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

[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.

 

[Loswr]

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.

 

[Loswr]

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.

 

[dstppy]

I got through the first page of posts without seeing it wasn't USM -- at first I thought it was in the same line as the 15-85/60 type lenses (which are a total credit to the EF-S format), but it's another entry level; oh well.

Well, on the upside, at least canon is actually announcing some things -- which were bound to be announced before the 5Dmk3 . . . so it's not all doom-and-gloom

 

[AJ]

Post here from someone who actually owns a 55-250 and shoots a lot with it.

It's one of the great bargains in the Canon lineup. 250 mm, 300 grams, 300 bucks. Great lens for travel and hiking, stuff where every gram counts.

AF is buzzy but fast and accurate in strong light. On a 7D in servo mode I had no trouble at all keeping up with fast skiing action. But indoors or if the light is flat, forget it. This is a function of aperture, not the type of focus motor.

Sharpness is impressive given the price of the lens. It's the only consumer telephoto lens I haven't been disgusted with. And trust me I've tried quite a few over the years. It's not quite as good as my 200/2.8 L, but it's close. Even wide open the shots can be printed quite large, and withstand strong cropping.

Bokeh is not bad at 250 mm f/5.6. Circular and nice distribution of light. 55 mm is not bad either, but the intermediate focal lengths give doughnut shapes. Once you know this limitation you can work around it. This isn't a primo portrait lens, but it isn't meant to be either.

Build quality is cheap. But it's adequate. The plastic mount only has to support 300 grams. If you put it in a padded bag it'll survive months of backpacking, no problem. I do a lot of backcountry skiing and I find plastics easier to deal with in extreme cold. FWIW on one day at -30C/-20F plus snow my Tamron 17-50 autofocus motor seized (lens shot fine in MF, motor unseized once warmed up) but the 55-250 kept on ticking.

Looks like Canon's announcement is just a cosmetic change, like the 18-55 mk2 announced earlier. Nothing to get excited about, nothing to get upset about either.

 

[unfocused]

Post here from someone who actually owns a 55-250 and shoots a lot with it.

It's one of the great bargains in the Canon lineup.

Excellent comments. I absolutely agree. In fact, I get a little frustrated with all the negative comments about "cheap consumer lenses" that seem to imply that the "average" consumer is a dunce and can't possibly appreciate quality.

This lens does what it does very well, which is consistently sharp pictures at very low cost. On top of that it even offers image stabilization. I strongly suspect that most of the people who are critical of this lens have never owned it.

 

[dr croubie]

So i was bored and thought i'd do some comparisons of MTF charts from www.photozone.de all in one go.

efs 55-250, currently €220
ef 100-300, €320 (nearly a 55-250 plus a niftyfifty) (nb this one reviewed on the 350d)
ef 70-300 nonL, €470 (2x the 55-250)
ef 70-300L, €1350 (6x efs55-250 and a few crates of beer)

<well yeah, i did have a chart here, was just a screenshot comparing the MTF charts of the above 4 lenses side-by-side>

ok, so the focal lengths aren't all exactly the same, but here's my conclusions:

widest end, all fairly similar, maybe the 70-300 non-L is the loser. the 55-250 @ 250/5.6 is almost touching the L @70/5.6 in centre resolution. (100-300 is probably out-resolving the 350d it was tested on).

at 135mm the 55-250 is down a bit on resolution (but barrel/pin is almost nothing)

200mm, you get what you pay for, although the 2 cheapest lenses are roughly the same if you average centre/corner.

longest end gets interesting, the 100-300 falls apart, but it is the oldest. 55-250 beats the 70-300nonL. The L wins of course, but not by much at the longest end.

So coming from someone who doesn't own the 55-250 (i did own the 70-300 nonL and just upgraded to the L), i'm going to say i'm impressed for what it can do, for the price. But then, i'm also impressed with the newest 18-55IS kit lenses (given that they're the same price of a niftyfifty, which i also own and love).


<i also thought i had a comment about how canon did get a lot of flack for their first kit lenses, check the MTF of the first 18-55 non-IS models. but they've definitely made up for lost ground with the latest 18-55 IS, as well as the res of the 55-250>

and back to the USM vs non arguements, i think if you gave joe average who'd only ever used a point and shoot the option, faster focussing, sharper pictures, or both for a higher price, i'd say there's a fairly good chance he'd go for the sharper pictures (hey, i would too, normally).
my old point and shoot took about 2 seconds to focus every time. both the 50/1.8 and 70-300 non-L were blazing fast compared. between those two stepping up to the efs15-85 and 70-300L ringusm lenses, the difference is noticable (definitely quieter, and the speed is just noticably faster).

 

[macgregor mathers]

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

Joe Average is likely to stick with a couple of clunkers, and be satisfied about it.

Many photographers see an APS-C body with an 18-55mm + 55-250mm as an upgrade from P&S / compact / bridge, and I know a couple of photographers who became sick & tired of carrying a DSLR and downgraded to a P&S.

 

[ehouli]

Instead of this BS of cheap lenses, Canon should start rethinking their strategy of MP race and begin matching what Sony/Nikon/Pentax has done with the new 16MP APS-C Sensor...

 

[Loswr]

So i was bored and thought i'd do some comparisons of MTF charts from www.photozone.de all in one go.

Not sure why your chart was deleted, but thanks for the summary!

To be fair, you need to drop the 100-300mm out of the running. Resolution in LW/PH is dependent on the sensor, so it's not valid to compare data from an 8 MP (100-300mm) with data from a 15 MP sensor (the other 3 lenses).

It seems the 70-300mm non-L also 'falls apart' at the long end compared to the 70-300 L, at least based on the TDP comparison (although that's on a FF body).

I strongly suspect that most of the people who are critical of this lens have never owned it.

While it's true that I've never owned the EF-S 55-250mm, I did use one for a few days, on loan from a friend. The test resulted from a comment by my wife after a trip out with our daughter, on which I brought my gripped 7D and EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II. She asked, "Do you have to bring that big, white thing with you everywhere?" (I assume she meant the lens.) So I borrowed the unobtrusive 55-250mm and tried it out. It was noisy, focused slowly, and I was not happy with the IQ. On the other hand, shots I got with that lens were definitely superior to a point-and-shoot, and AF was much faster, too. It's all relative. For me, the small size is not really worth the trade off. Even with a small lens, a 5DII or a 7D (even if I remove the grip) will never be a small, unobtrusive camera. If I'm going to trade size for performance/IQ, I want the biggest size reduction I can get, so for those situations I bring the S95 instead.

 

[Admin US West]

Not sure why your chart was deleted, but thanks for the summary!

[/quote]

Copywrited material belonging to a different web site. Permission should be obtained before posting someone's images, or a link might be appropriate.

 

[hutjeflut]

wel some replies to some above posts as it feels needed.

i do own the mark 1 of this lens and i shot most of my photo's with this lens and always was satisfied with it untill i got my hands on a usm lens after that you cant simply go back and ignore the fact usm is by far supreme in any way and if 40 dollar is all it costs then it should be added.

i get that canon looks at sale fogures thats why they keep selling lenses that are sub par to what nikon offers in the same price range so people in the end want something better and buy a L as far as im concerned thats all canon thinks about.

as for people not wanting it wel it depends on how you look at it.
most people maby dont want to pay 40 dollar more on a kit however if you give em both in there hands 1 with and 1 without usm im fairly sure they will almost all got for the USM version and happily pay the 40 bucks extra.
people cant miss what they dont know excists but eventualy if they stick with a dslr they want something faster.

im not completely negative about this lens however i do believe canon is not doing the right thing by leaving out usm versions of there budged toppers.
i shot 3 years with micromotor lenses just fine and IQ/sharpness isnt a concern for me but focusing with thiese lenses is just awefull and thats why i am slowly upgrading all my lenses to higher end lenses not because of the IQ but because i want faster focusing.
go look at prices and check the gap in prices and lineup canon is leaving behind here just by not creating usm budged lenses.
pros will go for L lenses anyway so canon wont lose out there i dont need L build quality or looks i just need faster focus.
canon will also not get more money if i have to buy 3 L lenses to replace my current slow focus lenses as i can only spend x amount so all canon is doing is lowering the amount of units sold on the short term and forcing people offbrand.

anyway i hope canon one day willl see the light and add usm to all lenses or adds a usm series alongside the current lineup as now im fully into canon gear i cant hop to nikon as thats just to expencive so im pretty much forced to buy sigma/tamron/tokina lenses now as the L series is to expencive for the average person.
(i dont make a penny with my shots)

anyway lets just hope they get it soon the 50m 1.8 rumor upgrade would be a good start

 

[Gothmoth]

dont know why canon is making a new version of this lens when others need a replacement more urgent.

hell im waiting for an improved 50mm f1.4 for so long......

not for me but i sell them.
and a better 50mm f1.4 would sure sell like sliced bread where i live.