Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM Lens
Shipping Options:: $5 Standard
Shipping Estimates: Ships in 1-2 business days (Monday, Mar 23 to Tuesday, Mar 24) + transit
Search Google](https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&tbm=shop&q=Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM Lens)
Just paid $40 more for this from Canon direct last week. Nice lens, overall, though the auto-focus on mine seems a bit suspect.
Well worth it for those who have cameras which fit the EF-S lens mount type.
I worked for Canon for a while selling these lenses. They’re pretty nice lenses if you’re okay with a kit lens, and they’re a good deal for the price. Note this is the STM lens, so it has Canon’s silent autofocus that’s great for videos, and it has image stabilization, so when comparing the price to other 55-250 lenses keep that in mind.
I have the IS II version of this lens, which I believe is older than this IS STM with different focusing mechanics, but for the most part it’s the same lens with same specs. I use this on the Canon 70D for video and stills. It is a good budget telephoto lens for bright outdoor situations. I am happy with the image stabilization and autofocus performance. I mostly shoot with the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 and didn’t have much money left over for a great telephoto, so this is nice to have for those rare times I need greater range.
image stabilization is critical when zooming into 250mm. image stabilization also effectively lowers the aperture needed. looks like a decent lens
I’ve had this lens for about three years. I bought it because there was a $100 rebate when I bought it with my camera.
On the plus side, it’s pretty long and is inexpensive. The AF is pretty good.
On the down side, it feels pretty cheap, and I get chromatic aberration and some softness on the edges when it’s zoomed all the way out.
It’s a good deal if you have an APS-C Canon camera and don’t want to spend a ton of cash on a longer lens.
I rarely use mine. I’ve got a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 I use when I want a zoom, and a Canon 100-200 f4.5-5.6 when I need something longer or lighter and less bulky.
Both those lenses are over 15 years old and neither has image stabilization, so I’ll occasionally use this lens if I’m shooting distant moving wild life or something.
For sports or concerts I’ll still use the fat lens and take my chances. Its weight helps stabilize it, and the big aperture is worth the price (which is now down to about $80 a year).
If you have a Rebel and are thinking about a second, longer lens to go with your kit lens, then this is a great choice.
Here’s a a picture on Flickr it took the day I got the camera and this lens. I used autofocus, but I had to change it to just one spot, since I was shooting through three branches.
Here I’ve cropped it down to just the squirrel. The focus is pretty decent considering I was shooting through branches and using autofocus:
From a photo in the same set here is some chromatic aberration on the edge. I’ve seen worse, and most people probably aren’t going to zoom in this far. And it’s supposed to be out of focus; the squirrel was all that was in focus.
Don’t forget to click on the link in the first sentence to see the image as it came out of the camera.
Does anyone find it odd when you do a search for Canon 8546B003, nothing comes up. you can find 8546B002 but not 8546B003.
According to my research, this lens was released in the second half of 2013, so it’s been out about a year and a half. Can you share with us how you obtained it a couple of years in advance?
Moving on, I’m a little concerned about the difference in model number between this lens (8546B003) and the lens advertised elsewhere with the same name (8546B002). 8546B003 appears in search results on pages targeted to Brazil. I know the listing says 1 Year Canon warranty - I just hope it’s legit and valid in the US, just in case.
Figured it out. Its a gray market lens, which means it was not meant to sale in the US, so kiss your warranty goodbye
Actually IS lowers the shutter speed so your photos of stationary subjects are less blurry. Aperture is for depth of field, motion blur is not affected here.
I checked and it was three years ago in January.
The model number for mine is 2044B002, so it’s an older model.
Please explain what you mean by image stabilization lowers the aperture. I do not think the two are related at all. The aperture lowers as a result of zooming due to a design compromise to keep the lens smaller.
IS would increase the shutter speed, not lower it. And that is so called digital stabilization where the ISO is increased. Real stabilization is done with micro motors.
If anyone else needs to know, this fits a Canon t2i.
This is a good value lens. Worth picking up at this price if you already have already have a Canon EF-S camera and are not considering a more expensive telephoto zoom. If you don’t have a camera already this lens can be found in many bundles for the same or less than this price.
IS doesn’t affect the aperture or shutter speed. It simply stabilizes the the lens against vibration. This, in turn, lowers the shutter speed one would need to use to ensure that there isn’t motion blur when handholding the lens.
The IS in this lens is rated for 3.5 stops, which means you can shoot about 2^3.5 = 11 times slower than you would want to before getting motion blur. The common rule for shutter speed is 1 / (crop factor * focal length) in seconds, which for this lens would be 1 / (1.6 * 250) = 1 / 400 s. The IS would allow about 1/40 s (slower still for shorter parts of the zoom range).
If you can keep the shutter open longer, you can either lower the ISO or use a smaller aperture, both of which generally improve image quality. When someone says that IS allows you to use a smaller aperture or lower ISO that is what they mean. It does not increase the shutter speed. Also note that IS does not help if the subject is moving quickly–it only helps reduce motion blur.
Sorry if this explanation is too long, but want to make a generally informative post and not just answer your question.
re: the noise issue for STM v non-STM lenses – but not this specific lens. YMMV.
Thank you. I was posting this question for the benefit of others.
I teach and write about photography and have a book out (on the mothership) called “How To Use The Digital Camera You Just Bought.” I also lurk on a FB page for photo beginners to keep in touch with what they ask. It’s scary!
I cannot tell you how many people invest serious money in a DSLR and Photoshop, but not one hour learning the very basics of how exposure works. This is like buying a car and not knowing what reverse meansor those funny pedals on the floorboards.
Look at the one star reviews (and some comments here) about how some camera takes “blurry” pictures and the writer fails to explain under what circumstances the photo was taken.
Often they are trying some low-light action “gym” shot with a lens totally incapable of accomplishing it, and have no clue why it cannot be done.
There is no magic fairy dust in digital cameras.
Things like automation and increased ISO, etc., WILL eventually make such shots possible for the person who cares nothing for technical details, but right now…learning the basics will help a lot!
Wow, Woot beating bhphotovideo by $100.