Canon 55-250mm f4-5.6 is EF-S Lens

This is a very good lens given its price. Like with any lens selection thereare compromises, and a more expensive lens is not necessarily better in allrespects. These are the main considerations for me:* The lens comes with an excellent IS. One could probably save a hundred bucksbuying 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. TheIS on this lens works very well, better compared to my Canon 28-135 IS and evencompared to the 100-400L. The IS really makes a lot of hand held shots possiblethat one could not do with a non-IS lens.* The lens is fairly cheaply built and has a plastic mount. However, thetrade-off is that it is also fairly small and light (the small size is also dueto the fact that it is a EF-S lens). My other tele-zoom is a 100-400L lenswhich is built like tank, but it is also huge and weighs 3 pounds. In many casesone does not want to carry that much weight around, and that is where this lenscomes in really handy.* Image quality: No, it cannot quite match the 100-400L, but it comes surprisinglyclose. Of course, the 100-400L costs 5 times as much. Lack of good colorsaturation 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 withfrontal sunlight.* Zoom range: the 55-250mm range makes the lens quite versatile. 250mm is longenough for most outdoor sports, many nature shots, people from afar, etc. At theother 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 alsohave to be much bigger, heavier, and costlier. And as long as you objects don'tmove too much the IS makes the lens effectively faster. If Canon's 4 stopimprovement holds it would be equivalent to a non-ISF1-1.4, although F1.4-2 isprobably 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 awalk-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 morepractical because of the shorter focal length and the smaller size.

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 4-5.6In 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.