Canon Announces EF-S 55-250 f/4-5.6 IS II

[anthony11]

Plus, of course:

o) EF-s lenses have smaller elements
o) f/4 at 200mm is way larger than f/4 at 55mm
o) The target market for this lens is less tolerant of lucrative markup percentages

[foobar]

time until efs 25-35ish f1.4-f2ish = not holding my breath

So how about something for the aps-c prosumer? we can't all afford L-primes, but the IQ of your cheaper and slightly slower versions is just plain squidgy sometimes...

Hopefully #2 and #3 are primes or L zooms.

Yes, please! (although new non-L USM zooms would be nice as well).

Its beyond me why Canon cannot implement USM in all there new lenses... Not to mention these consumer grade lenses feel really cheap.

They're supposed to feel (and be) cheap because Canon wants you to buy more expensive lenses.

[hutjeflut]

the fact remains 90% of the DSLR users cannot afford L lenses so USM in the lower series makes sense to me as in my experience nikon and even sony budged lenses are faster then budged canon lenses.
if id get intot the dslr market again i would with what i know now most likely go nikon instead as canon budged lenses are just so dam slow at focusing where the nikon budged lenses seem to be almost instant focus as usm.
maby canon doesnt care but if i was canon id take notice.
i for one wont ever consider non usm lenses anymore as focusing speed is my main frustration as canon doesnt make cheap USM lenses the only alternatives are sigma/tamron wich is no market at all for canon and im fairly sure they rather sell a usm bidged lens to me then no lens at all

[timblundell]

Its beyond me why Canon cannot implement USM in all there new lenses... Not to mention these consumer grade lenses feel really cheap.

Perhaps when you graduate from second grade you'll unnerstand that from a prahdukt playcement perspictive they need conspicuous differences between inexpensive and expensive models for anyone to buy the latter.

You've obviously never shot Nikon. They seem to be serving the APS-C market in terms of lenses a lot better than Canon.

[Justin]

My guess is that this is a similar "cost optimized" version, just like the recent move from the 18-55 IS to the Mk.II of said lens.

The technical specifications of the two versions are identical, not even a gram difference on the weight.  I believe it's the same lens from an optical standpoint, and the only change is the "enhanced exterior design" - the focal lengths on the zoom ring are printed on black instead of silver, and the font lettering has been changed to match the 18-55mm IS II.  I'm sure that just like the 18-55, this new version has a painted rather than moulded alignment mark, etc.

Given the number of lenses that Canon produces and sells, even a small savings on unit production cost translates to a substantial increase in profit. 

What's next?  Well, I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that although the 18-135mm IS lens launched with the black background for the zoom ring focal length markings and the new font, the 18-200mm IS superzoom still has the old font and old silver lettering.  Also, Canon points out in their announcement that the 55-250 II will be available as part of a starter kit - and the 18-200 is also available as a kit lens.  So maybe announcement #2 is an EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II.  Woo hoo...  (Or is that, boo hoo?)

It's definitely boo hoo. What a snoozer of a year so far for Canon. The 200-400 was by far the most exciting announcement so far. Though, so many folks seem to think it will slip to 2012 that I am doubtful we'll see it this year.

Come on 5D3

[unfocused]

Not to mention these consumer grade lenses feel really cheap.

Well, maybe that's because they are really cheap 

In a low-cost lens you have chose build quality, speed or image quality. Can't have all three and usually can't have more than one. With the original 55-250 Canon chose image quality. Frankly, that's a choice I'll take any day. You can compensate for speed and you can even compensate for build quality (by not doing something stupid with the lens), but if the image quality isn't there, there isn't anything you can do.

BTW, the 55-250 may "feel" light and cheap, but I had one for over two years, took it all over the country (and outside the U.S.) Didn't "baby" it and it held up just fine. Still looks and performs like new. I replaced it only because I wanted something a little longer. I think we sometimes underestimate the durability of today's materials and construction techniques. (See the incredible Canon and Nikon stress test videos that were linked to this site a few months ago.)

[distant.star]

I've always loved the subtle jabs of left-handed compliments, damning with faint praise, etc. DPReview.com hit the nail on the head with this:

"The EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS II is a cosmetically refreshed version of the existing 55-250mm IS, launched in 2008."


Yep, Canon excused herself, went to the rest room and powdered her pretty little nose. Now she's back, and maybe we'll go to her place for a nightcap.

In this case, a cheap date!

[hutjeflut]

With the original 55-250 Canon chose image quality. Frankly, that's a choice I'll take any day. You can compensate for speed

sorry but i strongly disagree the amount of shots i missed because of slow focus speeds is quite large and a USM for a few bucks extra would definitely more then halve the number of missed shots.

the 55-250 is still a sweet lens tho and i love it  but it is just to slow for some shots and you cant compensate for it specialy due to the lack of full time manual focus override wich USM gives.

[unfocused]

With the original 55-250 Canon chose image quality. Frankly, that's a choice I'll take any day. You can compensate for speed

sorry but i strongly disagree the amount of shots i missed because of slow focus speeds is quite large and a USM for a few bucks extra would definitely more then halve the number of missed shots.

the 55-250 is still a sweet lens tho and i love it  but it is just to slow for some shots and you cant compensate for it specialy due to the lack of full time manual focus override wich USM gives.

Okay, that's one of the disadvantages of using a general term like speed. I was thinking in terms of f-stops, as in how "fast" the lens is. And, before people jump all over that, I just mean that you have some options available when using a slower lens, whereas, if a lens is not sharp, there really are no good options available.

You are right in that a lens that focuses slowly results in missed shots that can't be compensated for.

[neuroanatomist]

a USM for a few bucks extra would definitely more then halve the number of missed shots.

Consider the cheap consumer telezoom 75-300mm lenses, which are in the same 'class' as the EF-S 55-250 f/4-5.6 IS.  There are two 'flavors' of it - the EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III and the EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM, with USM being the only difference between those lenses.  The USM version averages ~$40 more than the non USM version (exclusive of current rebates).  I'm sure Canon has analyzed the sales figures for those lenses and has a fairly good idea of relative sales of the two lenses, i.e. which is more important to the market segment that buys lenses like this - USM or the $40 cheaper price tag.  Likely, that weighed into the decision not to include USM on their cheap consumer lenses.  Keep in mind that those who frequent these forums are a LOT more likely to know what USM is and does than the typical consumer who'd be interested in this class of lens (which is prominently displayed at stores like Target and Best Buy).  For many, 'USM' is just one more set of meaningless initials in a lens name, and if that was the key factor in a lens purchase decision, those folks would all buy Tamron's newset superzoom (who could resist all those lovely letters - Di II VC PZD?!?).

[UncleFester]

a USM for a few bucks extra would definitely more then halve the number of missed shots.

Consider the cheap consumer telezoom 75-300mm lenses, which are in the same 'class' as the EF-S 55-250 f/4-5.6 IS.  There are two 'flavors' of it - the EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III and the EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM, with USM being the only difference between those lenses.  The USM version averages ~$40 more than the non USM version (exclusive of current rebates).  I'm sure Canon has analyzed the sales figures for those lenses and has a fairly good idea of relative sales of the two lenses, i.e. which is more important to the market segment that buys lenses like this - USM or the $40 cheaper price tag.  Likely, that weighed into the decision not to include USM on their cheap consumer lenses.  Keep in mind that those who frequent these forums are a LOT more likely to know what USM is and does than the typical consumer who'd be interested in this class of lens (which is prominently displayed at stores like Target and Best Buy).  For many, 'USM' is just one more set of meaningless initials in a lens name, and if that was the key factor in a lens purchase decision, those folks would all buy Tamron's newset superzoom (who could resist all those lovely letters - Di II VC PZD?!?).

I think Canon figures they'll sell Joe Average 3 or 4 clunkers before Joe realizes his IQ sucks.


And what is this constant worry about lens/camera weight these days?  What is up with these people who review their lens as "a bit heavy"? Isn't heavy usually more durable?

[dr croubie]

And what is this constant worry about lens/camera weight these days?  What is up with these people who review their lens as "a bit heavy"? Isn't heavy usually more durable?

To us, who know what we're talking about, who love our photography, who in general own at least a 7d/5d or more, who bother to read these forums, yes, yes it does.

But we're not talking about the 'prosumer' or professional who only make up what, 10-20%, maybe 30% of the new-body market sales?

We're talking about joe average who's spent his whole life so far with a P&S, maybe he's even got one of those 35x 'superzoom' half compact thingies, who might have saved up a few hundred $ and 'splurged' on a 550/600d.

Either way, he's going to be impressed with IQ moving up from them. Of course, he'd be more impressed moving up to an L zoom, but he can't see the point now in lugging all that extra weight an expense for that little bit better shot, from where he's coming from an efs 55-250 is crystal clear already.
And these kinds of people are only going to pull them out on family vacations anyway, smiling happy kids, maybe a bird in a tree in a campsite, the dog running on the beach. It's going to be durable enough for that. They won't be wading through swamps to get a good photo of the last endangered whatever.
And, coming from spending $200 on a P&S to maybe $700 on a dslr kit, that's big money to them, they're going to baby it anyway,  it's gonna be a lot more expensive than the last few P&S cameras they bought put together.

[shorthand]

As for ring USM, remember the target price for this lens - it lists for $300 US and sells for maybe $250 right now. The 70-300 and several versions of the 75-300 have non-ring USM and it doesn't do much good in that configuration.

This is a minor redesign to eliminate some extraneous parts and save some costs.  I actually like the simpler design aesthetic. You shouldn't think of it as a real update in any way, shape, or form, instead just a minor re-engineering to keep the price from going up as commodity prices rise.

[hutjeflut]

a USM for a few bucks extra would definitely more then halve the number of missed shots.

Consider the cheap consumer telezoom 75-300mm lenses, which are in the same 'class' as the EF-S 55-250 f/4-5.6 IS.  There are two 'flavors' of it - the EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III and the EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM, with USM being the only difference between those lenses.  The USM version averages ~$40 more than the non USM version (exclusive of current rebates).  I'm sure Canon has analyzed the sales figures for those lenses and has a fairly good idea of relative sales of the two lenses, i.e. which is more important to the market segment that buys lenses like this - USM or the $40 cheaper price tag.  Likely, that weighed into the decision not to include USM on their cheap consumer lenses.  Keep in mind that those who frequent these forums are a LOT more likely to know what USM is and does than the typical consumer who'd be interested in this class of lens (which is prominently displayed at stores like Target and Best Buy).  For many, 'USM' is just one more set of meaningless initials in a lens name, and if that was the key factor in a lens purchase decision, those folks would all buy Tamron's newset superzoom (who could resist all those lovely letters - Di II VC PZD?!?).

they lack IS and seeing they can add usm for 40 dollar im fairly sure most people are willing to add 40 dollar to that lens if it got usm.

i think its quite doable on that lens heck they could even have kept selling the non usm version (mk i) as kit lens just to keep the kits cheap.
the whole problem with canon is that they dont listen to costumers wich is a real shame.

[neuroanatomist]

Consider the cheap consumer telezoom 75-300mm lenses, which are in the same 'class' as the EF-S 55-250 f/4-5.6 IS.  There are two 'flavors' of it - the EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III and the EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM, with USM being the only difference between those lenses.  The USM version averages ~$40 more than the non USM version (exclusive of current rebates).

they lack IS and seeing they can add usm for 40 dollar im fairly sure most people are willing to add 40 dollar to that lens if it got usm.

I completely disagree.  I think most people here, i.e. reading this forum, would pay $40 for USM (assuming they were in the market for such a lens - but then, most people here are likely buying much more expensive lenses, budget permitting).  But 'typical' consumers for this class of lens don't know or care what USM stands for, much less what it does.  They see two lenses that have almost the same name and description, and buy the one that's cheaper.

the whole problem with canon is that they dont listen to costumers wich is a real shame.

While I don't have access to Canon's sales figures, look at amazon.com's pages for the 75-300mm III with and without USM.  In terms of sales, the USM version is ranked #42 in Camera & Photo > Lenses , while the cheaper, non-USM version is ranked #12 in that same category (incidentally, the EF-S 55-250 is the second-highest ranked Canon lens, coming in at #4, with the highest being the 50/1.8 II, which is #1 in that category, and not coincidentally, is Canon's cheapest lens).

They may not listen to their customers per se, but they do 'listen' to the sales figures.  For the 'cheap telezoom' class of lens, those figures are clearly telling them that comsumers are not willing to pay more for USM.