So: With 18-135 I can cover 60% of my operational area, but I went to the area about 200 or more from.
After tests in recent days with
- Tamron 18-270 PZD
- Canon 70-300 IS USM and
- Canon 55-250 IS II
I finally stayed with the Canon 55-250 IS II.
The reasons for arguing:
- Price! wow 180 euros for a 88-400 (55-250) telephoto
- The fact that I so rarely need the area above 235/240 that the 70-300 does not pay (2 1/2 times the price)
- The image quality (the Tamron difference already after 20-30 images immediately unusable ... what quality, sharpness, speed terms)
So the question really stood only 55-250 or 70-300 of Canon.
The image quality is completely the same for both and the 600D comes with two super deal. It really is Canon :)
The price of 50mm more at telephoto, but 15mm less at the beginning of (what me going) is 450 to 180 is not justified when 70-300
So if someone needs to telephoto more and not have to constantly change (the 70 are already very high), and the price does not matter, let him pick up the 70-300.
But if you often below 75 / 70mm down must have the 55mm and 250mm are practical, after all, 400mm in certain models - then that is 55-250 and its price unbeatable!
An additional "small" argument for the 55-250 is the length of the lens which with 10.5cm same as the 18-135. For me also important because it fits with two lenses in the small bag :))
The Image Stabilizer (my feeling perhaps only) operates at 55-250 reliable. But what is not just a feeling ... it is much quieter at 55-250?!? No idea why the IS so buzzing at 70-300?!?
So for the small wallet and non-professional use you get with two lenses the right thing! It does not have the L-lens is 5 times the price - which is so often compared in reviews (nonsense!)
