Buy EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS II now or wait until September?
- Thread starter NostraHistoria
- Start date
- Status
Both the 18-55 and the 55-250 have a front element that rotates when focusing - if the hood is petal shaped, the cut out corners will spin around as it focuses. If the hood is deep enough to offer the correct amount of shading when lined up, it'll cause series (read: image destroying, unless you want to just crop to use the centre) vignetting at wider settings on the zoom range as you change focus. That hood you've found simply looks like a copy of the shallow EW-60C with corners pointlessly cut out of it, making it less effective, and no doubt annoying when the lens focuses as it highlights the rotation of the front element.CustomizedMacs.com said:
Both lenses have a different angle of view, so the wider lens will need a shorter hood than the more telephoto lens. Just get the recommended Canon hoods, or get copies without the pointless (or even image destroying, if deep enough) petal shape:
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_s_18_55mm_f_3_5_5_6_is_ii#SuppliesAndAccessories
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_s_55_250mm_f_4_5_6_is_ii#SuppliesAndAccessories
To re-iterate, just get the recommended Canon hoods, or get copies. Stay clear of petal hoods with those two lenses.
Upvote
0
I read a lot on the hoods, and it seemed that the petal hood was the best to block light in a picture. The following pictures on this site prove it: http://digital-photography-school.com/why-you-should-use-your-lens-hood
Whenever I get it, I will probably post pics.
Whenever I get it, I will probably post pics.
Upvote
0
Where does that anywhere say a petal hood blocks light better? That picture shows that using a hood helps. Which it does. The ET-60 will give you exactly that protection against flare.CustomizedMacs.com said:
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
bseitz234 said:
+1
The point is that you should use a hood. Importantly, you should use a hood designed for the lens. In some cases (usually zooms with a wide angle or ultrawide zooms), that's a petal hood. In other cases (standard and longer primes, most telezooms especially 'slow' ones), it's a not petal-shaped. The folks who design the optical formula of the lens also design the hood for optimal light blocking without vignetting, sometimes with practical compromises (like where possible avoiding rounded edges which result in a lens falling over if set down on the front of the hood).
Upvote
0
If you think you know better than Canon, Neuro, and all the other great people who give up their time and expertise on this forum for free, then fair enough. Get a petal hood, and enjoy watching it spinning around when you focus.
If you do feel like reading on, a petal hood is shaped like it is because the lens produces a circular image, but the sensor sees a rectangular (3:2) image. The lens hood is designed to shield the lens from stray light which would only add flare. The lens hood on a zoom is always optimised for the widest setting, so as to avoid shielding the corners/edges, hence the reason why the 18-55 needs a shorter lens hood than the 55-250.
The petal shape comes about because of the fact that more expensive lenses have front elements which do not rotate. Because of that, they can have a lens hood which is shaped to provide shading to match that rectangular shape of the sensor, optimising the shading. These petal shapes are exclusively found on lenses with front elements which do not rotate, and almost only on wider angle lenses.
If you find a petal shaped hood which offers the perfect amount of shading for your lens, the moment your lens refocuses, that 3:2 rectangle of shading provided by the hood will rotate, and won't line up with the sensor. There will be completely black corners or edges. It will be terrible. But if you find one like that eBay one you pointed out, it's the normal (shallow) one with badly and pointlessly cut out corners, which only reduce the effectiveness of the hood, and will wind you up every time the lens refocuses.
It's your choice, your money, and if you're certain you know better than Canon, feel free to get something off eBay which is made by people willing to exploit your viewpoint.
If you do feel like reading on, a petal hood is shaped like it is because the lens produces a circular image, but the sensor sees a rectangular (3:2) image. The lens hood is designed to shield the lens from stray light which would only add flare. The lens hood on a zoom is always optimised for the widest setting, so as to avoid shielding the corners/edges, hence the reason why the 18-55 needs a shorter lens hood than the 55-250.
The petal shape comes about because of the fact that more expensive lenses have front elements which do not rotate. Because of that, they can have a lens hood which is shaped to provide shading to match that rectangular shape of the sensor, optimising the shading. These petal shapes are exclusively found on lenses with front elements which do not rotate, and almost only on wider angle lenses.
If you find a petal shaped hood which offers the perfect amount of shading for your lens, the moment your lens refocuses, that 3:2 rectangle of shading provided by the hood will rotate, and won't line up with the sensor. There will be completely black corners or edges. It will be terrible. But if you find one like that eBay one you pointed out, it's the normal (shallow) one with badly and pointlessly cut out corners, which only reduce the effectiveness of the hood, and will wind you up every time the lens refocuses.
It's your choice, your money, and if you're certain you know better than Canon, feel free to get something off eBay which is made by people willing to exploit your viewpoint.
Upvote
0
I bought my 55-250 for $199 on Amazon with an Xsi and 18-55 several years ago. The round (NOT petal) lens hood fits both lenses and causes a round solid vignette on the wide end of the kit lens. When you focus, the part of the lens that attaches to the hood rotates, so the radially symmetrical shape (pretty much a cone) is the only good one for the hood on these lenses. Most Canon lenses are not that way; even the 18-135 uses a petal hood, just like the 24-70s, etc. because the front doesn't rotate.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
aroo said:
A bent paper clip fits into an electrical outlet, too...just because something 'fits' doesn't mean it's the right fit. :
The correct hood will not vignette. The 18-55 takes the EW-60c (the 'W' is for wide angle), the 55-250 takes the ET-60 (the 'T' is for...you guessed it...telephoto). I presume you used the ET-60 on your 18-55, and that's why you got vignetting. The EW-60c fits on the 55-250, also...and would be totally useless in terms of protection from flare. CustomizedMacs.com said:
Of course, you should believe the outfit trying to get you to buy their 3rd party hood, because the company that makes the lens clearly doesn't understand how to design a hood to match the lens they designed.
Sounds like you really want a petal hood. It'll look so much cooler and fancier than the one designed by Canon, making you look like a cooler, fancier photographer. How you look is more important than the pictures you take, anyway. So please, just get the petal hood. Be sure to do a lot of focusing from close subjects to far ones, while people watch. You will want to call lots of attention to that petal hood as it rotates with the front element. Heck, maybe it won't even vignette when it does that. Also, I really like the convenience of the screw-on one the guy in the first video bought, too. You should get that exact one, because not only will you look like a better photographer, it'll be a lot easier than the pesky, reversible bayonet mount Canon has for that lens. </sarcasm>
Just get the Canon hood or a knockoff that looks like the Canon hood, mmmm'k?
Upvote
0
Just curious, I had the 70-200 F4 non-IS on my future list. I currently have the 75-300 IS. I'm using a T3i. To prevent blur, I understand that I need 1/320 of a second. That's relatively fast in certain lighting conditions. Looking back at some of my photos and thinking about it, I'm not sure I want to go without IS. So I thought it was an interesting comment that this 70-200 F4 non-IS is "better in every way" than the 55-250 IS. No doubt they're in different leagues, but in certain, maybe many, low light situations, wouldn't the IS out perform? Yes, the L is a sharper lens, but not if it blurs, right?
I just bought the 15-85 at the Canon refurb sale, so I'm out of the market for a little while, but I noticed the 70-200 F4 IS was under $900, so that looks more appealing the next time a refurb sale comes around.
Interestingly, I was actually wondering if I might be better off to sell the 75-300 IS for a used 55-250 in the short term, since I've never really liked the lens. Too soft, slow to focus and hunts frequently for focus. Probably better to just wait for the better lens, but just curious on opinions on my ramblings.
I'll probably end up with the 85 1.8 first, but the better telephoto is in my future plans.
I just bought the 15-85 at the Canon refurb sale, so I'm out of the market for a little while, but I noticed the 70-200 F4 IS was under $900, so that looks more appealing the next time a refurb sale comes around.
Interestingly, I was actually wondering if I might be better off to sell the 75-300 IS for a used 55-250 in the short term, since I've never really liked the lens. Too soft, slow to focus and hunts frequently for focus. Probably better to just wait for the better lens, but just curious on opinions on my ramblings.
I'll probably end up with the 85 1.8 first, but the better telephoto is in my future plans.
Upvote
0
tntwit, the IS on the 55-250 makes it more useable in low light than the 70-200non4. I like the pictures it can get hand held after the sun has set. My copy can do pretty darn low shutter speeds. In good light, it's a tad cloudy with subdued contrast. The L is far better there. Have used both pretty thoroughly.
Upvote
0
I know it's not April fools day, but this has to be a wind up, right?CustomizedMacs.com said:
Presuming for a second that you are being serious, it's your money, so please do buy whatever you like. But if you do end up buying a petal hood for one of those lenses, can you do me a favour? Take a video of the lens + hood mounted on your camera, showing the combo focusing. And then another video taken in your SLR though the lens (at the wide end if the zoom), showing it focusing. Then edit the two scenes together, upload it you youtube, and title it 'Petal hood on rotating front element'.
In my limited searching on YouTube, I was unable to find any videos like that - I was looking for one to help you out - I presume it's because anyone that's been scammed by these eBay retailers by buying one is too embarrassed to admit it. Your video will serve as a good lesson for anyone else as stubborn as you.
Upvote
0
No disrespect, but I always find such a question strange bcoz, if someone can wait for over 6 months to get a lens (especially when the lens is currently available at a really good price), it basically means that they don't really need that lens. But if you really do need the lens, get the one available now and sell it when a new lens is released and is on sale/rebate ... I bet you can still sell your old lens for at least half the price ... think of the other half you are losing as lens rental charges.CustomizedMacs.com said:
Upvote
0
A little vignetting couldn't kill you like a bent paper clip in an electrical outlet couldneuroanatomist said:A bent paper clip fits into an electrical outlet, too...just because something 'fits' doesn't mean it's the right fit. :
Upvote
0
I used a 55-250 for a few years, until I stepped up to a 7D and L-lenses. The 55-250 is the telephoto I recommend to anyone not buying an L. It is small, light, and really quite sharp. The IS worked well, and I regularly got sharp handheld 250mm shots down to 1/30 sec (4 stops by my figuring).
I bought the lens as soon as it hit the local stores, and it is still going strong in the hands of the cousin I sold it to, so it is reliable and sturdy. Actually, I kind of wish I'd kept it, as it is a great lens for traveling.
Oh, the round hood is the right one, and I do recommend getting it.
I bought the lens as soon as it hit the local stores, and it is still going strong in the hands of the cousin I sold it to, so it is reliable and sturdy. Actually, I kind of wish I'd kept it, as it is a great lens for traveling.
Oh, the round hood is the right one, and I do recommend getting it.
Upvote
0
- Status
