New Lens Announcement Tonight [CR3]

[WoodyWindy]

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?

No, and that is the real point. To get significantly better on a crop body, you MUST go to an L "class" lens, and for many folks, it isn't worth the trip.

P.S. My understanding is there is no optical difference between the original and the II, just cosmetics.

 

[Loswr]

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?

None - they are optically the same. Canon changed the AF algorightms in the MkII version of the non-STM lens, but the main 'updates' were cosmetic only, changes that made the production costs for the lens slightly lower (I suppose with the number of units sold, even a slight reduction in unit production cost meant major profit).

 

[Ruined]

I am, too, disappointed with the plastic mount. While I know its probably good enough, given the metal mount on the actual body I don't see how it would hold up over time if you change lenses frequently.

In terms of optical performance I am wondering if this might exceed the non-L 70-300mm IS USM. The 70-300mm was a better performer optically than the 50-250mm but not by a landslide. So if this lens makes large optical strides over the original 50-250mm I could see it outdoing the 70-300mm even. But that plastic mount, ugh.

 

[kphoto99]

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...)

Just wanted to check, are you referring to the II or the original 55-250 when you say it is a good lens? Mine is the original (silver color zoom scale).

 

[schill]

I am, too, disappointed with the plastic mount. While I know its probably good enough, given the metal mount on the actual body I don't see how it would hold up over time if you change lenses frequently.

I'm not troubled by plastic mounts for the smaller, lighter lenses. While I don't use them as often as lenses with metal mounts these days I've never had any problems.

If nothing else, they reduce the wear and tear on your camera body. You are unlikely to damage the metal mount on the camera with a plastic mount on the lens. I'd rather need to repair/replace my 55-250 than my 7D (although I don't think I've ever used it on that body).

 

[tnargs]

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?

The main optical quality improvement was when they added IS. Prior to that, this lens was not too wonderful. Ditto for the 18-55.

The plastic mount is still on the spec sheet. Wear is not really a problem for the average user. More of a risk is if you accidentally bang the lens on something when swinging the camera around.

 

[sagittariansrock]

I am, too, disappointed with the plastic mount. While I know its probably good enough, given the metal mount on the actual body I don't see how it would hold up over time if you change lenses frequently.

I'm not troubled by plastic mounts for the smaller, lighter lenses. While I don't use them as often as lenses with metal mounts these days I've never had any problems.

If nothing else, they reduce the wear and tear on your camera body. You are unlikely to damage the metal mount on the camera with a plastic mount on the lens. I'd rather need to repair/replace my 55-250 than my 7D (although I don't think I've ever used it on that body).

Personally, I feel very nervous about plastic mounts and for that reason I've never purchased the 55-250 even though it was better value for money than the 70-300 I bought and sold later. I often hold the setup at the base of the lens with only a part of my palm supporting the body and I'd never be comfortable doing that with a plastic mount. And metal mounts don't significantly wear the body. I've seen many old bodies (including my own EOS 650) with many lens changes and the wear is miniscule.

By the way, what surprises me is that Canon still makes and sells the old, crappy 75-300 and even more surprising, even people using Rebels buy them!

 

[Loswr]

By the way, what surprises me is that Canon still makes and sells the old, crappy 75-300 and even more surprising, even people using Rebels buy them!

I think a lot of people buy them - because it's cheap, common in retail stores (Target sells them for example, but not the 55-250), and because 300mm sounds better than 250mm, it's a popular lens.

 

[sagittariansrock]

By the way, what surprises me is that Canon still makes and sells the old, crappy 75-300 and even more surprising, even people using Rebels buy them!

I think a lot of people buy them - because it's cheap, common in retail stores (Target sells them for example, but not the 55-250), and because 300mm sounds better than 250mm, it's a popular lens.

I guess so, and somehow Canon manages to convince people it is okay to get a non-IS telephoto lens on a crop-sensor camera for people who might not have plenty of light all the time. It took a lot of convincing to get my brother-in-law to buy the 55-250 instead.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

By the way, what surprises me is that Canon still makes and sells the old, crappy 75-300 and even more surprising, even people using Rebels buy them!

I think a lot of people buy them - because it's cheap, common in retail stores (Target sells them for example, but not the 55-250), and because 300mm sounds better than 250mm, it's a popular lens.

I had one of those lenses for about five minutes. I am super steady in my hands, but trying to handhold that @ 300mm (480mm equiv) is near impossible!
I guess so, and somehow Canon manages to convince people it is okay to get a non-IS telephoto lens on a crop-sensor camera for people who might not have plenty of light all the time. It took a lot of convincing to get my brother-in-law to buy the 55-250 instead.