactness and lightness, in response to demands of photographers. This high zoom ratio lens is equivalent to a focal length of 88-400mm in the 35mm format (when used on Canon EOS cameras compatible with EF-S lenses), and the image stabilizer effect equivalent to a shutter speed about 4 stops faster than the same size lens without Image Stabilizer. In other words, … More >>

Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4.0-5.6 IS Telephoto Zoom Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras

1. 

   J. Kirlin

   May 21, 2010 at 9:20 am

   I was determined to love this lens based on the specs and price point alone. Canon really needed to come out with this lens at this price because Nikon offers a very decent Vibration Reduction lens at roughly the same range for the same price, leaving me to make apologies for Canon and their neglect to all my Nikon friends.

   The IS can be switched off to save battery life but I haven’t noticed a difference in battery performance with it. The IS is only activiated when you press the shutter halfway for auto focus. Although it FEELS like there is a small lag for the IS to start, I don’t think I’ve had any photos messed up because of it.

   You can HEAR the IS. A little bizarre after using point and shoots that have IS that is silent, but it doesn’t seem to affect performance

   Pro: Great price for an image stabilized zoom lens. I paid 299 and am very pleased even though Amazon is selling it for 280 a week later. ALso arrive 2 months sooner than Amazon initially promised. This lens has NEVER been 400 dollars. Its MSRP from Canon prior to release was 299.00. Shame Amazon!

   Pro: Images are very sharp.

   Pro: Image stabilization does a VERY nice job. Four stops as advertised by Canon? I’m not so sure. GREATLY enhancing the composition experience at 250mm? Absolutely.

   Pro: Much smaller and lighter than the 70-300 of any manufacturer and much sharper than my Sigma 70-300.

   Con: Cheapish feel. But just use it, quit feeling it already. Plastic mount. But if you NEED a metal mount, may I suggest you are being a little rough with your camera. *UPDATE* The plastic flanges on back were able to hold the camera securely to the lens, but NOT hold the rear cap securely to the lens. I’ve tried many different rear lens caps that fit snugly on other lenses. So I think this is beyond cheap feel and has to be called CHEAP BUILD.

   Con: This lens is a little (ok, maybe not so little) slow to focus in dim light, sometimes it misses altogether when I think other lenses of mine would have had no difficulty.

   Con: I never gave Inner Focusing much thought on my other lenses until I used this. The front of this lens rotates AND moves in and out a LOT while focusing, so much so that you MAY even want to recompose your shot. The length of this lens changes almost an inch across the focus range. I just checked my Sigma 70-300 and found that it does also, but I’ve never seen it make as much difference in the viewfinder as I have with this Canon. Your perception may vary.

   This lens and the soon to be arriving 18-55 IS as the XSi kit lens will allow me to carry one less lens to achieve an 18-250 IS range. For a little more money than the cost of both lenses you can get the Tamrom 18-250 but not have Image Stabilization. And now Sigma has an 18-200 WITH Optical Stablization for about what these 2 lenses cost retail, but in testing the 2 Canons produced better images.

   Conclusion: A great EF-S lens for Canon users. (even if Nikon had to force Canon to make it for us.)
   Rating: 5 / 5
2. 

   Mr. Vijay Venkataraman

   May 21, 2010 at 10:45 am

   Since I mostly use wide-angle lenses, I was not willing to blow a ton on expensive/heavy telephoto lenses for occasional shots. Prior to owning this lens, I had a Sigma 70-300 APO zoom telephoto that produced good colors, but was essentially useless due to frequent camera shake. I sold the lens and got this Canon zoom.

   a) Surprisingly, it CAN produce pretty sharp pictures if the subjects don’t move fast. The sharpness is very comparable with two other lenses I own, the famed and breathtakingly sharp Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 and Sigma 30mm f/1.4. While the Tamron and Sigma get sharp shots without too much work, this Canon needs a bit of careful handling to get equally sharp shots even at the wide end. I use the word “can”, because to achieve it you would either need a tripod or high ISO (my rebel XT’s 1600 is pretty much what I use all the time with this lens).

   b) The colors in bright light are almost always faded (sharp, but faded). It can be patially corrected in Lightroom, but a bit unfortunate since this lens really needs the bright light for a good shutter speed. Indoors, it produces good color balance/saturation, but struggles to have a decent shutter speed. Kind of catch-22 situation.

   c) The construction is pretty cheap, but generally nothing to worry about if handled gently. However, the filter threads are thin plastic and I almost damaged the threads when putting on filters for the first time. I got a dedicated Sigma DG 58mm UV filter permanently affixed on it so that any other filters/screw hood will only go on the metal thread of the UV filter and not the lens thread directly. A metal UV filter is a must if you don’t want to permanently damage the lens filter threads.

   d) The opteration of the IS is quiet unless you are particularly listening to it. My Tamron’s AF makes more noise.

   e) After playing with this lens for sometime, I have come to the conclusion that IS is an absolute must on a zoom telephoto when hand held. Being the cheapest IS telephoto on the market today, there is really no equivalent for this in this price range.

   f) IS has been of no use in freezing subject motion. While this is to be expected, it highlights how slow a lens this really is.

   g) No hood comes with the lens, but I got a third party 77mm screw telephoto metal hood and step up adapter rings.

   h) 1 year canon warranty sucks big time compared to the 6-year Tamron and 4-year Sigma (for DG lens).

   i) this is a very light lens, much lighter than my sigma or tamron. Very easily carried around (hood might add a bit more bulk, but not too much).

   In short, this lens performs great with regards to sharpness and IS. It leaves a lot to be desired in color saturation and flare control, almost always requiring some kind of post processing to achieve desired result.

   Update 10/22/08
   
   —————-
   
   I bought a 58mm Canon 250D close up filter for this lens and now I have a fantastic macro lens, that is capable of doing 1:1 macro with a working distance of 25cm (~10″)! The 250D is roughly 1/7 th the price of the closest 1:1 macro lens with the same working distance – the tamron 180mm 1:1 macro if you were planning on getting a seperate macro lens. The 250D is optically optimized for lens up to 135mm focal length, but the results are fantastic handheld up to 200mm on this lens. Using 250mm (when you get a bit higher than 1:1) is a little bit of work, but gets decent results (with mirror lockup + tripod + f/25). No horrible color fringing that happens with cheap closeup filters on the market (like the Opteka +1,+2,+4, and +10 close up filters). I haven’t used a true 1:1 macro lens, which I suspect will definitely be better quality-wise, but the combination of a canon 55-250mm IS + canon 250d for a telephoto + 1:1 macro + IS under 400$ is a true bargain along the lines of the 50mm f/1.8.
   Rating: 5 / 5
3. 

   ale

   May 21, 2010 at 10:52 am

   This is the first lens that I’ve purchased and kept outside my kit lens (18-55). I mentioned kept because believe it or not, I bought the 70-200 F4L non-IS. I won’t be giving any technical review about this lens as that is pretty much covered by the other reviewers here. I’ll just share my story to help out other beginners who are having a hard time as well contemplating on what lens to get to complement their kit lens.

   At first, I definitely wanted to buy a telephoto lens so I can shoot objects from a distance and I really like to try the lens out in a zoo. I then narrowed my choices between EF 70-300 IS USM and 70-200 F4L non-IS (didn’t want 55-250 then because I didn’t like the plastic mount). Since the latter would end up costing almost the same or even less (comes with hood and pouch plus the free filter amazon offers), I went for it without even thinking. Before the package arrived, I already had second thoughts and tried to cancel the item. Since I tried out the amazon prime 2 day shipping, the package came really fast so I wasn’t able to cancel but returned it as soon as I got it.

   So why did I return the 70-200 F4L and settled for an EF-S 55-250?

   - I don’t get paid taking pictures, it’s just a hobby.

   - No one will really sit down and scrutinize the pictures I take. All Canon lenses take great shots compared to other brands. It’s not like I’m posting the pictures I take in the net for public view.

   - The beige color of the L lens is somewhat too loud for me. I don’t want people to think I have that much cash or evern comment that I only have an XS body.

   - No IS, I realized that I really need IS because I don’t have any plans of getting a tripod soon and my hands are really shaky.

   - Cost!

   - Weight.

   - Performance of 55-250 that I was able to research over the net. Of course it’s nothing comapred to the L lens, no doubt about that. But if the pictures are viewed alone, without comparing to L lens, they are great.

   - Max range is only at 200, I get an extra 50mm with 55-250.

   - Missing the 56-69 mm.

   Ok, the last 2 are just for my piece of mind because I opted with 55-250 but they don’t really matter if you have the L lens. If you do become a pro in the future, you’d definitely get something better than the 70-200 F4L.

   Bottom line, this lens is no where in the league of L lenses. As one of the reviewers mentioned, it does the job. For value of money, I really love this lens. About the plastic mount, I realized that I wouldn’t be using my camera that hard anyway. Plus, it’ll be lighter.

   I’m going to steal one of the reviews I read, it basically says that if you like the performance of your kit lens (18-55), you’ll defintely like this as well. I totally agree, fast AF, sharp pictures, longer range version of 18-55.

   Note that this is NOT a comparison between L lens and 55-250, or even 70-300. Just a decision experience that I wanted to share with a number of beginners out there.
   Rating: 5 / 5
4. 

   Brett Thomas

   May 21, 2010 at 1:26 pm

   This lens can be summed up by the simple statement of “Good, but not great.” It gets the job done without really excelling at it, and it is definitely not without its issues. That being said, you can’t beat the price – depending on what you’re looking for.

   The price doesn’t lie, and though the lens takes good pictures and offers a decent feature-set (IS under $300), it’s not a top performer. Bokeh is a bit harsh, AF is somewhat slow and low-light is pretty much out. If you want to make a hobby out of shooting long focal lengths, do yourself a favor and give this a pass.

   However, if you’re more of a landscape photographer (like me) looking for nothing more than an adequate long-tele lens while you’re spending your money on the awesome 10-22mm or a good 17-50mm f/2.8, this lens fits a VERY needed place in your bag.. A 70-200L f/4, it ain’t – but it’s also not $1,000.

   All in all, you get what you pay for and it’s good (bordering on sufficient) without being great at anything. It’s a terrific buy for someone like me who looks at the tele- end of focal lengths as “that occasional odd shot I don’t want to miss.” It’d be bloody horrible if I actually used it as a regular lens – but then, I didn’t pay the same amount for it that I have for my wider lenses.
   Rating: 3 / 5
5. 

   Super Mum

   May 21, 2010 at 3:29 pm

   I have had this lens for a couple months on my XTI. I purchased it from Canada and it has North American warranty (both Canada and the U.S.) so I’m safely assuming it will be the same lens released here in May.
   
   After hundreds of shots so far here are my thoughts:

   The bad:
   
   -On my copy the color is off. Skin colors have a slight gray hue and colors are not very saturated. In order to get vibrant hues post-processing is necessary.
   
   -Front element rotates and extends while zooming
   
   -It is an EF-S lens. Are you planning on upgrading to full frame soon? I am not so this is not necessarily “bad” but can be to those who are uninformed about the compatibility issues with this lens.
   
   -People often complain about the quality of the plastic build. I am okay with it since this lens is a place holder until I have the money for an L class lens. I would rather have this lens now so I can capture the photos in this range than wait 6 months to a year until I can drop a couple grand on the lens I really want.
   
   -Although it overlaps some with my Tamron 28-75 (which I absolutely adore)I like having the versatility to get a bit wider with this lens. It keeps me from carrying an extra lens when I know I will be shooting at the longer end but I still have the freedom to zoom out a bit to get more landscape if the moment strikes me.

   The good:
   
   -Sharp photos
   
   -Decent bokeh
   
   -IS is amazing on this lens. Shot a performance on a dimly lit stage at the long end of the zoom (5.6) without the flash and 85% of my images came out sharp. However, please realize IS controls the PHOTOGRAPHER’S shake/movement NOT NOT NOT the movement of the subject. So with the 15% of the images that weren’t sharp (or flat out blurry) the subject moved at a decent rate. If you want to stop movement in less than bright environments a faster lens (2.8, 1.8, or 1.2) is necessary. Also, on my copy the IS is dead silent and I do not have the noise problem the other reviewer was describing.
   
   -For the PRICE you will not find another lens in the 50-250-ish range with this level of performance, IS, and image quality. OF COURSE the 70-200′s are better.. several hundred to thousands of dollars better. Cannot compare with Canon’s L class lenses although people will (and have)…

   Lost one star because of the less than vibrant colors and other reasons noted above… I almost want to give this lens 3.5 stars because I am not enamored with as many of the photos I have gotten out of this lens as I thought I would. I had the Sigma 70-300 APO (before they made the DG version) prior to this lens and I loved the color rendition. However, the lens lacked IS which cut out its ability to capture numerous shots. The Sigma is now broken and sitting on a shelf in case anyone was wondering why it was replaced.
   Rating: 4 / 5