Printable View
Hello,
On this moment I have the Canon EOS 550D and the Canon EF-S 17-85mm IS USM. Now I want a lens with more zoom. So,. I found these two lenses:
- Canon EF-S 55-250mm 4-5.6 IS
- Canon EF 70-300mm 4-5.6 IS USM
Have any of you guys one of these lenses? Which one would you pick? What are youre experiences with it?
Hi, and welcome to the TDP Forums!
The EF-S 55-250mm lens is on the lower end of the quality scale. It's similar to the kit lens that is usually sold with the 550D/T2i (at least, here in the US) - the EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS. Both have plastic mounts, and provide ok image quality stopped down, and are soft wide open.
The 17-85mm lens that you have is a step up from the kit lens, much like the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 is a step up from theEF-S 55-250mm - the 70-300mm has better image quality and better build quality. I'd recommend the 70-300mm over the 55-250mm. The 70-300mm still has a couple of minor foibles - although it has an ultrasonic motor (USM), it's not the 'ring-type- USM, so it's pretty silent, but it's not quite as fast, and more significantly it does not offer full-time manual focus (meaning you cannot just grab and turn the MF ring, you need to flip the switch to MF first). Finally, the front element rotates with focusing - if you use a polarizing filter, that can be an annoyance. But optically, it's a pretty good lens, on par with your current 17-85mm. The 70-300mm loses a little quality between 200-300mm, according to Bryan's review on this site, and other reviews.
If you're in the budget range of the 70-300mm, you might also want to consider the EF 70-200mm f/4L. In the US, the 70-200mm is ~$100 more (and it includes the hood, which you'd want to purchase separately for the 70-300mm, adding ~$40, meaning a $60 difference between the lenses). It's an L-series lens - Canon's "Luxury"/professional series, meaning excellent optical and build quality. It also has a constant f/4 aperture (vs. the variable aperture of the 70-300mm lens). You'd be giving up the 200-300mm range, but that's not the best part of the 70-300mm lens' range. However, you'd also be giving up IS - and that can be very helpful in many situations. If you shoot mostly from a tripod/monopod, or if you shoot mostly in daylight or shoot action/sports where you need high shutter speeds, giving up IS may not be a big deal. But if you shoot in dimmer light, or really dislike the noise you get at higher ISO settings, IS may be a big benefit.
Bryan recommends the 70-200mm f/4L over the 70-300mm. However, it really depends on what/when/how you shoot. You can see how much benefit you get from IS by turning it off on your 17-85mm lens and seeing what you think. If you try that, keep in mind that IS will have greater benefit at longer focal lengths.
Good luck with your decision!
--John
Oke, thanks for your helpfull reply. But the 70-200 is a big lens, isn't it to big for the 550D? In Holland the 70-300 and the 70-200 is -100 euro than the 70-200. Ans also here in Holland, the lens hood is included and a pouch for the lens.
By the way, do you mean the Canon 70-200mm f/4L USM CPS? Because there are more types, also with IS USM. But this last one, is more than 1000 euro.
The 70-200mm isn't that big... [;)] Seriously, it's only 3 cm longer than the 70-300mm, and that's with the 70-300mm fully retracted. The 70-300mm extends with zooming (and extends further with focusing), so when fully extended the 70-300mm is actually 4 cm longer than the 70-200mm (which doesn't change length with zooming).
There's really no such thing as 'too big a lens' for the 550D or any dSLR. You can use your 550D with an 800mm f/5.6L IS lens if you like - that lens is longer than your arm and weighs nearly 5 kilos.
The lens and pouch are included with the 70-200mm f/4L - all L-series lenses include a hood and a pouch/case. The 70-300mm does not come with a hood or a pouch (at least, not as Canon packages them) - you need to buy those separately unless your retailer is selling you a 'bundle package' that adds the separate hood and pouch.
I was referring to the EF 70-200mm f/4L USM - that's the one that's close in cost to the 70-300mm IS USM. There are 4 (or 5) flavors of the Canon 70-200mm lenses - f/4 and f/2.8, with and without IS, and a Mark II version of the f/2.8 with IS. The f/4 non-IS is what I was comparing to the 70-300mm. The f/4 IS and f/2.8 non-IS run over 1000 €, the old version of the f/2.8 IS runs under 2000 €, and the f/2.8 IS II is over 2000 €.
Hoi Friso,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Friso
Yes that's the one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
The 70-200 f4L USM non-IS costs 565 euro vs 485 euros for the 70-300...sssuming you want a lens-hood it would cost you another 40 euros.
So in the end it's 565 euros for the 70-200 vs 525 for the 70-300.
The 70-200 f4L USM gives you better image quality and build. It also handles really good. I personally prefer the internal focussing and zooming. It's absolutely not too big for your 550D, I've used one myself on a 450D.
However the 70-200 gives you better image-quality, but it lacks the IS(image stabilization/beeldstabilisatie) and 300mm range. It's pretty much up to you if you need these factors.
I would choose the 70-200 f4L over the 70-300 myself, but I could have different purposes for my gear.
Good luck,
Jan
I second John's advice. If you can spare the cash, the 70-300 is better than the 55-250. (Though the 55-250 is veryimpressive in how much quality you can get for so little money.) For even more quality, and if you wont be needing I.S. or the full 300mm that often, the 70-200 f/4 is better still.
But there's another thing to consider. If the 55-250 is "good enough", then you could take all that saved money and put it into a totally different lens, like the EF-S 10-22mm, or the Sigma 30mm f/1.4, or the Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro, etc. Just a possibility.
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="content-type" />
Hi Guys,
Thanks for the info so far. Yesterday after my work I saw the 70-200 F2.8 in a large audio/video/photo/computer store. Is the F4 like thickness and length than the F2.8?
And is het wise to put a protection filter on the F4?
Have a look at the tools page, specifically:
[url="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Specifications.aspx?Lens=404&LensComp=687& Units=E][/url]
<div class="PageTitle"][url="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Specifications.aspx?Lens=404&LensComp=687& Units=E]Lens Specifications and Measurements[/url]</div>
<div class="PageTitle"]
</div>
<div class="PageTitle"][url="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Product-Images.aspx?Lens=404&LensComp2=0&LensComp= 687]Lens product images[/url]</div>
<div class="PageTitle"]
</div>
<div class="PageTitle"]The comparisons will give you an idea of the size differences. The 70-200mm f/4 is smaller, both in length and diameter, it's also lighter.
</div>
Like CFNZ said, the f4 version is significantly smaller and lighter and yes it's always advisable to put a protection filter on your lenses. A filter is cheaper to replace than a front-element. Also some lenses need a protection filter to complete the weathersealing, but it's not the case with the 70-200 f4L USM.
Indeed, smaller and lighter. It is lighter then my old sigma 70-300 lens (from the analogue period, who can't be re-chipped). And side by side with the canon 70-300, makes almost no difference.
And to be honest(not that it truly matters), the 70-200 looks a lot better than the 70-300 extended with hood [:P] I have seen some guys shooting with it while I was using my 70-200 at the time, but the 70-300 looks bigger and lumpier than the 70-200...or at least I always thought so [:D]
Everybody. thanks for the advice. Yesterday I bought the 70-200 f/4L. It is truly a great lens. Next week I am going on holiday.
It is indeed not heavy at all. And @ Sheiky, the lens looks elegant ... then the lumpier 70-300. Only the hood is big. Why is it so big?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Friso
It's 'so big' because it needs to be that big to adequately block stray light.
Even then, it's not really big enough!! First off, the lens hood designed for almost every zoom lens (except the 24-70mm f/2.8L, for example) is designed for the wide end of the zoom - if it were designed for the long end, it would vignette the image at the wide end. Also, you're using the lens on a 1.6x crop body, and the hood is designed to block stray light for the full-frame image circle - that means for a crop body, a hood for an EF lens should actually be larger than the one designed for the lens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
Hmm...I have never thought about that part, interesting [Y]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheiky
Yeah. It matters more for wide and UWA lenses, IMO. For example, Canon specifies the sameEW-83E hood for all their UWA zooms (EF 16-35mm, EF 17-40mm, and EF-S 10-22mm). But if that hoodis wide enough not to vignette at 10mm on 1.6x, it's too wide for much flare protection at 17mm on 1.6x.
Here are side-by-sides of the EF 17-40mm f/4L with the EW-83E (specified hood) and the EW-83J (the hood for the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS) - the latter hood is much deeper, and provides better flare protection for the 17-40mm on a 1.6x body (it doesn't vignette on the 1.6x body, but it would on FF).
http://johnsrolleionlypage.homestead...ize_resize.jpghttp://farm4.static.flickr.com/3003/...961fd2.jpg?v=0
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
I have read that part in the review I think(at the time I was debating the 17-55 vs the 17-40), but I never made the link between the image circle of a normal lens on a crop-body.
To be honest, I never tried to see the difference in a shot with and without hood on. I always put on the hood, except with my macro lens. It blocks the flash. I assume without a lenshood you get the chance of losing contrast and color due direct light falling in, but I must say I have no idea how big the differences will be.
A nice one to check out [;)]
You always put the hood on? (here comes a stupid question [:$]) You put it also on at night and in the evening?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Friso
I can't speak for Jan, but I do. True - at night and in the evening, the chances of flare affecting a shot are much less. But, in dim light the chances that I'll accidentally whack the lens against some solid object are no less than in bright light, and may even be greater. Keep in mind, the hood protects the image from stray light, but also serves a protective function for the lens. (I use UV filters on all my lenses, too - but B+W MRC UV filters aren't cheap, so the protection resulting from having the hood in place is still quite relevant.)
--John
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
All of that and...
Yes I do always put the lens hood on. Don't be fooled by the Dutch word for it. Zonnekap=Solarhood is good, however it's not just the sun that it blocks, so I prefer the English name: lens hood.
It has multiple uses:
As John mentioned it protects your lens in a way from bumping into items, flying debris etc etc
It protects your mages from light falling directly into it, mostly seen as flare. However such light(can also be streetlights at night, lamps in your room etc) will also have a negative effect in the entire photo. While not that obvious at all times it can decrease your contrast and colors for that matter. So yes, put the lens hood on whenever, wherever. It's not that much extra work and if you get used to it, it becomes automatic handling. At least I think so.
There can be circumstances where you don't attach the lens hood: using in-camera flash (or you must like the hard shadow which the hood provides) and in my case with macro-photography where there is little space in front of the lens and the chances that you overshadow or bump into your subject are pretty great. Also with a ring flash you are unable to use a lenshood in the normal way, but that's really specific.
Hope this helped,
Jan
hi Friso,
I''ve used the 55-250 IS for over a year on a rebel xs/1000D, and I'm pretty happy with it. Off course, especially at the long end it isn't really sharp and focus in dim light is a hell. I'm saving at the moment to buy a 70-200 f/4 IS, because that is clearly a better lens, but for the 1000€ that it will cost you can also buy: the 55-250+speedlite+tripod+ballhead+filters, or anything else. Also, for me the 55-250 is nice because it fits in the canon camerabag that came with the camera. And it fits tightly, so I guess the 70-300 might not fit, that's at least one thing tokeep in mind.