New EF-S 55-250mm IS STM

sigma 50-500OS is supposed to have the similar IQ to the 100-400L...

I think this lens have already been released. Any reviews?

I also notice that Canon isn't advertising the inclusion of Super Spectra Coatings, which they used for the last version of this lens. I'm curious if Canon decided to opt against using it or not? If not, I hope it'll be fairly flare resistant!

I also wonder what its optical performance will be liked considering that someone said Canon redesigned the optics of this lens. I sure hope it'll perform better than the last version!

I know this is a kit lens, but no one here is excited about it? Could this potentially be a good lens if used mostly from f/8 to f/11? From what I gather it's really sharp (not sure if it's L grade sharp when stopped down) and very lightweight!

While I realize TDP test charts aren't the "end all" for lens IQ, it's a good resource IMO. Anyways, check out the new 55-250 STM up against the excellent 70-300L, both at 200mm on a 60D....

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=3​&APIComp=2


As a 70-300L owner who loves this lens on my 7D, I find this comparison interesting. And it confirms my belief that Canon "consumer" lenses have been catching up with the pro gear at a rapid rate the past few years.

I hope this lens delivers. I'd love to see someone post some unbelievable pictures that they are able to say they proudly got with nothing but a SL1 and 55-250 STM.

I am shocked at the difference between the IS II and the IS STM crops at 250mm and f/5.6 shown here!!! That's enough to make me want to pick one up!

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=5​&APIComp=1

CallumRD1 wrote in post #16340882
I am shocked at the difference between the IS II and the IS STM crops at 250mm and f/5.6 shown here!!! That's enough to make me want to pick one up!

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=5​&APIComp=1

I am surprised that the 55-250 STM just about matches the 70-300 IS (non-L) and for less money , smaller and lighter. In some cases, there is a bit more purple fringing on the 55-250 STM and in other cases more on the 70-300 IS.

That being said, many thought that the 55-250 STM would kill sales of the non-L 70-300 IS. But it won't because (a) IQ appears to be the same and (b) the latter lens goes to 300mm and (c) is also a full frame lens. And the 70-300 looks much sharper on newer full frame bodies than it - and the 55-250 - does on the 60D. No surprise there.

i think the sales of the 70-300IS have already been killed by the original 55-250IS...the value of that lens has taken a total nose dive...what once used to sell used for $550...can now be found for $300...I can't imagine a single person choosing to buy that lens new at $650...

people are able to add it on to a body for $350 now brand new...

DreDaze wrote in post #16341429
i think the sales of the 70-300IS have already been killed by the original 55-250IS...the value of that lens has taken a total nose dive...what once used to sell used for $550...can now be found for $300...I can't imagine a single person choosing to buy that lens new at $650...

people are able to add it on to a body for $350 now brand new...

Me too - it's the reason it's a much better deal than any of the 55-250 lenses including the STM. I got my mint copy for $275.

Buyers of a used 70-300 IS non-IS benefit from all the nonsense on the net.

Eastport wrote in post #16341443
Me too - it's the reason it's a much better deal than any of the 55-250 lenses including the STM. I got my mint copy for $275.

Buyers of a used 70-300 IS non-IS benefit from all the nonsense on the net.

Photozone.de rates 70-300 IS the same as the older 55-250 IS optically (three stars), and a bit of a lower quality mechanically (2.5 vs 3 stars). So for crop use the old 55-250 IS is already as good or a bit better than 70-300 IS. The STM version of 55-250 appears to be even better.

This is what you call "nonsense on the net"?

Eastport wrote in post #16341443
Buyers of a used 70-300 IS non-IS benefit from all the nonsense on the net.

i don't even understand this sentence...

buyers of a used lens benefit from the fact that a lens that's just about equal to the 70-300IS was introduced for $150...

DreDaze wrote in post #16341479
i don't even understand this sentence...

buyers of a used lens benefit from the fact that a lens that's just about equal to the 70-300IS was introduced for $150...

Wow, I don't understand that one from you either.

I'd pay maybe up to $475 (not $650) for the 70-300 IS non-L. But I paid under $300. Most people can easily find it for $350 and that's still a deal.

The non-L 70-300 is a lens that is offered in many kits so people read something crazy on the net and than dump it for the kit price of $350.

If you have no need for 251 to 300mm, and have no use for the lens on full frame and don't care about the better build quality (i.e. you are not worried about breaking it, and yiou don't need the extra weight for it to balance well on the body) then, by all means, go buy a new or used STM version of the 55-250. That's the deal for you and your crop camera. If you have both a crop and a full frame, oh well.

"Was introduced for $150" - not sure what you mean by that comment. Are you talking about the miserable 75-300? Maybe you are talking about the inferior and older non-STM 55-250. Yep. Had that one too. At the same time, I had the non-L 70-300 IS. Not interested in the 55-250.

My post was designed to say how pleased I am about the image quality of the STM version of the 55-250 - just about matching - if not actually matching - the IQ of the non-L 70-300. The question is: For the extra $100 or so, is the extra long end, the better build, and the fact that it's a full frame lens worth it to buy the non-L 70-300? I think it's a no brainer: YES. And you think it's a no brainer: NO.

Agree to disagree. I love the 70-300. The STM - while great for video and for pure crop owners, I would never sell the 70-300 to get it. But I can certainly understand why some people might.

IMHO, with the non-L 70-300 you get much more lens than the 55-250 STM. I had hoped that the image quality on the STM would be better or really much better. It's neither. It's about the same as the 70-300 non-L. I'll forget about the $100 difference quick enough.

Buy it for $650? No, but I would never buy the better IQ of the 70-200 f/4 for $650 or $700 either.

i'm talking about the original 55-250IS...which basically gave the same Image quality as the 70-300IS...when that lens came out it was super cheap in comparison to the 70-300IS...as soon as that lens came out the 70-300IS value tanked...the 55-250STM won't have much of an effect on that, because the value is pretty much as low as it could be already

DreDaze wrote in post #16341601
i'm talking about the original 55-250IS...which basically gave the same Image quality as the 70-300IS...when that lens came out it was super cheap in comparison to the 70-300IS...as soon as that lens came out the 70-300IS value tanked...the 55-250STM won't have much of an effect on that, because the value is pretty much as low as it could be already

Hmm....So you are saying that the STM IQ is the same as the original 55-250?

Must be since the IQ of the STM version is as good or almost as good as the 70-300 IS non-L.

And if you don't believe that the fact that the 70-300 is a full frame is a selling feature, then do yourself a favor, compare the 55-250 STM on the 60D to the 70-300 IS non-L on a full frame. Now, there's a huge - huge - difference in the center - where you are likely to care @200mm or greater.

Example: http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=3​&APIComp=3

Question: Have many times have you used the 70-300? Owned it? Used it on a 5D, 5D2 or 5D3?

I accept you don't like it. Perhaps you can accept that I do.

i currently own it...i've compared it to the 55-250IS that my dad has, and they're the same for most real world applications, i don't shoot test charts...

yes the 70-300IS has those few things going for it that make it worth it to those using FF cameras(although i think you'd have a hard time finding one that uses this lens on a FF) and the other little perks...but again it was something like 3X the price of the 55-250IS...that's why it's tanked...also the arguably better 70-300VC from tamron came in at like $350, which again is what killed the value of the lens

DreDaze wrote in post #16341680
i don't shoot test charts...

I have been known to say the same myself. But, jeez, the people on this forum sure seem to love them!

Happy shooting. Fun discussion. For real.