Almost any lens will get results worthy of this site - it's actually more to do with the person behind the camera than anything else. The 55-250 is an extremely cheap lens, especially when you consider it has IS
. Whether this constitutes good value is debatable. It is very poorly built in my opinion (lots of plastic!) but what do you expect for such a low price?
To be fair, the reviews I've seen highly recommend it - apparently it's pretty well-behaved for such a budget lens.Surprisingly sharp but obviously falling away at the long end. Of course bear in mind that if this lens was to cost £400 the reviews would perhaps be different!
You get what you pay for, and although in this instance I think you're getting quite a bit of lens for your money I'd still recommend saving a little more and going for something better. The 70-300 F5-5.6 IS USM
(not to be confused with the cheap 75-300s) is second only to the L and DO
ranges in Canon's telephoto line-up and a few hundred dollars cheaper. It is a very sharp lens indeed between F8 and F11. Of course if you have the cash I'd recommend the 70-200 F4 L at the drop of a hat, but the lack of reach bothers some people.
Finally, the 55-250 will still only act as a 250mm at the long end. The 1.6x crop factor is just that, and will never extend the maximum focal length of a lens. The results may look similar to 400mm but at the end of the day the depth-of-field etc. guarantees that a 250mm lens will always remain a 250mm lens.