Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS or Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM

Sakura1234 wrote in post #9034946
For the PRICE TAG, yeah, I suppose it's not bad with the IS. Very reasonable lens.

xarqi wrote in post #9035197
Name a sharper current zoom that goes beyond 200 mm for under twice the price of the 55-250 IS.

Do you have reading comprehension problem?

The OP is comparing 55-250 to 70-200. Please don't tell me you going to say 55-250 is sharper.

And why do people post 1024x837 jpegs as proofs that a lens is sharp? You know pretty much any lens + any aperture will look sharp at that resolution?

Sakura1234 wrote in post #9035842
Do you have reading comprehension problem?

Exactly which part of:

Sakura1234 wrote in post #9034946
I don't get ppl saying 55-250mm lens being sharp. It's not. It's no where near, and not even REMOTELY close to being sharp.

did you think I had trouble comprehending?

It seemed a pretty categorical statement to me, with absolutely no mention that it was intended to be a comparison with a 70-200.

Sakura1234 wrote in post #9035842
And why do people post 1024x837 jpegs as proofs that a lens is sharp? You know pretty much any lens + any aperture will look sharp at that resolution?

Better than no picture with just blanket statements like "not remotely sharp". Also 1024 is the size limit for picture posts.

TBH, I have never seen a picture from the non-IS F4L that made me feel like I needed to upgrade. I might someday for the AF speed, but for IQ, a little contrast boost and who's the wiser?

I am so glad I got the IS version instead. At 200mm (with IS off), it was impossible for me to hold the camera still enough not to shake. The lens is VERY sharp. I am really amazed on the quality of the pictures. The pictures are so much sharper than my 50mm 1.4.

No editing, just resize and text.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

Never had the 55-250IS, but the 70-200 is amazing. I loved my 70-200 non IS until I got my 135L...

congrats one the 70-200f4 IS...

just a little note though...for the shot you posted you would've had really no chance of getting that with the f4L non IS(unless you used a tripod)...but with the cheap piece of crap lens you could've at least gone to ISO 1600, and still had a chance to get the shot)i'm surprised the dog didn't move)

tkbslc wrote in post #9036604
Better than no picture with just blanket statements like "not remotely sharp". Also 1024 is the size limit for picture posts.

TBH, I have never seen a picture from the non-IS F4L that made me feel like I needed to upgrade. I might someday for the AF speed, but for IQ, a little contrast boost and who's the wiser?

No picture? Please. Anyone who worked with both lenses know the difference.

If you are used to shooting with 70-200mm (f/4 L IS in my case), you won't call 55-250 sharp. Not even close, and not even remotely close if you shoot wide open at the long end.

It's like a Rebel T1i user telling 5DMII users how good Rebel are at high ISO. Ya sure it's a decent camera, and it puts out beautiful results. But to 5DII users, there's no need for comparison, and in their eyes, 500D is just "decent".

Save yourself the trouble. I have a 55-250mm. I know what it does.

Edit-

DreDaze wrote in post #9047589
congrats one the 70-200f4 IS...

just a little note though...for the shot you posted you would've had really no chance of getting that with the f4L non IS(unless you used a tripod)...but with the cheap piece of crap lens you could've at least gone to ISO 1600, and still had a chance to get the shot)i'm surprised the dog didn't move)

Won't come out as sharp unless you stop it down. 55-250 at 198 is still 5.6. Max aperture restriction + stop down for sharpness = losing 1+ stop of light.

Double edit- nvm, I think you mean 50mm 1.4 not 55-250.

Sakura1234 wrote in post #9047602
No picture? Please. Anyone who worked with both lenses know the difference.

There's a difference between not AS sharp, and not sharp at all. You originally said the latter

NObody was talking the f4 IS. THats a newer lens that is an improvement over even the non-IS. But again, who is saying the 55-250 is better or even as good. All I am saying is to call the 55-250 "not remotely sharp" is somewhat ignorant. There is large body of pictures on the web proving you wrong.

Your 5D2 vs 500D comparison is relevant. I don't think anyone would call the 500D IQ "not even remotely good", just "not as good as the 5Dmk2".

Sakura1234 wrote in post #9047602
Won't come out as sharp unless you stop it down. 55-250 at 198 is still 5.6. Max aperture restriction + stop down for sharpness = losing 1+ stop of light.

Double edit- nvm, I think you mean 50mm 1.4 not 55-250.

i don't mean the 50mm...i mean the 55-250mm...

you don't need to stop down anything...he'd have a decent shot...yeah maybe not the sharpest thing in the world...but it'd be a hell of a lot sharper than anything the 70-200mmf4non IS could produce

tkbslc wrote in post #9047657
There's a difference between not AS sharp, and not sharp at all. You originally said the latter

NObody was talking the f4 IS. THats a newer lens that is an improvement over even the non-IS. But again, who is saying the 55-250 is better or even as good. All I am saying is to call the 55-250 "not remotely sharp" is somewhat ignorant. There is large body of pictures on the web proving you wrong.

Your 5D2 vs 500D comparison is relevant. I don't think anyone would call the 500D IQ "not even remotely good", just "not as good as the 5Dmk2".

Wow. do you sit infront of your computer all day waiting for reply?

If you consider 55-250mm as being sharp, the difference between the IS and non-IS version of 70-200 is none of your concern.

Sakura1234 wrote in post #9047847
Wow. do you sit infront of your computer all day waiting for reply?

If you consider 55-250mm as being sharp, the difference between the IS and non-IS version of 70-200 is none of your concern.

Is that supposed to be an insult? You are obviously here online at the same time!

Since you are just spitting out your opinion, why not compare actual tests:

From photozone.de wide open 200mm MTF resolution (center/corner):

55-250 IS - 1779/1684
70-200 F4 - 1820/1747
70-200 F4 IS -2024/2018

So yes, there is much more difference between the two Ls than the 55-250 and the non IS L. In fact, I would call the sharpness difference insignificant between the two cheaper lenses.

SLgear.com seems to agree:

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

DreDaze wrote in post #9047589
i'm surprised the dog didn't move

I got her watching TV and got her attention. She won't move a muscle.

55-250 is not a thing to be compared to 70-200 4L but the vintage 100-300mm 5.6L and 70-210 f/4.0 can produce photos that are near to the IQ by 70-200 4L.

loithuxua wrote in post #9048356
55-250 is not a thing to be compared to 70-200 4L...

If two lenses from the same manufacturer with substantially overlapping focal lengths are not to be compared, what is?

tkbslc wrote in post #9047914
*Whole lot of gibberish nonsense followed by some quoted reviews.*

I got a fan. He follows my post like some zealot.
Do you even know wtf you talking about?

Lets start with some internet quote since this dude obviously hasn't dealt with the lens himself.

Straight from the the-digital pictures.com ISO 12233 lens chart.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=3​&APIComp=0

WOW. What's that difference when you mouse over the lens chart sample. No no, look at the center. Don't look at the corners. It's not fair. Because 55-250 is BLURRY AS HELL in the corners. Hey, they are not even at the same aperture.

Now here's why 70-200mm is even hell a lot more sharper than that stupid 100 something MTF resolution or whatever that rubbish you quoted when it's PPed.

1) It's 1 stop faster. Less noise = less NR = more details preserved when NR applied.

2) More contrast = easier to deal with and identify noise vs edges. The process of finding and masking-away/exposing area for sharpening/NR will be more effective.

Ok... I'm done here. 55-250mm and 70-200mm f/4 L are pretty much the same. You win. I lose. I go jump off a bridge. Have a good day.

oh, edit- I seems to forgot to check out your review links/sites whatever. /shrug who cares.