Purchased for use with the Canon 50D. There is no comparable Canon EF-S glass to this one. After using my EF-S 18-200, it is hard for me to believe that cheaper glass can provide images that are not only not poorer but, in some instances, are even better. Absolutely necessary for the crop. You can certainly purchase an L-ku, but in order to take advantage of even two-thirds of the capabilities it offers, you will need to put up with distortions and make use of glass. Has some pros A genuine…

In addition to the whale lens, I also purchased the following. It is impossible to purchase another telephoto lens equipped with a stabilizer for this amount of money, but a stabilizer is required, particularly at the long end of the zoom range. I am quite pleased with the outcome. In terms of its operational capabilities, I would point out the following: 1. Landscapes do not come out very well because the focal length needed for them is quite long, and the distortion at the near end of the…

My Canon 450D needed its first telephoto lens, so I went on the hunt for one. There was already the Canon 50/1.8II and the Tamron 17-50 at that point in time. The needs were easy to understand: I needed something that was both inexpensive and, to a large extent, ubiquitous in order to comprehend what I require and how I require it. The stub was extremely sought after. This one was my favorite out of all the models I tried (albeit some of them didn't even make it to the review testing stage)…

Got pros: Not a very bad lens . As the first telephoto, in my opinion, the best that can be for this money. Some cons: Not very clear pictures when shooting in the evening, but it's me, I'm more likely to find fault)))

the lens as a whole is excellent for its money, sigma 70-300 is soap compared to it, 70-200 is 3 times more expensive, and the functionality is narrower. I advise! With its pros. - price quality - 5x zoom, isn't that an advantage? - I have never noticed chromaticity for several months of use, it greatly outperforms the whale in this regard - the stub is excellent. at the long end (250mm) without a stub, I could only take clear pictures with a shutter speed of 1/250 * 1.6 = 1/400. with a…

I am satisfied with the lens. When buying in a store, I chose from two, the quality turned out to be the same (I have a Malaysian assembly) At a long focal length, bokeh in the form of parallel-slanted strokes (bad or good, to each his own). I consider the purchase successful. With its pros. Correctly noticed a pleasant price, not a lot of weight, an excellent stabilizer. Some cons: Plastic design with a moving "trunk" and lens rotation (of course, this is a feature of not expensive zoom…

The resolution of the lens is in the range of 100-120 lines per millimeter of the photomatrix, for such a price category - a good result. Subjectively, the lens is relatively light (in terms of weight). Given that there is a working stabilizer, a large range of focal lengths, then with other advantages (see above) this is an excellent value for money. Some pros: 1) Almost no chromatic aberration. 2) Good image resolution in the center and at the edges, slightly decreasing with increasing focal

An excellent model for any amateur photographer who does not have the desire to carry (or the ability to buy) a 1.5-kilogram L-ku for several thousand dollars. When buying, be sure to check the focus (out of two samples, I had one with a large front focus). Got pros: Price, compactness, good stabilizer (you can shoot at shutter speeds less than 1/50 second at the long end). Has some cons Rotating front lens. Aperture is not a disadvantage, but a technical characteristic. Not enough 1:4-5.6…

Bought for Canon 50D. This glass has no analogues Canon EF-S. After my EF-S 18-200, I am amazed that cheaper glass takes pictures no worse, and in some places even better! Must have for crop. Yes, of course, you can buy an L-ku, but you have to put up with distortions and the use of glass for only two-thirds of its capabilities. Has some pros A real miracle of technology - for only 6,500 you get a universal long-range lens, with autofocus and stabilizer, and not such a bad aperture. Great for…

i like the lens as already mentioned about the blurred background and the corresponding depth of field - there is no such thing at a wide angle I thought about 18-200 as an alternative to 17-85 and 55-250 for my crop, but for now I prefer two glasses to one (the difference in money is -5 thousand) Has pros: hello! firstly, the EFS lens there are no problems associated with the remoteness of the object) stub - for those who breaks to carry a tripod Well, in general, the main advantage, as…

Good for portraits. A nice addition to 18-55 (as mentioned earlier). For lovers just right. Fully justifies its money, if you take it you will never regret it. Its pros: I have a second generation lens. Here's what I can say: the lens is light, fairly clear (of course, it can’t argue with the L-series, but, nevertheless) Good bokeh - I really didn’t expect such a good blur, I didn’t notice any backlash, it fits well in my hand. The stub is good, auto focus is almost never wrong. Some cons…

The choice of this device was influenced, first of all, by the operation of the optical stabilizer, which, in comparison with the Sigma AF 50-200mm F4-5.6 DC OS HSM, turned out to be much more effective. In addition, the build quality (Malaysia) was at a decent level. In Sigma, despite the metal mount and rubberized body, something "grunted" and "flopped". When shooting in natural light, autofocus was fast and efficient. There is a small front focus at the short end, but in my opinion, this is…

I think the best value for money. The closest competitor (in my opinion) is the Canon EF 70-200 f/4L USM. Tamrons and Sigmas don't even come close! The stabilizer - in principle, more than compensates for the lack of lens aperture (and if you grab a tripod, you get an excellent combination!). I was pleasantly surprised by the contrasting photos! I took the Canon EF 50 f / 1.8 with the carcass. In comparison, the EF-S 55-250 produces sharper photos. Excellent picture quality even at long…

You won't find better for this money. Don't let the lack of USM scare you. Focus fast - allows you to take a picture of a moving vehicle / person. For filming swallows flying by, he, of course, will not fit. If you have a reserve of money for the L model, then there is nothing to think about. You can see photos taken with this lens and a canon 450d camera on my page (in popular ones).

Good for landscape photography. Given the diameter - inexpensive filters. Eagles in flight may not be photographed, but bullfinches on a branch are not a question. Good blurring of the background when you focus on the subject. Completely reasonable price. What I really did not like was the lack of a hood in the kit. These shortcomings - to treat photoshop. For a beginner and with a not very big budget, with a lot of creative ideas that require scaling, this is it.

The lens exceeded expectations. He has no analogues. Elka is not a competitor to him, she is for other purposes. I read all sorts of reviews and decided to buy L, attached it to the 500D, and was horrified - the picture is not for the faint of heart, there is no desire to run with such a design. I read the forums and bought a Canon EF-S 55-250 f / 4-5.6 IS, I don’t regret a single second. I clung to the carcass like a native, lightweight, focal lengths from 55 (and not 70), of course there is a

I bought in addition to the whale lens. I am quite satisfied with the result - it is impossible to buy another telephoto lens with a stabilizer for this money, but a stabilizer is needed, especially at the long end. In terms of functionality, I can note the following: 1. Landscapes are not very good, after all, the focal length for this is large and the distortion at the near end is noticeable.2. Good portraits are obtained (acquaintances, at least, are asked to take a picture).3. It will not…

I used this "glass" (plastic) several times, I even thought of buying it for trips. I didn't buy it and don't regret it. Glass is worth its money if you buy it for little money up to 10,000 I used it several times for several days . A normal plastic device. Lightweight, comfortable. The range excludes universal use. As a universal traveler will not work . A wide angle is simply necessary. The stub works conditionally, but it works. The entire plastic budget series of glasses from Canon has…

A good addition to 18-55, for amateurs it’s very good. Because of the plastic parts, it is not more fragile, as many write, but lighter and more convenient to transport. Fits great. The lack of aperture compensates for the stabilizer, however, when shooting from a tripod, it is better to turn it off. he blurs the image. In general, the impression is positive.

I was looking for the first telephoto lens for my Canon 450D. By that time, there was already Canon 50 / 1.8II and Tamron 17-50. The requirements were simple - something inexpensive, and more or less universal, to understand what I need, and how. The stub was very desirable. Of the models I tested (some didn't make it to review testing), I chose this one. Dear, I wasn't sure my photo skill could justify it. And again, a little shorter and no stabilizer. Tamron is heavy, with my 100th series and