Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS - Nifty Two-Fifty

I couple shots of some old Harvards

if compare with other lens... for example: 55-250 with 70-300 which one will be better? people say that there is no differense between them, is only longer by 50mm and has a metal body. Other say that 70-300is usm better then 55-250, that it has usm. and better by quality...
If 55-250is is so good why its price is so very low. now it cost 250$... 70-300 - 600$
Why?

Hi eyusuf - reasons why this particular photo didn't turn out so well are:

1. Squirrels are naturally moving (breathing, jittery) and at 1/125s you would need to be lucky to get a perfectly sharp photo of one. You'll need a much faster shutterspeed to catch them unless they are staying still because of a predator nearby.
2. 250mm (400mm equiv) at 1/125s you are using about 2 stops of IS help if you are hand-holding.

I suggest maxing out your ISO to get more shutterspeed and/or using an external flash (optionally with a better beamer). The only drawback with super high ISO is that they tend to look soft after cleaning up with noise reduction.

With f/5.6 at the long end the only other way of getting more speed is to get a better body (even higher ISO - which means cleaner ISO at where your old max ISO was) or a faster lens (like f/4 or f/2.8 at the long end.)

How do your shots look at say 1/500s or faster at 250mm?

eyusuf wrote in post #8065133
this lens is ok for the price but that's about it.

the lond end (> 200mm) is not that good compared to shots taken <150mm.

this is 100% crop of a shot at 250mm, iso 800, f/5.6, 1/125s
http://eyusuf.smugmug.​com/photos/556921697_o​MbSD-O.jpg

There are numerous threads that you can search on about this topic.

But to clear up any confusion:

The 70-300 IS is a plastic body with a metal mount. The 55-250 IS is a plastic body with a plastic mount. Build quality of the body is the same except for the mount.

The 55-250 is shorter on wide end (55mm) making it more useful on a cropped camera at close distances. The difference between 55 and 70 is pretty big when close up.

The 70-300 is longer on the long end but the difference between 300 and 250 are not as great.

The 70-300's USM is not Ring USM like that on the Canon 70-200L's. The focusing speed is about the same as that of the 55-250.

The 55-250 has a newer 4-stop IS. The 70-300 has a 3-stop IS.

The 55-250 is EF-S only and uses less glass whereas the 70-300 can be used on FF bodies, thus more glass, more materials and higher price.

If you plan to go FF in the very near future, get the 70-300. If not, the 55-250 is a better deal. If you need faster focusing, these two lenses will not beat a Ring USM 70-200L

swis wrote in post #8069170
if compare with other lens... for example: 55-250 with 70-300 which one will be better? people say that there is no differense between them, is only longer by 50mm and has a metal body. Other say that 70-300is usm better then 55-250, that it has usm. and better by quality...
If 55-250is is so good why its price is so very low. now it cost 250$... 70-300 - 600$
Why?

i think there is only one reason: 55-250 IS is not that good at the long end (at least my copy or maybe i'm expecting too high of this lens).

i have shot squirrels with 200 2.8 + 2x tc = 400mm f/5.6 handheld and the results are sharper (straight from the camera) than the ones i got from 55-250.

blssdwlf wrote in post #8070289
Hi eyusuf - reasons why this particular photo didn't turn out so well are:

1. Squirrels are naturally moving (breathing, jittery) and at 1/125s you would need to be lucky to get a perfectly sharp photo of one. You'll need a much faster shutterspeed to catch them unless they are staying still because of a predator nearby.
2. 250mm (400mm equiv) at 1/125s you are using about 2 stops of IS help if you are hand-holding.

I suggest maxing out your ISO to get more shutterspeed and/or using an external flash (optionally with a better beamer). The only drawback with super high ISO is that they tend to look soft after cleaning up with noise reduction.

With f/5.6 at the long end the only other way of getting more speed is to get a better body (even higher ISO - which means cleaner ISO at where your old max ISO was) or a faster lens (like f/4 or f/2.8 at the long end.)

How do your shots look at say 1/500s or faster at 250mm?

I love this lens, it has been a power house for me since last July.

Incoming flood!

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

Ribbit

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

Was at the zoo today (Belfast N. Ireland) and heres a few of the birds...
1. Gentoo penguin

eyusuf wrote in post #8070977
i think there is only one reason: 55-250 IS is not that good at the long end (at least my copy or maybe i'm expecting too high of this lens).

i have shot squirrels with 200 2.8 + 2x tc = 400mm f/5.6 handheld and the results are sharper (straight from the camera) than the ones i got from 55-250.

the one thing i have noticed so far with my few weeks with this lens ,is you do need good sunlight for the best shots ,it does seem to lack a bit on grey days or in the woods ,but i'm a fair weather bloke anyway

eyusuf wrote in post #8070977
i think there is only one reason: 55-250 IS is not that good at the long end (at least my copy or maybe i'm expecting too high of this lens).

i have shot squirrels with 200 2.8 + 2x tc = 400mm f/5.6 handheld and the results are sharper (straight from the camera) than the ones i got from 55-250.

Well that'd be two reasons

1. The 250 isn't that good on the long end.
2. Your copy isn't that good on the long end.

I think what would be interesting to see are two shots one of the 200 f/2.8L+ 2x TC and one from the 55-250 of the same static subject (not squirrel). The 200 f/2.8L is an excellent prime, so I wouldn't be surprised if it is sharper than 250 even with a TC, although since you're judging by squirrels how can you be sure they were moving the same amount? Or how much activity you've had prior to finding one?

I go biking on the trails with my 400D+55-250 and I know that telephotos are alot like sniper rifles and comes with alot of variables. I usually have to offset with a higher shutter speed until my muscles can relax.

Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS - Nifty Two-Fifty

Just received my Nifty Two-Fifty today (bought right here on POTN)
Wow, this lens knocks my socks off.
I thought I'd try to give it a real challenge - my main interests are shooting concerts in low light at small clubs. Usually I use my Nifty Fifty for this task, but I thought I'd go for the extra reach.

Shot with my Rebel XS - ISO1600, Manual (intentionally underexposed to get the shutter speed up) and brought back up in post. In-camera sharpen set to 7 (Max in-camera), white-balance corrected in post and noise reduction to handle that 1600+bump.

Mostly shot at 1/80s in order to stop motion, and let that IS take care of the rest.

1.

I read from someone that the 55-250 is pseudo-macro. However when I try to use it for macro it's super difficult because I have to be so far away from the object I'm trying to shoot. I've been frustrated with this lens so far, but I haven't had any opportunities where I really need it yet. I'm staying in Ireland for the month, and I usually have been using my 18-55 kit lens because I need a wide angle most of the time when exploring the countryside, castles, and cliffs. I used my 50 1.8 at the pubs once. But I haven't used my 55-250 for anything other than testing it out. :\