New Lens Announcement Tonight [CR3]

[sagittariansrock]

Optical upgrades?!?! The old 55-250 is already a pretty solid piece of work optically. I can't wait to see how it could improve. I mean, if it gets much better, it would practically eliminate the need to go to an L in that range.

I wouldn't go quite that far: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=456&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=738&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Yeah, the L lens is five times as much, but it is in a whole different league optically.

Yeah, try doing that comparison with a crop sensor camera on both sides and it will level the field a lot

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=456&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=0&LensComp=738&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

I am not going to suggest the 55-250 is better than the 70-300L, but using the 1DsIII with the L and 50D with the 55-250 is hardly a fair comparison.

 

[crasher8]

fwiw I sold my M. Not because I couldn't mount a 55-250 on it though. I for one am surprised at people defending this so so lens. If money is an issue, buy used. Buy Sigma. Buy Tokina and Tamron.

 

[raptor3x]

Optical upgrades?!?! The old 55-250 is already a pretty solid piece of work optically. I can't wait to see how it could improve. I mean, if it gets much better, it would practically eliminate the need to go to an L in that range.

I wouldn't go quite that far: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=456&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=738&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Yeah, the L lens is five times as much, but it is in a whole different league optically.

Not really, if you compare them both on an APS-C body then the L lens is just barely better than the 55-250. On the other hand compare the 55-250 vs the 70-200 is ii at 200mm both on crop and you'll see a world of difference.

 

[Zv]

I'm sure the 55-250 is a nice lens but you can't compare it to an L. The Ls have a (wider) constant aperture and are weathersealed. That alone is reason to buy them. How annoying is using manual exposure with a varying aperture lens? Not good at all.

 

[jhanken]

Um, hello? There is an EF adapter for EOS-M

Yes, but it is an inelegant solution for many of the M use cases. It works great when your M's job is to serve as a backup/second body. But for the reason I believe the M really created, to serve as compact travel system and compete with the NEX et. al., the adapter is sub-optimal. I am glad I got one, though!

I would love the the EOS-M 11-22mm and a nice telephoto zoom, likely 55-250mm or similar. Maybe a 35 or 50 prime and we have a pretty complete system.

 

[WoodyWindy]

Well, I was time limited, so I didn't specify which L. Of course, if you want the speed or fixed aperture of the 70-200's, you can't really compare.

And no, the existing lens isn't quite in the same league optically or even close in build to most L lenses, though it is optically among "the best of the rest". However, if the optics truly are improved (which was the point of my original post), it will make it hard for most casual or even fairly serious crop users to justify kicking up to the 70-300 L.

 

[kphoto99]

And no, the existing lens isn't quite in the same league optically or even close in build to most L lenses, though it is optically among "the best of the rest". However, if the optics truly are improved (which was the point of my original post), it will make it hard for most casual or even fairly serious crop users to justify kicking up to the 70-300 L.

When I first got T2i kit with the 18-55, I also bought the 55-250mm 4-5.6 IS lens. It was my first dSLR. I found both lenses to be horrible. I was surprised that Canon would make such bad lenses. The 55-250 is really bad, even my son who is now using the T2i does not want to use it.

If this is really "the best of the rest", then what lenses are worst then the 55-250?

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Optical upgrades?!?! The old 55-250 is already a pretty solid piece of work optically. I can't wait to see how it could improve. I mean, if it gets much better, it would practically eliminate the need to go to an L in that range.

I wouldn't go quite that far: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=456&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=738&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Yeah, the L lens is five times as much, but it is in a whole different league optically.

Not really, if you compare them both on an APS-C body then the L lens is just barely better than the 55-250. On the other hand compare the 55-250 vs the 70-200 is ii at 200mm both on crop and you'll see a world of difference.

Wow - I've never done that before, but that seems really odd to me. I don't know why the image quality from the 70-300L should be that different between the FF body and the crop - I have not seen that to be evident in actual use. Something seems wrong there. I seriously doubt the 55-250 would look that much better on a FF body if it were capable of being mounted there.

 

[spturtle]

Wow - I've never done that before, but that seems really odd to me. I don't know why the image quality from the 70-300L should be that different between the FF body and the crop - I have not seen that to be evident in actual use. Something seems wrong there. I seriously doubt the 55-250 would look that much better on a FF body if it were capable of being mounted there.

These Canon APS-C format cameras have a significantly higher pixel resolution than their 35mm format counterparts. So to me it is not strange that the image quality goes down from FF-> APS-C. The effect is similar to putting a 1.4x extender on the lens. For the 55-250 on a 35mm format Canon camera, sure the center sharpness should go up but the edges and corners may be black or otherwise very bad.

 

[pj1974]

Optical upgrades?!?! The old 55-250 is already a pretty solid piece of work optically. I can't wait to see how it could improve. I mean, if it gets much better, it would practically eliminate the need to go to an L in that range.

I wouldn't go quite that far: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=456&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=738&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Yeah, the L lens is five times as much, but it is in a whole different league optically.

Not really, if you compare them both on an APS-C body then the L lens is just barely better than the 55-250. On the other hand compare the 55-250 vs the 70-200 is ii at 200mm both on crop and you'll see a world of difference.

Wow - I've never done that before, but that seems really odd to me. I don't know why the image quality from the 70-300L should be that different between the FF body and the crop - I have not seen that to be evident in actual use. Something seems wrong there. I seriously doubt the 55-250 would look that much better on a FF body if it were capable of being mounted there.

The results of lens resolution tests on The Digital Picture (TDP) have recently been discussed on this forum:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=16229.0
and
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=10289.0

The results can not be compared between different sensor sizes / camera systems (eg FF vs APS-C).
FF will generally yield sharper results per pixel than APS-C. Some APS-C bodies can sometimes be an advantage of FF when focal length limited.

Back to the original topic, Canon's 55-250mm lenses are great, but noticeably not as sharp as the 70-300mm L. Yes, I have used both - and I've kept the awesome 70-300mm L.

If there's an improvement for Canon's 55-250mm lens that would be good. Particularly in the AF specs, eg if it would be a STM: awesome! I feel that lens being a non-USM / non-STM lens is its greatest 'weakness'.

Paul

 

[WoodyWindy]

And no, the existing lens isn't quite in the same league optically or even close in build to most L lenses, though it is optically among "the best of the rest". However, if the optics truly are improved (which was the point of my original post), it will make it hard for most casual or even fairly serious crop users to justify kicking up to the 70-300 L.

When I first got T2i kit with the 18-55, I also bought the 55-250mm 4-5.6 IS lens. It was my first dSLR. I found both lenses to be horrible. I was surprised that Canon would make such bad lenses. The 55-250 is really bad, even my son who is now using the T2i does not want to use it.

If this is really "the best of the rest", then what lenses are worst then the 55-250?

There must be something wrong with that particular 55-250, as not only I, but almost every other user of that lens gets very good results from it. The attached images are resized, but they were also sharp at full resolution (I don't have access to my main image library right now, otherwise I'd post crops...)

 

[unfocused]

And no, the existing lens isn't quite in the same league optically or even close in build to most L lenses, though it is optically among "the best of the rest". However, if the optics truly are improved (which was the point of my original post), it will make it hard for most casual or even fairly serious crop users to justify kicking up to the 70-300 L.

When I first got T2i kit with the 18-55, I also bought the 55-250mm 4-5.6 IS lens. It was my first dSLR. I found both lenses to be horrible. I was surprised that Canon would make such bad lenses. The 55-250 is really bad, even my son who is now using the T2i does not want to use it.

If this is really "the best of the rest", then what lenses are worst then the 55-250?

There must be something wrong with that particular 55-250, as not only I, but almost every other user of that lens gets very good results from it. The attached images are resized, but they were also sharp at full resolution (I don't have access to my main image library right now, otherwise I'd post crops...)

I agree.

I've owned or own the 70-300 L, the 100-400 L, the 55-250 and the Tamron 70-300. In terms of sharpness, the 100-400 L, the Tamron and 55-250 are all very close. The 70-300 L is better, but you pay a real premium for a marginal improvement.

I consider the 55-250 one of the most underrated and best value lenses in the Canon lineup. And, that comes from actual use of the lens. In the 55-250, Canon focused on optical quality and scrimped on build and, of course, no USM.

In a few hours we will know, but my guess is the sharpness won't change much (it really doesn't need to) but they may add STM, improve the coatings and possibly up the build quality a bit.

 

[kphoto99]

And no, the existing lens isn't quite in the same league optically or even close in build to most L lenses, though it is optically among "the best of the rest". However, if the optics truly are improved (which was the point of my original post), it will make it hard for most casual or even fairly serious crop users to justify kicking up to the 70-300 L.

When I first got T2i kit with the 18-55, I also bought the 55-250mm 4-5.6 IS lens. It was my first dSLR. I found both lenses to be horrible. I was surprised that Canon would make such bad lenses. The 55-250 is really bad, even my son who is now using the T2i does not want to use it.

If this is really "the best of the rest", then what lenses are worst then the 55-250?

There must be something wrong with that particular 55-250, as not only I, but almost every other user of that lens gets very good results from it. The attached images are resized, but they were also sharp at full resolution (I don't have access to my main image library right now, otherwise I'd post crops...)

I agree.

I've owned or own the 70-300 L, the 100-400 L, the 55-250 and the Tamron 70-300. In terms of sharpness, the 100-400 L, the Tamron and 55-250 are all very close. The 70-300 L is better, but you pay a real premium for a marginal improvement.

I consider the 55-250 one of the most underrated and best value lenses in the Canon lineup. And, that comes from actual use of the lens. In the 55-250, Canon focused on optical quality and scrimped on build and, of course, no USM.

In a few hours we will know, but my guess is the sharpness won't change much (it really doesn't need to) but they may add STM, improve the coatings and possibly up the build quality a bit.

I wish I could say this about my copy, especially at the 250mm end.
The review on TDP at http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-55-250mm-f-4-5.6-IS-Lens-Review.aspx also indicates that it is not a very good lens.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

That should become quite a fine lens, the new 55-250, wow!

But, but, but.... 16-50 f/4 IS with prime-like quality??? Where is mention!

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Optical upgrades?!?! The old 55-250 is already a pretty solid piece of work optically. I can't wait to see how it could improve. I mean, if it gets much better, it would practically eliminate the need to go to an L in that range.

I wouldn't go quite that far: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=456&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=738&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Yeah, the L lens is five times as much, but it is in a whole different league optically.

Not really, if you compare them both on an APS-C body then the L lens is just barely better than the 55-250. On the other hand compare the 55-250 vs the 70-200 is ii at 200mm both on crop and you'll see a world of difference.

They have a really crappy 70-300L since it did worse than their 70-200 f/4 IS at 70mm f/4, 200mm f/5 and even 280/300mm! Sure doesn't match my results, nor those on most blogs I read, nor Photozone, nor Canon's own MTF charts.

 

[adhocphotographer]

"Canon will announce an update to the EF-S 55-250 f/3.5-5.6 IS by adding STM and some optical upgrades"

:-\ :-[ :-[ :'( :'( :'(

MORE PANCAKES

Could not agree more! Come on EF(-S) 22mm!

 

[bvukich]

And no, the existing lens isn't quite in the same league optically or even close in build to most L lenses, though it is optically among "the best of the rest". However, if the optics truly are improved (which was the point of my original post), it will make it hard for most casual or even fairly serious crop users to justify kicking up to the 70-300 L.

When I first got T2i kit with the 18-55, I also bought the 55-250mm 4-5.6 IS lens. It was my first dSLR. I found both lenses to be horrible. I was surprised that Canon would make such bad lenses. The 55-250 is really bad, even my son who is now using the T2i does not want to use it.

If this is really "the best of the rest", then what lenses are worst then the 55-250?

There must be something wrong with that particular 55-250, as not only I, but almost every other user of that lens gets very good results from it. The attached images are resized, but they were also sharp at full resolution (I don't have access to my main image library right now, otherwise I'd post crops...)

I have one I picked up for my kids to use, and it's great for what it is, and for the cost; but in a direct comparison to any of the L lenses, it doesn't hold up.

I like the images you posted, but with the possible exception of the lizard one, they're not very sharp (that being said, they are small, and it's tough to judge). Which is to be expected of that lens unless stopped down to f8-11 or so. Bokeh is also really nervous, and AF is slow and tends to hunt. None of these things make it a bad lens though. I own one, and it was worth EVERY penny. But to compare it to the 70-300L or any of the 70-200s and try and say it's a better lens, is just not true.

 

[WoodyWindy]

...
I have one I picked up for my kids to use, and it's great for what it is, and for the cost; but in a direct comparison to any of the L lenses, it doesn't hold up.

I like the images you posted, but with the possible exception of the lizard one, they're not very sharp (that being said, they are small, and it's tough to judge). Which is to be expected of that lens unless stopped down to f8-11 or so. Bokeh is also really nervous, and AF is slow and tends to hunt. None of these things make it a bad lens though. I own one, and it was worth EVERY penny. But to compare it to the 70-300L or any of the 70-200s and try and say it's a better lens, is just not true.

I never, EVER said the existing lens was as good as the L's optically. Only that it was very good for what it was, and if they made any improvement to the optics it would be even harder to justify upgrading to an L for most buyers.

I'm glad you like the images. I know they aren't perfect, but they show off the lens very well.

The snake (which I admit exhibits a very small amount of camera shake) has VERY narrow DOF, centered on its eye, and there isn't a lot of detail there to resolve. (It was shot at 250mm, f/5.6, 1/10 sec exposure, handheld, through glass, at essentially minimum focal distance.)

The lizard and the baboon in full size both exhibit clear single-pixel level detail, though shadows on the baboon suffer because it was accidentally taken at ISO 1600 in relatively bright light. (all three were taken with 450D/XSi)

(See, I can pick my work apart as well as anybody...)

 

[Strobe the globe]

Are Canon replacing the EF-S lenses with STM versions to accommodate videographers?

 

[schill]

When people are talking about the image quality from their 55-250 lenses, are they actually comparing the same lens? What's the difference between the original and the II version?

I've got a refurbed II that I purchased for about $200 from Canon. I'm happy with it and it complements my EOS-M and SL1 nicely. It's not quite the same as my 700-200/2.8 on my 7D, but it's a nice lens and much more compact. I think the image quality is very good for the price.

Does anyone make a comparable, but better image quality, EOS-compatible lens in this price range?