Canon 55-250mm lens

canon400d

Hi there everyone, I was looking for another general purpose lens. I have read quite a lot of good reviews on the 55-250mm and was very impressed indeed, especially the price. However, I have been using my kit lens 17-85 with my 40D and I was really thinking about going for a 24-105 for an every day knock about. But wow the price difference. Is it worth the difference. This is really why I am asking. I do know if I go to a 5D the 55-250 won't fit. I would really appreciate your views before I make the next move.
Regards
Bob

ziggy53

canon400d wrote:

Hi there everyone, I was looking for another general purpose lens. I have read quite a lot of good reviews on the 55-250mm and was very impressed indeed, especially the price. However, I have been using my kit lens 17-85 with my 40D and I was really thinking about going for a 24-105 for an every day knock about. But wow the price difference. Is it worth the difference. This is really why I am asking. I do know if I go to a 5D the 55-250 won't fit. I would really appreciate your views before I make the next move.
Regards
Bob

Bob,

The Canon EF-S 55-250mm, f/4.0-5.6 IS is what I would call an "advanced consumer" lens. It has some nice features but ultimately it is not what I would suggest for a single "walk-a-round" lens, if that's what you're after.

It would couple fairly nicely with the 17-85mm zoom that you have and is probably similar optic quality, although the 17-85mm may (probably) have faster and more accurate focus.

A much better choice for the Canon crop 1.6x cameras, in my opinion, would be:

Canon EF-S 17-55mm, f/2.8 IS USM for a "standard" zoom
Canon EF 70-200mm, f/4.0 L IS USM for the tele-zoom

This is part of "my" standard travel kit and I have to say it is about as good as it gets.

If I know I will be working in lower light I do substitute a 70-200mm, f2.8L for the f4L.

ChatKat

Look at the Tamron
I have the Canon 70-200 2.8 is and 24-105 but for my travel work I use the Tamron 28-300 3.5 vr lens. It's reasonably priced, very sharp and works on both the 40d and the 5d. I had it's predecessor 18-200 di and was disappointed in it but I am thrilled with the 28-300 for it's weight and general use. It's $599 but you might find it for less now that's it's been out and I think there are rebates.


y53]Bob,

The Canon EF-S 55-250mm, f/4.0-5.6 IS is what I would call an "advanced consumer" lens. It has some nice features but ultimately it is not what I would suggest for a single "walk-a-round" lens, if that's what you're after.

It would couple fairly nicely with the 17-85mm zoom that you have and is probably similar optic quality, although the 17-85mm may (probably) have faster and more accurate focus.

A much better choice for the Canon crop 1.6x cameras, in my opinion, would be:

Canon EF-S 17-55mm, f/2.8 IS USM for a "standard" zoom
Canon EF 70-200mm, f/4.0 L IS USM for the tele-zoom

This is part of "my" standard travel kit and I have to say it is about as good as it gets.

If I know I will be working in lower light I do substitute a 70-200mm, f2.8L for the f4L.[/quote]

canon400d

ziggy53 wrote:

Bob,

The Canon EF-S 55-250mm, f/4.0-5.6 IS is what I would call an "advanced consumer" lens. It has some nice features but ultimately it is not what I would suggest for a single "walk-a-round" lens, if that's what you're after.

It would couple fairly nicely with the 17-85mm zoom that you have and is probably similar optic quality, although the 17-85mm may (probably) have faster and more accurate focus.

A much better choice for the Canon crop 1.6x cameras, in my opinion, would be:

Canon EF-S 17-55mm, f/2.8 IS USM for a "standard" zoom
Canon EF 70-200mm, f/4.0 L IS USM for the tele-zoom

This is part of "my" standard travel kit and I have to say it is about as good as it gets.

If I know I will be working in lower light I do substitute a 70-200mm, f2.8L for the f4L.

Thanks Ziggy for your sound advice once again. In actual fact I have the 18-55 lens I got with my 400D but it doesn't have IS. I also went and bought the 70-200L f/4.0 lens and sorry to say it hasn't IS either. I find the 70-200 is fine on a tripod but hand held I just cannot get a good shot at 200. When I got the 40D it came with the 17-85 IS lens and believe me it is great. I also have a Sigma Bigma 50-500 but omg it is a ton weight to carry for any length of time. I have heard that the 55-250 is light in weight and has a great IS and for the price it seems ok. I know, and I am a big believer, in you only get what you pay for, but I would like to get rid of a few lenses before I spend a lot of money on another L lens cause with the IS certainly raises the price. As you know I am still plodding along learning and trying new things and enjoying every minute of it.
Regards
Bob

canon400d

ChatKat wrote:

I have the Canon 70-200 2.8 is and 24-105 but for my travel work I use the Tamron 28-300 3.5 vr lens. It's reasonably priced, very sharp and works on both the 40d and the 5d. I had it's predecessor 18-200 di and was disappointed in it but I am thrilled with the 28-300 for it's weight and general use. It's $599 but you might find it for less now that's it's been out and I think there are rebates.


y53]Bob,

The Canon EF-S 55-250mm, f/4.0-5.6 IS is what I would call an "advanced consumer" lens. It has some nice features but ultimately it is not what I would suggest for a single "walk-a-round" lens, if that's what you're after.

It would couple fairly nicely with the 17-85mm zoom that you have and is probably similar optic quality, although the 17-85mm may (probably) have faster and more accurate focus.

A much better choice for the Canon crop 1.6x cameras, in my opinion, would be:

Canon EF-S 17-55mm, f/2.8 IS USM for a "standard" zoom
Canon EF 70-200mm, f/4.0 L IS USM for the tele-zoom

This is part of "my" standard travel kit and I have to say it is about as good as it gets.

If I know I will be working in lower light I do substitute a 70-200mm, f2.8L for the f4L.

[/quote]
Thanks Kathy for your reply and I will certainly have a look at the Tamron 28-300 3.5 vr lens as it sounds good and you obviously have more experience than me and if your happy I am sure I cannot go wrong.
Regards
Bob

divamum

I have a 55-250is.

Pros: very sharp, very lightweight, +IS, the extra 50mm is a LOT of extra reach on a 1.6x sensor.

Cons: color/contrast ok rather than superb, doesn't terribly like focusing in low light.

For the price, I think it's a super lens. Not L quality (or anywhere close!) but for the price I'm not sure you could find a better long reach tele, especially with IS. I'd say it's the telezoom equiv of the nifty fifty - not perfect, but great bang for buck and extremely capable once you've learned how to work around its quirks.

HTH!

canon400d

divamum wrote:

I have a 55-250is.

Pros: very sharp, very lightweight, +IS, the extra 50mm is a LOT of extra reach on a 1.6x sensor.

Cons: color/contrast ok rather than superb, doesn't terribly like focusing in low light.

For the price, I think it's a super lens. Not L quality (or anywhere close!) but for the price I'm not sure you could find a better long reach tele, especially with IS. I'd say it's the telezoom equiv of the nifty fifty - not perfect, but great bang for buck and extremely capable once you've learned how to work around its quirks.

HTH!

Thanks Divamum I am pleased you like it and I understand once again, you get what you pay for but overall you appear quite happy. You are convincing me very strongly indeed as it has a brilliant read up in the Canon PhotoPlus magazine, being the best telephoto zoom. However, I much prefer to know personally what the real pro's on here think about it.
Regards
Bob

jforbes

A a previous 70-200/4 owner, and current 55-250, some thoughts:

The 70-200 is a far sharper, faster focusing, more contrasty, better built lens.

The 55-250 has mediocre image quality in comparison, but it's workable. Focus speed is OK, but focus accuracy on the long end of the zoom in anything resembling a tough situation is very difficult.

For a casual use telephoto lens, it's a good choice. It'd be a useless walkaround lens.

If you can't shoot sharp photos at 200mm, you need to pay more attention to the shutter speeds you're using. You should be at 1/300 or faster. Raise the ISO or use a larger aperture if you need to. The L glass is very sharp, even wide open at f/4. Focusing can also be tricky, it could be that your lens is focusing in front of or behind where it says it is, or that you don't have the technique down on how to get it to focus where you need it to.

Could you link to some examples with EXIF data?

If I had the 70-200 now, I wouldn't touch the 55-250. The latter is a fine consumer lens, but pales in comparison to the L.

canon400d

jforbes wrote:

A a previous 70-200/4 owner, and current 55-250, some thoughts:

The 70-200 is a far sharper, faster focusing, more contrasty, better built lens.

The 55-250 has mediocre image quality in comparison, but it's workable. Focus speed is OK, but focus accuracy on the long end of the zoom in anything resembling a tough situation is very difficult.

For a casual use telephoto lens, it's a good choice. It'd be a useless walkaround lens.

If you can't shoot sharp photos at 200mm, you need to pay more attention to the shutter speeds you're using. You should be at 1/300 or faster. Raise the ISO or use a larger aperture if you need to. The L glass is very sharp, even wide open at f/4. Focusing can also be tricky, it could be that your lens is focusing in front of or behind where it says it is, or that you don't have the technique down on how to get it to focus where you need it to.

Could you link to some examples with EXIF data?

If I had the 70-200 now, I wouldn't touch the 55-250. The latter is a fine consumer lens, but pales in comparison to the L.

I really appreciate what you have told me. You could be right I probably haven't the right technique. I will certainly try again with the 70-200L and follow your instructions.
The problem I have with the 70-200L is it hasn't IS and when I try to focus on a subject hand held at near 200 I can actually see it jumping about, not a lot but enough to give a crap image. I took the following shot with the 70-22L, I see at 180mm on a tripod and as I say no problem. That's ok shooting a building but if shooting wildlife it is totally different. I just don't know, I can use a Sigma 50-500 at 500 hand held and get great shots, and it hasn't IS.
I don't have any 200L shots as they were so crap I destroyed them as soon as I saw them. I hope I have made things clear for you as I certainly need some help in this direction.
Regards
Bob
Taken with a 70-200L F/4.0 without IS on a tripod at 180mm

jforbes

So, to clarify here: are you having issues with blurry images, or problems composing your shots because of shake?

That you can see the image moving around a bit is normal if you're shooting at the long end of a telephoto lens. If you're not getting worse jumpiness with the 70-200L than the Bigma at 500mm, I don't know what to tell you. If you're shooting at a high enough shutter speed, you should be fine with normal camera shake, it'll just make composing the image a bit tougher.

How are you holding the body/lens? When shooting telephoto stuff, I've found that cupping my hand under the center of weight between the body and lens, and then bracing that elbow against my chest gives nice support and keeps things as steady as can reasonably be. It'll help keep the jitters away and make things easier to frame.

canon400d

jforbes wrote:

So, to clarify here: are you having issues with blurry images, or problems composing your shots because of shake?

That you can see the image moving around a bit is normal if you're shooting at the long end of a telephoto lens. If you're not getting worse jumpiness with the 70-200L than the Bigma at 500mm, I don't know what to tell you. If you're shooting at a high enough shutter speed, you should be fine with normal camera shake, it'll just make composing the image a bit tougher.

How are you holding the body/lens? When shooting telephoto stuff, I've found that cupping my hand under the center of weight between the body and lens, and then bracing that elbow against my chest gives nice support and keeps things as steady as can reasonably be. It'll help keep the jitters away and make things easier to frame.

Thanks Jeff for replying. Yes it is the shake at 200 and when I look at the shots on computer they are not crisp and sharp like they are when I take them on a tripod with cable release.
I cup the lens and with the elbow against my chest and holding my breath but I am still experiencing slight shake which as I say obviously is reflecting in the end product. I feel if the 200 had IS I probably wouldn'e be having this problem. As I say Jeff, this was the only reason I was going for the 55-250 IS as it had such a good read up on IS in the PhotoPlus Canon Magazine.
Regards
Bob

mercphoto

canon400d wrote:

Thanks Jeff for replying. Yes it is the shake at 200 and when I look at the shots on computer they are not crisp and sharp like they are when I take them on a tripod with cable release.

But what shutter speed are you taking those 200mm images at?

canon400d

mercphoto wrote:

But what shutter speed are you taking those 200mm images at?

To be honest Bill I cannot remember as I haven't kept any of the hand held shots because they weren't sharp enough to keep. I can only assume that the shutter speed would be the same or similar to the image displayed in this thread taken with tripod and cable release at 1/60. Should I be using a faster shutter speed?

ziggy53

canon400d wrote:

To be honest Bill I cannot remember as I haven't kept any of the hand held shots because they weren't sharp enough to keep. I can only assume that the shutter speed would be the same or similar to the image displayed in this thread taken with tripod and cable release at 1/60. Should I be using a faster shutter speed?

Bob,

At 200mm on a crop camera I will often use 1/300th for hand-held shots. A tripod really is a great stabilizer and much better than any IS system, lens based or chip based. With a tripod you can use almost any shutter speed you want, unless you are close to a highway or some such.

canon400d

ziggy53 wrote:

Bob,

At 200mm on a crop camera I will often use 1/300th for hand-held shots. A tripod really is a great stabilizer and much better than any IS system, lens based or chip based. With a tripod you can use almost any shutter speed you want, unless you are close to a highway or some such.

Thanks for that once again Ziggy. I will remember that. I see exactly what you mean and come to think about it that is where my problem lies not using a fast enough shutter speed.
Can I please ask Ziggy, when I shoot Manual mode I rely on my -/+ metering and always manoeuvre the needle to the centre point before taking the picture. When I increase the shutter speed I notice the metering needle goes right to the left minus. I have increased the ISO but it still remains in the same minus position. So are we saying the image won't be too dark with a really high shutter speed is selected and the needle being to the extreme minus position. I sure hope I have made myself clear for you to understand.
Regards
Bob

cmason

canon400d wrote:

Thanks for that once again Ziggy. I will remember that. I see exactly what you mean and come to think about it that is where my problem lies not using a fast enough shutter speed.
Can I please ask Ziggy, when I shoot Manual mode I rely on my -/+ metering and always manoeuvre the needle to the centre point before taking the picture. When I increase the shutter speed I notice the metering needle goes right to the left minus. I have increased the ISO but it still remains in the same minus position. So are we saying the image won't be too dark with a really high shutter speed is selected and the needle being to the extreme minus position. I sure hope I have made myself clear for you to understand.
Regards
Bob

When you increase shutter speed, you let less light hit the sensor, so the meter moves to the left. If the needle is to the left, the shot will be under exposed. To keep the needle centered you would need to increase the aperature of course, not change ISO. If you run out of aperature, with this lens it can go as wide as f4.0, then you would adjust ISO upwards.

Now that being said, the shutter speed you use really has few limits. The only limits are that 1) your shutter speed should be at least the inverse of the focal length if you are handholding the camera, and 2) if there are moving subjects, you should try for 1/250th or better. #1 can vary upwards if you have a crop camera. If there is not enough light for these things, you can increase ISO or if there are no moving subjects, use a tripod and reduce the shutter speed to whatever works. Once on a tripod, additional options open up.

ziggy53

cmason wrote:

When you increase shutter speed, you let less light hit the sensor, so the meter moves to the left. If the needle is to the left, the shot will be under exposed. To keep the needle centered you would need to increase the aperature of course, not change ISO. If you run out of aperature, with this lens it can go as wide as f4.0, then you would adjust ISO upwards.

Now that being said, the shutter speed you use really has few limits. The only limits are that 1) your shutter speed should be at least the inverse of the focal length if you are handholding the camera, and 2) if there are moving subjects, you should try for 1/250th or better. #1 can vary upwards if you have a crop camera. If there is not enough light for these things, you can increase ISO or if there are no moving subjects, use a tripod and reduce the shutter speed to whatever works. Once on a tripod, additional options open up.

Nicely said! thumb

Bob, take the advice CMason has given. It is good information.

canon400d

ziggy53 wrote:

Nicely said! thumb

Bob, take the advice CMason has given. It is good information.

Yes Ziggy I certainly will because Cmason has helped me out before and I truly appreciate what he did for me and you too.
Regards to you both
Bob