What are the odds of a 55-250 STM?

[IceAgeDX]

To match the 18-55?

 

[verysimplejason]

STM is relevant for movies, not so much for still pictures. I don't know if 55-250 is a useful focal length for movies but from still pictures perspective, I'd rather have USM installed. It might drive a little bit the price up but from my experience using 55-250, USM feature will be very much welcome for the 55-250 for a little bit fast AF.

 

[mrsfotografie]

STM is relevant for movies, not so much for still pictures. I don't know if 55-250 is a useful focal length for movies but from still pictures perspective, I'd rather have USM installed. It might drive a little bit the price up but from my experience using 55-250, USM feature will be very much welcome for the 55-250 for a little bit fast AF.

With its lightweight construction, the micromotor AF of the 55-250 really isn't that slow at all, so no need for USM, I would say.

So USM, no. STM? Possible but more for marketing purposes than anything else.

 

[paul13walnut5]

May I confess something here...

I don't understand the benefits of STM lenses.

Ok, I shoot video with the lens set to MF. My 22mm STM works great for stills on my EOS M. Which is all I really need to know, I'm just curious how Canon would market an STM lens to me on it's own merits.

 

[Hesbehindyou]

With its lightweight construction, the micromotor AF of the 55-250 really isn't that slow at all, so no need for USM, I would say.

Heh, you mean you have no need for USM. The micromotor in my 55-250 gives me plenty of missed shots. It keeps track okay, it's the initital locking on that's too slow. This is not a problem for most types of photography but is for some types.. I own a 55-250 and Sigma 100-300 f4 (with their version of USM) but would spring for a USM 55-250 in a heartbeat.

 

[mrsfotografie]

With its lightweight construction, the micromotor AF of the 55-250 really isn't that slow at all, so no need for USM, I would say.

Heh, you mean you have no need for USM. The micromotor in my 55-250 gives me plenty of missed shots. It keeps track okay, it's the initital locking on that's too slow. This is not a problem for most types of photography but is for some types.. I own a 55-250 and Sigma 100-300 f4 (with their version of USM) but would spring for a USM 55-250 in a heartbeat.

Please excuse me for speaking in general terms. Of course you're right, we all have our own needs and styles.

Still, while USM would be great I think Canon will not be motivated to make it because such a lens would (rightfully) eat into sales of the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM which could really benefit from a ring USM and non-rotating front element.

 

[paul13walnut5]

Still, while USM would be great I think Canon will not be motivated to make it because such a lens would (rightfully) eat into sales of the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM which could really benefit from a ring USM and non-rotating front element.

Dunno, I don't think EF-s users have no real need to go for the 70-300 IS, and FF users cannot go for the EF-s.

 

[photonius]

May I confess something here...

I don't understand the benefits of STM lenses.

Ok, I shoot video with the lens set to MF. My 22mm STM works great for stills on my EOS M. Which is all I really need to know, I'm just curious how Canon would market an STM lens to me on it's own merits.

Well, STM is supposedly faster than micromotors and quieter. So, it's an upgrade from the micromotor, though it's not the level of a USM yet. And for video, it's smoother in the transitions, even compared to USM. But the later may simply be an issue of the algorithms used, seems the 70D can take care of this now with it's new on-screen phase detect AF, which works with a large range of lenses.

 

[verysimplejason]

STM is relevant for movies, not so much for still pictures. I don't know if 55-250 is a useful focal length for movies but from still pictures perspective, I'd rather have USM installed. It might drive a little bit the price up but from my experience using 55-250, USM feature will be very much welcome for the 55-250 for a little bit fast AF.

With its lightweight construction, the micromotor AF of the 55-250 really isn't that slow at all, so no need for USM, I would say.

So USM, no. STM? Possible but more for marketing purposes than anything else.

Sorry to ask but have you really used a 55-250? I am using one and I've used a 70-200 F4 USM L. AF speed is a lot different. Most of the time it means getting the shot or not. I used both for events. I don't really know from what perspective where you able to say that the micromotor AF of 55-250 is enough. I've covered a children indoor school-olympics and I've got a lot of misses using my 55-250. I have to borrow my friend's 70-200 to cope with the kids.

 

[mrsfotografie]

STM is relevant for movies, not so much for still pictures. I don't know if 55-250 is a useful focal length for movies but from still pictures perspective, I'd rather have USM installed. It might drive a little bit the price up but from my experience using 55-250, USM feature will be very much welcome for the 55-250 for a little bit fast AF.

With its lightweight construction, the micromotor AF of the 55-250 really isn't that slow at all, so no need for USM, I would say.

So USM, no. STM? Possible but more for marketing purposes than anything else.

Sorry to ask but have you really used a 55-250? I am using one and I've used a 70-200 F4 USM L. AF speed is a lot different. Most of the time it means getting the shot or not. I used both for events. I don't really know from what perspective where you able to say that the micromotor AF of 55-250 is enough. I've covered a children indoor school-olympics and I've got a lot of misses using my 55-250. I have to borrow my friend's 70-200 to cope with the kids.

I had one and used it on a 400D. Of course it can't compete with a 70-200 L but then I think it's good enough given the cost of the lens.

 

[paul13walnut5]

I had one and used it on a 400D. Of course it can't compete with a 70-200 L but then I think it's good enough given the cost of the lens.

And thats all that matters. Not everybody wants to spend L money. The images from the 55-250 are very good for the cost of the lens, and if the AF works for the user then thats great too.

For all the moaning about DR and MP and etc, canon really do excel at putting decent easy to use kit in the hands of the masses. There will always be better things to move on to, there just might not always be the need.

Health to use your 400D, I loved mine.

 

[mrsfotografie]

Health to use your 400D, I loved mine.

It's a great little camera. I got mine after I already had my 5D2 and 7D, just to use when I needed something light and portable. It really holds its own, even though it's a relatively old body by now. I replaced it a few months back with a Sony NEX-6 and finally put the 400D (and the 55-250) up for sale last week. They're both in the hands of happy new owners now.