@GenXRailmedia wrote:A few years back, I owned the IS II version of the 55-250, but was never completely satisfied with the IQ. I loved the focal length versatility and thought about it often after replacing it (kind of like an ex-girlfriend, but I digress...)
Now I'm seeing that there is an IS STM version available and by averaging out all of the reviews that I've read, I'm impressed with what I'm reading. The new version has 15 elements/12 groups as opposed to the old with 12/10. I realize that more elements don't always equate to higher quality, but it sounds like a marked improvement to me.
As much as I would like to go with the 70-200 F/4L that the 250 STM is often compared to, it just isn't in the budget at the moment. I'm thinking it would nicely compliment my new 650D, have slightly more reach and better be supported than my current dinosaur 70-210 3.5-4.5 USM.
Should I give this lens another try? Also, any opinions on whether STM AF is fast enough for shooting sports? I love the ring USM on the above 210, but really miss the IS as well. The price just can't be beat, either, averaging around $150.
The STM AF is fast enough for most sports situations. The EF-S 55-250 IS STM is one of the best kept secrets out there. It should sell for 5 times what it does based on its performance.
Canon EOS 40D, EF-S 55-250 IS STM, 255mm, 1/3200, f/5.6, ISO 800
Photo by Kat Parker, the very first time out birding with a dSLR.
@TTMartin wrote:The STM AF is fast enough for most sports situations. The EF-S 55-250 IS STM is one of the best kept secrets out there. It should sell for 5 times what it does based on its performance.
Canon EOS 7D Mk II, EF-S 55-250 IS STM, 218mm, 1/640, f/5.6, ISO 125, race car moving towards the camera at speed coming out of turn one at Mid-Ohio.
note: right click on the photo above and choose open in a new tab, to see the uncompressed version of the photo.
" It should sell for 5 times what it does based on its performance. " 
Is this a joke? Surely you jest? A single spec, a single photo, etc, does not define a lens.
@ebiggs1 wrote:" It should sell for 5 times what it does based on its performance. "
Is this a joke? Surely you jest? A single spec, a single photo, etc, does not define a lens.
Not a joke at all. The lens sells for about $125 refurbished from Canon. It has image quality on par with the EF 70-200 f/4L. For an APS-C camera in my opinion it is a superior lens. It has a larger zoom range. While upping the build quality from it's predecessor, it still is smaller and lighter than the EF 70-200 f/4L. While you don't need IS for high shutter speed photos, you're camera's AF system can still benefit from image stabilization when shooting sports.
You've repeatedly stated you normally shoot full frame or a 1D Mk IV, so it is no wonder you wouldn't keep an EF-S lens. The question becomes why did you buy one to start with?
In my 7D Mk II kit I carry the EF-S 18-135 IS STM, EF-S 55-250 IS STM, EF 100-400 L IS II, 1.4X TC III, and 580EX II. If I were to carry my 70-200 I would have to forgo the 580EX II.
One specification doesn't make a lens, and what specifications that are important vary from person to person. Given equal image quality and larger zoom range, and more than adequate performance in other categories. I'll take the smaller and lighter lens.
