Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 11 Jul 2010 (Sunday) 08:56
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Step up from a 55-250 is?

 
hpulley
Goldmember
4,390 posts
Joined Oct 2009
     
Jul 13, 2010 07:46 |  #31

harcosparky wrote in post #10526431 (external link)
...I was going to add a TC to my 70-200 because in reality 300 isn't all that much reach, but I chose a much more expensive solution and went to the 100 - 400 L lens.

I got the 100-400L as the step up from the 55-250IS too. Honestly it is the only real step up as 70-200 has less range than 55-250. 70-200 f/2.8L IS II with 1.4x is similar in reach but almost double the cost of the 100-400L!


flickr (external link) 1DIIN 40D 1NRS 650 1.4xII EF12II Pel8 50f1.8I 28-80II 17-40L 24-70L 100-400L 177A 199A OC-E3 RS-80N3

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
ingraman
Member
169 posts
Joined Mar 2009
     
Jul 13, 2010 08:52 as a reply to  @ hpulley's post |  #32

I used to have a 100-400mm. It's much larger than the 55-250, the IS is significantly worse, and the image quality didn't seem much better. Zoom length was great though.

I honestly think the 55-250 is the best all around Canon zoom. It's compact, sharp, cheap, IS is fantastic, and the range is great. I like the 70-200mm, but hate the fact that it's so much larger and heavier. That, and the IS versions start at $1K.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
Avatar
18,381 posts
Gallery: 49 photos
Likes: 3282
Joined Mar 2006
Location: S.F. Bay Area
     
Jul 13, 2010 12:53 |  #33

g3org3y wrote in post #10526518 (external link)
Nope, seems like metal to me!

this is the thread i remembered reading...it's kinda left up in the air at the end...although a few people in it say that the f4's are plastic...

https://photography-on-the.net …&highlight=70-200+plastic


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MOkoFOko
nut impotent and avoiding Geoff
Avatar
19,889 posts
Likes: 21
Joined Jun 2010
Location: Michigan
     
Jul 13, 2010 13:21 |  #34

DreDaze wrote in post #10528463 (external link)
this is the thread i remembered reading...it's kinda left up in the air at the end...although a few people in it say that the f4's are plastic...

https://photography-on-the.net …&highlight=70-200+plastic

I'm almost certain the build is magnesium... I read at least one review elsewhere confirming this, but darned if I can find it now.

According to ken rockwell, the construction IS in fact metal. (external link) From that, it is almost a dead certainty that it is the same magnesium build we find in all other 70-200s.

Pretty surprising if that is the case, huh? The 70-200mm f/4 is just such an amazing value for $600. If I hadn't gotten a new f/4 IS for $900, I'd have gone with the non-IS.


My Gearlist

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
Avatar
18,381 posts
Gallery: 49 photos
Likes: 3282
Joined Mar 2006
Location: S.F. Bay Area
     
Jul 13, 2010 13:27 |  #35

^yeah i looked at both of those, and they don't say...i searched and couldn't find anything that says what it's made of...kinda crazy


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MOkoFOko
nut impotent and avoiding Geoff
Avatar
19,889 posts
Likes: 21
Joined Jun 2010
Location: Michigan
     
Jul 13, 2010 13:30 |  #36

DreDaze wrote in post #10528705 (external link)
^yeah i looked at both of those, and they don't say...i searched and couldn't find anything that says what it's made of...kinda crazy

See my previous post--just edited it. Ken Rockwells review confirms it is metal, and as it is nearly identical to the 70-200 f/4 IS, we can very much assume it's also magnesium alloy. It's also slightly lighter than the f/4 IS, but it also has less under the hood.

I checked 4 reviews and found squat--you'd think more reviewers would comment on the build materials.


My Gearlist

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Player9
Senior Member
658 posts
Joined Mar 2007
     
Jul 13, 2010 15:45 as a reply to  @ MOkoFOko's post |  #37

I really like my 55-250mm IS. It's not perfect (try turning off the automatic vignetting correction in DPP and you will see some serious corner darkening at wide open apertures), but it is sharp, contrast is fine untill you get fairly close to 250mm, and it's light. The plastic mount is a good thing IMO, as it keeps the weight and price down.

I say this all the time, but one of the best features of this lens is the focal range. 55 to 250mm is, imo, much more useful for versatile shooting than 70 to 200mm, or even 70 to 300mm. YMMV. 70mm is already quite long on a 1.6x format Rebel.


60D, EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5, EF-S 18-135mm 3.5-5.6 IS, EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS, Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8, EF 28mm f/1.8, EF 50mm f/1.8, EF-S 60mm f/2.8 macro, EF 85mm f/1.8, 430ex, 220ex, Alien Bee B400 (2), Alien Bee B800 (2)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
msowsun
"approx 8mm"
Avatar
9,288 posts
Gallery: 18 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 387
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Oakville Ont. Canada
     
Jul 13, 2010 17:14 |  #38

MOkoFOko wrote in post #10528672 (external link)
I'm almost certain the build is magnesium... I read at least one review elsewhere confirming this, but darned if I can find it now.

According to ken rockwell, the construction IS in fact metal. (external link) From that, it is almost a dead certainty that it is the same magnesium build we find in all other 70-200s.

Pretty surprising if that is the case, huh? The 70-200mm f/4 is just such an amazing value for $600. If I hadn't gotten a new f/4 IS for $900, I'd have gone with the non-IS.

Ken Rockwell seldom gets it right.

Here is one guy that was not too happy about his PLASTIC 70-200 4 IS:

http://www.ejphoto.com …Quack%20Summer%​202008.pdf (external link)http://74.125.95.132 …&cd=1&hl=en&ct=​clnk&gl=us (external link)

"While in Iceland, my 70-200 f/4L IS took a fall into a tall soft field of grass. I would expect even the cheapest of kit lenses to survive this fall. My 70-200 came apart. Upon closer examination, the entire outerbarrel from the zoom ring back to the lens mount is made of a very thin plastic. It is made tolook like the strong rugged white metal that we are accustomed to on L-lenses. This area has to hold the heavy part of the lens with all the lens elements. The heavy part is attached via four very small and light plastic tabs with screws. All 4 plastic tabs snapped at the screws rendering the lens completely unusable and in two pieces. This is unacceptable lens construction for something to be purported as a professional grade lens designed for heavy duty field use. User beware!

While, optically, it is one of Canon's best zooms, physically it isnot constructed for environments where it might be shocked, vibrated, or tossed around. After examining the lens further, I am convinced that these plastic tabs had started to break even before the fall, possibly due to the rough roads that we encountered along the way. It is a very disappointing and troubling development - we cannot have our lenses be cheapened like this -I would gladly pay $20 or $50 more for a lens that weighs one or two more ounces with a metalouter barrel."


Mike Sowsun / SL1 / 80D / EF-S 24mm STM / EF-S 10-18mm STM / EF-S 18-55mm STM / EF-S 15-85mm USM / EF-S 55-250mm STM / 5D3 / Samyang 14mm 2.8 / EF 40mm 2.8 STM / EF 50mm 1.8 STM / EF 100mm 2.0 USM / EF 100mm 2.8 USM Macro / EF 24-105mm IS / EF 70-200mm 2.8L IS Mk II / EF 100-400 II / EF 1.4x II
Full Current and Previously Owned Gear List over 40 years Flickr Photostream (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ziyius
Senior Member
407 posts
Joined Jul 2010
Location: New Jersey (used to be MA)
     
Jul 13, 2010 17:18 |  #39

+1 for Canon 70-200 f/4


Canon 1Ds Mark II
Canon 17-40 f/4 L Canon 85 f/1.8 Canon 70-200 f/4L 430EX I

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
msowsun
"approx 8mm"
Avatar
9,288 posts
Gallery: 18 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 387
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Oakville Ont. Canada
     
Jul 13, 2010 17:18 |  #40

My apologies to Ken Rockwell. I think he got it right this time.

He actually states in the review that the EF 70-200mm f4 IS has plastic in it's construction:

http://www.kenrockwell​.com …lenses/70-200mm-f4-is.htm (external link)

Construction and Materials

It has a rubber gasket on the lens mount to keep crud out of your camera.

Filter Threads: Plastic.

Exterior Barrel: Plastic.

Front Ring on which "Canon Lens" is printed: Metal.

Focus Ring: Metal covered with a ribbed rubber band.

Zoom Ring: Metal covered with a ribbed rubber band.

Markings: Paint.

Switches: Plastic.

Mount: Metal.

Internals: Appear to be metal and plastic.

Noises when shaken: Moderate klunking. This is normal.

Made in: Japan.




Mike Sowsun / SL1 / 80D / EF-S 24mm STM / EF-S 10-18mm STM / EF-S 18-55mm STM / EF-S 15-85mm USM / EF-S 55-250mm STM / 5D3 / Samyang 14mm 2.8 / EF 40mm 2.8 STM / EF 50mm 1.8 STM / EF 100mm 2.0 USM / EF 100mm 2.8 USM Macro / EF 24-105mm IS / EF 70-200mm 2.8L IS Mk II / EF 100-400 II / EF 1.4x II
Full Current and Previously Owned Gear List over 40 years Flickr Photostream (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
watt100
Cream of the Crop
14,021 posts
Likes: 29
Joined Jun 2008
     
Jul 13, 2010 17:25 |  #41

hpulley wrote in post #10526799 (external link)
I got the 100-400L as the step up from the 55-250IS too. Honestly it is the only real step up as 70-200 has less range than 55-250. 70-200 f/2.8L IS II with 1.4x is similar in reach but almost double the cost of the 100-400L!

ingraman wrote in post #10527045 (external link)
I honestly think the 55-250 is the best all around Canon zoom. It's compact, sharp, cheap, IS is fantastic, and the range is great. I like the 70-200mm, but hate the fact that it's so much larger and heavier. That, and the IS versions start at $1K.

that's the conundrum. The 55-250IS is so good that a significant upgrade is five times the cost




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
Avatar
18,381 posts
Gallery: 49 photos
Likes: 3282
Joined Mar 2006
Location: S.F. Bay Area
     
Jul 13, 2010 17:27 as a reply to  @ msowsun's post |  #42

kenrockwell wrote:
Noises when shaken: Moderate klunking. This is normal.

this is my favorite...:)


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MOkoFOko
nut impotent and avoiding Geoff
Avatar
19,889 posts
Likes: 21
Joined Jun 2010
Location: Michigan
     
Jul 13, 2010 17:59 |  #43

msowsun wrote in post #10530160 (external link)
My apologies to Ken Rockwell. I think he got it right this time.

He actually states in the review that the EF 70-200mm f4 IS has plastic in it's construction:

http://www.kenrockwell​.com …lenses/70-200mm-f4-is.htm (external link)

Note to self: do not bang new 70-200mm IS f/4 on boulders


My Gearlist

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
harcosparky
Goldmember
2,431 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 57
Joined Mar 2010
Location: Harford County - ( Bel Air ) Maryland
     
Jul 13, 2010 18:07 |  #44

ingraman wrote in post #10527045 (external link)
I used to have a 100-400mm. It's much larger than the 55-250, the IS is significantly worse, and the image quality didn't seem much better. Zoom length was great though.

I find this hard to believe.

Even looking at the ISO charts on an independent review site, with both the 100-400 IS L and the EF-S 55-250 are set to 200mm and f/5.6 the 100-400 blows the 55-250 away in IQ.

You must have had a broken 100-400mm IS L, I guess.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MOkoFOko
nut impotent and avoiding Geoff
Avatar
19,889 posts
Likes: 21
Joined Jun 2010
Location: Michigan
     
Jul 13, 2010 18:12 |  #45

harcosparky wrote in post #10530438 (external link)
I find this hard to believe.

Even looking at the ISO charts on an independent review site, with both the 100-400 IS L and the EF-S 55-250 are set to 200mm and f/5.6 the 100-400 blows the 55-250 away in IQ.

You must have had a broken 100-400mm IS L, I guess.

I agree. It sounds like he got a soft copy--a very very soft copy. There sure are a lot of those floating around. From what I hear, the issue was much more pronounced with the pre-'06 models.


My Gearlist

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

5,557 views & 0 likes for this thread
Step up from a 55-250 is?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is m.nobles
869 guests, 228 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.