Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS Telephoto Zoom AF Lens

[Marcus]

Debating buying this to give me a bit more of a lens range in my bag:-

Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS Telephoto Zoom AF Lens: Amazon.co.uk: Electronics

Opinions?

[Mad-Dan]

cant really help with that lens, but i've a 55 - 300 F3.5 - 4.6 which i've used about 8 times, 200 - 500mm f4 which i've used once, i just cant find a use for anything over 80mm

[Hugh Jeers]

Long range perving or wildlife stalking?

[El Negro von Coon]

Hmmm. All I can say is this - I have the 15-200mm and it's pretty shite. Wouldn't bother to be honest.

The thing to remember with lenses is that they are the ultimate example of 'You get what you pay for'. If a lens is cheap and looks like a bargain, it's probably going to be shit. The most expensive lens I have (unfortunately) is my 18-22 wide angle, which set me back £670. Image quality wise it shits all over my 18-200 which I paid about £400 for (can't remember now), but then Jaffa's 70-200mm which he paid £1200 for absolutely fucking shits all over my wide angle, etc etc.

tl;dr - don't buy it, I'd wager it's a wank lens.

[Mad-Dan]

but then Jaffa's 70-200mm which he paid £1200 for absolutely fucking shits all over my wide angle, etc etc.

if its a sony lens, it will, for all their falts, genuine sony glass is awesome.

[Jaffa]

if its a sony lens, it will, for all their falts, genuine sony glass is awesome.

It's exactly the same as the old Minolta 70-200mm f/2.8. Even the Canon and Nikon equivalents are AWESOME. You do get what you pay for. I had a 70-200 f/4.5-f/5.6 Sony lens and it was fucking terrible.