55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS VS. 70-200mm f/4 IS for landspace

I've had the 55-250 for a couple years now, and not that impressed with its landscape capabilities, especially at the long end. It takes really sharp portraits, but not landscapes it seems. I'm going to Patagonia in February and then traveling around South America for 2 months and will be taking tons of landscapes. I have the money to spend, but wondering how much more sharp the 70-200 is at f/8-f/11.

Also, I need to take into consideration the added weight/size, as I will be backpacking this trip. And the possibility of theft (probably getting travel insurance to cover it).

Any input would be greatly appreciated! It's more money than I've ever spent on photography, so I'm a little nervous.

El Duderino wrote in post #13427523
I've had the 55-250 for a couple years now, and not that impressed with its landscape capabilities, especially at the long end. It takes really sharp portraits, but not landscapes it seems.

I would be surprised if a lens can detect and change the sharpness depending on the subject. So you think the 55-250IS is sharper at larger apertures and not smaller apertures?

watt100 wrote in post #13427619
I would be surprised if a lens can detect and change the sharpness depending on the subject. So you think the 55-250IS is sharper at larger apertures and not smaller apertures?

I was referring to focusing distance.

Here are some sample shots from my 55-250 and 100% crops:

El Duderino wrote in post #13427523
I've had the 55-250 for a couple years now, and not that impressed with its landscape capabilities, especially at the long end. It takes really sharp portraits, but not landscapes it seems. I'm going to Patagonia in February and then traveling around South America for 2 months and will be taking tons of landscapes. I have the money to spend, but wondering how much more sharp the 70-200 is at f/8-f/11.

Also, I need to take into consideration the added weight/size, as I will be backpacking this trip. And the possibility of theft (probably getting travel insurance to cover it).

Any input would be greatly appreciated! It's more money than I've ever spent on photography, so I'm a little nervous.

Of course it's sharper for portraits. You're not a mile away from the subject. It's the question of distance to the subject, having something fit inside DOF, camera shake if not on a tripod, haze, etc. I am not sure that a tele lens is a good one for the landscapes to begin with.

It's true that focus distance can affect lens sharpness. It can also affect AF accuracy (I once had a 135L that was dead on perfect at close ranges and backfocused and longer ranges).

Anyway - the problem I see here is that the OPs example photo from his 55-250 shows the effect of atmospheric haze on a long distance photo. I can pretty much guarantee that not only would the 70-200/4 look just as bad for that shot, but even the EF 200/2L IS would look that bad. The problem there is not the lens.

Get out early some day (not a foggy day please) when the air is crisp and dry and the sky is clear and blue. Then take some test shots with the 55-250 and see how it does.

Amamba wrote in post #13432555
. I am not sure that a tele lens is a good one for the landscapes to begin with.

Telephoto lenses are great for landscapes, better than the cliche UWA which often lead to really boring shots.

Unfortunately, the comparison between those two lenses on http://www.the-digital-picture.com uses two different cameras, so it is not an ideal comparison. However, that review does show that the 55-250 loses considerable sharpness at maximum focal length.

I traded my 55-250 for a 70-200 f/4 L, and the L is a VERY sharp lens, but I never did an A/B test.

I agree with Jeffrey that it is hard to evaluate your landscape shot because of the haze. I would take a few in clear conditions before deciding whether to spring for the L, which is a pricey lens.

Here is a shot with the 70-200 at near its maximum FL (190mm). This was taken at 1/200 from a floating dock, but with IS on:

JeffreyG wrote in post #13432984
better than the cliche UWA which often lead to really boring shots.

Being an UWA lover I must say this is usually down to the photographer, don't blame the poor lens! It didn't do anything

But I do also like telephotos for landscapes.

@OP:
That first shot would not have turned out any different with a better lens. You have very obvious haze in the shot. No lens can cut through haze.

As for the second shot, it seems relatively sharp to me. Granted, the 70-200 would be sharper, but the 55-250 is perfectly usable.

And it is perfectly usable for landscape too:

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Redirected to error image by ZENFOLIO PROTECTED

paddler4 wrote in post #13433050
Unfortunately, the comparison between those two lenses on http://www.the-digital-picture.com uses two different cameras, so it is not an ideal comparison. However, that review does show that the 55-250 loses considerable sharpness at maximum focal length.
I traded my 55-250 for a 70-200 f/4 L, and the L is a VERY sharp lens, but I never did an A/B test.

actually the 55-250IS doesn't lose considerable sharpness at maximum focal length !
www.photozone.de

XSi (450D)

55-250IS at 250mm

JeffreyG wrote in post #13432984
Telephoto lenses are great for landscapes, better than the cliche UWA which often lead to really boring shots.

Completely agree. I use my telephoto for landscapes about as much as I use my 18-50. And I hardly use my 10-20 anymore.

Anyway, just purchased the 70-200 f/4 IS. I've wanted this lens for years, figured it's time.