Canon EF 50-250mm f/4L IS USM

[BenJohnson]

- 5x Zoom Range
- Constant F/4 Max Aperture
- 4 Stop IS
- USM with FTM

Think this would be worth $1500-2000? :cool:

http://benjohnson.smugmug.com/photos/531533846_YsPjX-M.jpg

[nostromoevent]

Yeah, I'd plonk down $1500 for that.

[nureality]

someone has been fiddling in their photoshop :).

I think that a 50-250 will make for a very different barrel design though. The difference between 50 and 70 while delivering the 70-200 f/4L's IQ is not trivial.

[blssdwlf]

I'd pay $1000 for that. 1500-2000 and you're in f/2.8L IS territory :D

[KenjiS]

I'd pay $1000 for that. 1500-2000 and you're in f/2.8L IS territory :D

But the 70-200 f/2.8L IS lacks the range..this is a 5x zoom

i dont know..at the price point i think it would cannibalize sales of the already superb 70-200 f/4L IS...a lens which to be honest is already amazing and i think Canon would be stupid to replace or add competition against.

[blssdwlf]

Good point. Make it a 50-200 or 50-150 f/4 IS for EF-S lenses at $1k then :)

But yeah, they wouldn't do that for fear of cannibalizing sales. I think to some extent that is why the Canon EF-S 55-250 IS was held back for a while in the US. There isn't any reason to get the EF 70-300 IS now other than for a FF camera IMHO.

But thinking about it, ok Canon EF 50-250 f/4L IS... I'd pay up to 1300. But I wouldn't put it that close to the 70-200 f/2.8L IS just because it is faster glass.

But the 70-200 f/2.8L IS lacks the range..this is a 5x zoom

i dont know..at the price point i think it would cannibalize sales of the already superb 70-200 f/4L IS...a lens which to be honest is already amazing and i think Canon would be stupid to replace or add competition against.

[KenjiS]

Good point. Make it a 50-200 or 50-150 f/4 IS for EF-S lenses at $1k then :)

But yeah, they wouldn't do that for fear of cannibalizing sales. I think to some extent that is why the Canon EF-S 55-250 IS was held back for a while in the US. There isn't any reason to get the EF 70-300 IS now other than for a FF camera IMHO.

But thinking about it, ok Canon EF 50-250 f/4L IS... I'd pay up to 1300. But I wouldn't put it that close to the 70-200 f/2.8L IS just because it is faster glass.


Why not make a 70-300 f/4 IS for $1300

It'd be great for people who need a lens faster than the 100-400 and longer than the 70-200...

Great go-to inexpensive sports lens..

[BenJohnson]

Why not make a 70-300 f/4 IS for $1300

It'd be great for people who need a lens faster than the 100-400 and longer than the 70-200...

Great go-to inexpensive sports lens..
That was the intent of original post.

[KenjiS]

That was the intent of original post.

Ah..sorry

I just think a 70-300 or a 100-300 would fit better than a 50-250..

50-250 feels "odd"

[BenJohnson]

Ah..sorry

I just think a 70-300 or a 100-300 would fit better than a 50-250..

50-250 feels "odd"
I like the range of my 55-250 a lot. I am always at the ends of my 70-200.

[Super-Nicko]

thats cos you shoot crop... :) L lenses fit the bill with EF mount...

100-300 f4L is... id go that over a 2.8is :)

[tkbslc]

I'd rather see a APS-C 45-125 f2.8 to give us back the Fov of the 70-200 on a crop body. It could probably be like the size of a 135 f2.8 and have USM and FTM. Maybe priced at just under $1000 like the 17-55 IS. Those 70-200L were really designed as mid/portrait zooms and the FL is kind of weird on a crop if you ask me. 70 starts too long, and 200 is just not long enough.

[BenJohnson]

thats cos you shoot crop... :) L lenses fit the bill with EF mount...
Good point about me shooting crop. Didn't really think of that. On a FF I would
definitely want something longer! I'm already at nearly 450mm equivalent after the 1.6x
crop factor and 1.4x extender :D

100-300 f4L is... id go that over a 2.8is :)
Isn't there a Sigma that fits that bill?

Honestly, 50-70 and 200-250 are too trivial for it to be worth it.
I just wish Canon made a "superzoom" (or close to it) with a constant max aperture of at
least f/4. The 100-400 and 28-300 seem great, but a bit slow. Even if it costs close to
the 70-200 2.8 IS I'd probably pick it up (must have IS, must be at least f/4 constant,
and must be wider on at LEAST one end than the 70-200, but preferably both, since I
shoot crop, hehe).

Adding 70mm of range isn't too bad IMO. I'm sure Canon sells plenty of 1.4x converters
for the 70-200 series, and that only adds 80mm. I'm not set on 50-250 being the perfect
number, and maybe I'm just lazy, but I wish there was something with a slightly larger
zoom range and wasn't a variable max aperture.

[Super-Nicko]

i dont think the siggy is "OS" though, is it? i would only go tele with IS...

i shoot the 100-400 on 40d and most times it seems 640 aint enough!!

lately though ive been using only the 5d2 with everything - just for IQ - and it romps over the 40d... seems im willing to lose "240mm" ... shot 5d2 and 100-400 at an airshow recently and left the 40d with 24-105 at my feet most of the day...

i think a 1d2 or 1d3 would sit nicely with this range and IQ - and the 500L ill own - one day. :)

[blssdwlf]

I still shoot on a x1.6 body, so the 50-xxx range makes more sense. I'd definitely consider that over a 70-xxx range L at f/4 if it were ever available :)

[BenJohnson]

I still shoot on a x1.6 body, so the 50-xxx range makes more sense. I'd definitely consider that over a 70-xxx range L at f/4 if it were ever available :)
Even if it wasn't an "L", I think it would be nice to have a 55-250 with IS, USM, and constant max aperture. Maybe EF-S mount only for $1000 or less...

[KenjiS]

I still shoot on a x1.6 body, so the 50-xxx range makes more sense. I'd definitely consider that over a 70-xxx range L at f/4 if it were ever available :)

While true, I doubt Canon will do it....

That said, a 55-200 f/2.8 IS would be a good compliment for the 17-55 f/2.8 IS

[CountryBoy]

While true, I doubt Canon will do it....

That said, a 55-200 f/2.8 IS would be a good compliment for the 17-55 f/2.8 IS

It's one reason I bought the Sigma 50-150mm 2.8. I like the 50mm on the wide end, and I was willing to give up the extra mm on the long end. I do use it on the 30D and XT.

[KenjiS]

It's one reason I bought the Sigma 50-150mm 2.8. I like the 50mm on the wide end, and I was willing to give up the extra mm on the long end. I do use it on the 30D and XT.

I considered the 50-150 f/2.8 but the lack of a tripod collar turned me off...

Considered the Tokina 50-135 but the lack of HSM and the crap reproduction ratio turned me off...

And neither has IS which is more useful to me in that lens..

The only reason I dont really want Canon making one in this range is that it would be EF-S and probubly built like the 17-55...a lens whose build quality i hated given what i payed for it...and it would be over $1000...

I would go to full frame before that..and I've been trying to keep my system "open" so I only lose one or MAYBE two lenses in the process...

And I've been heavily thinking about it...Full Frame or 1.3x crop..

[CountryBoy]

I considered the 50-150 f/2.8 but the lack of a tripod collar turned me off...



And neither has IS which is more useful to me in that lens..

The only reason I dont really want Canon making one in this range is that it would be EF-S and probubly built like the 17-55...a lens whose build quality i hated given what i payed for it...and it would be over $1000...

I would go to full frame before that..and I've been trying to keep my system "open" so I only lose one or MAYBE two lenses in the process...

And I've been heavily thinking about it...Full Frame or 1.3x crop..

The lack of IS doesn't bother me, it's easy to hand hold, at least for me. But a tripod collar would have been nice.

I've been thinking of a full frame myself. Mainly the new 5D. But i'll still have my "crop " bodies.

[egordon99]

Pentax JUST (finally!!!!) released their 60-250mm f/4 for around $1300 (IIRC). No IS, but Pentax bodies have stabilized sensors. Seems to be pretty good optically, but I think it was quite the engineering feat to make it happen as the lens was "coming soon" for quite awhile...

[egordon99]

Unfortunately, on the long end, EF-S vs. EF doesn't get you much in terms of cost/size reduction. It's more for the wide end. A 250mm f/4 lens still requires a 62.5mm front element (in theory...) regardless of how big the image circle is.

In fact, although Pentax's 200mm f/2.8 and 300mm f/4 primes are "APS-C only", folks have been able to use them on film cameras will no (or very little) vignetting.

So a 55-250mm f/4 IS USM will NOT be less than $1000, in fact it could very well be quite a bit more expensive than the 70-200mm f/4 IS L USM.

Even if it wasn't an "L", I think it would be nice to have a 55-250 with IS, USM, and constant max aperture. Maybe EF-S mount only for $1000 or less...

[BenJohnson]

So a 55-250mm f/4 IS USM will NOT be less than $1000, in fact it could very well be quite a bit more expensive than the 70-200mm f/4 IS L USM.
Make it a true "L" (EF compatible), charge $1500, and I'd still be interested :p

[CountryBoy]

Make it a true "L" (EF compatible), charge $1500, and I'd still be interested :p

I think it would be a tad heavy .

I would rather see them come out with something like a 28-150mm 2.8 L.

[tkbslc]

I think it would be a tad heavy .

I would rather see them come out with something like a 28-150mm 2.8 L.

Eh, the 24-70 is already called the "brick", we would have to name that lens the "cinder block"

[CountryBoy]

Eh, the 24-70 is already called the "brick", we would have to name that lens the "cinder block"

Thats ok, I would find the focal range more useful for me.
But I never understood why they call it that. It only weighs 2.1 pounds.

[KenjiS]

I think it would be a tad heavy .

I would rather see them come out with something like a 28-150mm 2.8 L.

I know Tamron made a 28-105 f/2.8 once, and its not really that big or heavy, although it does use 82mm filters...

[SHP133]

Great idea, needed for the crop cameras and if it had 2.8 it would never leave my 5D II.....

[KenjiS]

I forgot about this lens

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/eos/EF-lenses/EF50200mmf3545L/index.htm

Scroll down a bit, Canon 50-200 f/3.5-4.5L

Yes theres a L and a non-L version of the lens lol...

[blssdwlf]

D'oh, rotating front element. So it looks like they could make an EF version with IS and no rotating front-element if they put their mind to it.

I forgot about this lens

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/eos/EF-lenses/EF50200mmf3545L/index.htm

Scroll down a bit, Canon 50-200 f/3.5-4.5L

Yes theres a L and a non-L version of the lens lol...

[cdi]

personally i use a sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 for stadiums, arenas, and sprint car races and sometimes i wish i had just a little bit more reach. So if canon does come out with a 50-250mm lens, i'm all over it.