-= T2i / 550D users UNITE! (1) =-

RafaPolit wrote in post #11990666
David, have you applied sharpening to the Tamron crop? I see some red jaggedness on the letters and also some red CA on the white highlights in the bottle. Are both crops processed identically?

At any rate, I agree that the Tammy seems the much sharper lens, so I'm really happy you are happy with your purchase!

Best regards,
Rafa.

I'm surprised... Will have to take another very close look, but no changes with either one. Both images are un-touched except resize and crop.

Boy, you have discriminating eyes

Took a few minutes and really looked hard at the Tamron crop. Though I do not see anything unusual on the bottle, I do see kind of yellow-ish dots around the letters. Hum... don't know.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'text/html'

RafaPolit wrote in post #11990599

Annie, nice doves. What settings are you using to save the images? I see some JPG artifacts happening, so the images may benefit from a slightly higher quality? If using Photoshop, I use Save for web and devices and usually use between 80 and 100. Oh, and what are you waiting for from the non-downs carrier? Is it photographic equipment?? Let us know!


Best regards,
Rafa.

Rafa, I don't use the save for web function. I don't recall why, but many years ago, it was suggested that it wasn't the best way to save an image. I just generally use a "save as" with a quality rating of "5" as that was what the posting rules here said to use. I suppose I can up it a bit. Or, I could just use Flickr, but then the images lose the embedded exif info. And your eyes sure are better than mine. I'm lucky if I can tell if the shots are sharp. LOL

As for the "downs" delivery, it wasn't exactly photo equipment. It was this:

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

I was almost about to get the 55-250 but seen the EF 70-200 f4L. Should I wait just a little more and save for the EF 70-200 f4L or just get the 55-200?

Vectoria, I would get the 55-250. And when you'll have more money, sell it to get the 70-200 of your choice. You would only lose little to no money (if your are business wise a bit) and would benefit a whole bigger range during the time you economy for that 70-200.

f you are like Rafa and can't really buy/sell lens easily, than I suggest waiting for the 70-200 is the best option

Okay, I'm trying another comparison. In these two shots I changed the white balance to Fluorecent, but once again, no sharpening or color changes. The only change was cropping and re-sizing.

Kind of interesting how the tables have been turned. This time I compared the Tamron to the Canon 50mm f/1.4 Prime. I can tell you, from experience, this lens is very sharp at f/4. Anyhow, I decided to shoot this @ 50mm f/2.8, and you can see, the Tamron is not equal in this range.

Tamron @50mm f/2.8

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'text/html'

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'text/html'

Vectoria,

That is a tough question and you would come to an answer based on what you plan on doing with the lens.
- The better image quality is in debate with a slight edge (but really slight albeit half the price) to the 70-200
- As for range, the 55-250 is the clear winner, and 70mm is a bit too long on our cameras so you will be changing lenses more often.
- Luminosity wise you are on deep decisions: the constant f4 of the 70-200up to 200mm is the clear winner, BUT the 55-250 has IS which the other lacks, so... more or less a tie, depending on what you shoot.
- Size wise is where your decisions are easier: if you want a light weight, easy to carry lens that you are comfortable with, the 55-250 is the better choice... with the 70-200 you will draw all eyes to you and people WILL get uncomfortable with you shooting at them. That is a given! The 70-200 is much heavier and bulky.

So, if you feel comfortable sacrificing versatility (better reach, more manageable, no Image Stabilization, and, of course half the price of the 55-250) for the slighter better Image Quality and the better build of the L lens, go for the L lens. Take into consideration that the IQ is really only slightly different and, in some cases (where slow shutter speeds are required) you will probably get better results with the 55-250.

The 55-250 is not what you'd call ultra small, but the 70-200 is really big! Here's so you can compare them side by side:

Rivest wrote in post #11990792
Vectoria, I would get the 55-250. And when you'll have more money, sell it to get the 70-200 of your choice. You would only lose little to no money (if your are business wise a bit) and would benefit a whole bigger range during the time you economy for that 70-200.

f you are like Rafa and can't really buy/sell lens easily, than I suggest waiting for the 70-200 is the best option

Thanks I will sleep on this for a while before I just go guying one or the other. Thanks for your help

David, your results are perfectly normal, you are comparing a prime at two stop over it's maximum aperture with a zoom lens wide open

RafaPolit wrote in post #11990599
Peajunk, where are you originally from? I'd love to see pictures of greens from all over the place as they differ quite significantly from one corner of the earth to the next.
Best regards,
Rafa.

iam from the philippines and eversince owning my first dslr i've never been so homesick. i want to take portrait shots of the whole family especially my granny who is turning 93 this yrwe are planning to visit places that we've been last yr like theme parks and picnic groove and we're adding more on the list. ooohhhh i can't wait

RafaPolit wrote in post #11990910
Vectoria,

That is a tough question and you would come to an answer based on what you plan on doing with the lens.
- The better image quality is in debate with a slight edge (but really slight albeit half the price) to the 70-200
- As for range, the 55-250 is the clear winner, and 70mm is a bit too long on our cameras so you will be changing lenses more often.
- Luminosity wise you are on deep decisions: the constant f4 of the 70-200up to 200mm is the clear winner, BUT the 55-250 has IS which the other lacks, so... more or less a tie, depending on what you shoot.
- Size wise is where your decisions are easier: if you want a light weight, easy to carry lens that you are comfortable with, the 55-250 is the better choice... with the 70-200 you will draw all eyes to you and people WILL get uncomfortable with you shooting at them. That is a given! The 70-200 is much heavier and bulky.

So, if you feel comfortable sacrificing versatility (better reach, more manageable, no Image Stabilization, and, of course half the price of the 55-250) for the slighter better Image Quality and the better build of the L lens, go for the L lens. Take into consideration that the IQ is really only slightly different and, in some cases (where slow shutter speeds are required) you will probably get better results with the 55-250.

As you see, there is quite a big difference. What do you see yourself using the lens for?

Rafa.

Taking pictures with better zoom and good quality. I never really thought about how big the 70-200 was until you put the 55-250 side by side thanks thats helps me make my mind up even more thanks

Rivest your advice helped out a lot also thanks

davidc502 wrote in post #11990898
...Kind of interesting how the tables have been turned. This time I compared the Tamron to the Canon 50mm f/1.4 Prime. I can tell you, from experience, this lens is very sharp at f/4. Anyhow, I decided to shoot this @ 50mm f/2.8, and you can see, the Tamron is not equal in this range...
Just noticed the 50mm prime is tighter than 50mm on the Tamron. I wonder why?

David, well, on this I'm hardly surprised... you are now comparing a f1.4 top-of-the-line dedicated prime to a f2.8 zoom. The prime vs. zoom would be enough to throw the sharpness edge to the prime, but you have the Tamron wide open while the other is stopped a full 2 f-stops down, so you will clearly get the edge.

By the way, how are you focusing for this shots? Are you using Live View in 10x using always the same spot or are you relying on AF? Cause if the latter, you are introducing the AF probable inconsistencies into the mix, which could throw your tests off a bit.

I'm really interested in your findings,

Rafa.

Vectoria wrote in post #11990911
Thanks I will sleep on this for a while before I just go guying one or the other. Thanks for your help

Vectoria, lens decisions are always tough, but for whatever it's worth, I absolutely LOVE my 55-250. I even like it better than the 100-400L that I've been using the past week or so (the rental lens). My only little gripe is that I need more range, and you can't use a teleconverter with this lens.

RafaPolit wrote in post #11990965
David, well, on this I'm hardly surprised... you are now comparing a f1.4 top-of-the-line dedicated prime to a f2.8 zoom. The prime vs. zoom would be enough to throw the sharpness edge to the prime, but you have the Tamron wide open while the other is stopped a full 2 f-stops down, so you will clearly get the edge.

By the way, how are you focusing for this shots? Are you using Live View in 10x using always the same spot or are you relying on AF? Cause if the latter, you are introducing the AF probable inconsistencies into the mix, which could throw your tests off a bit.

I'm really interested in your findings,

Rafa.

Rafa,

Yes, I'm using the live view in 10x to focus the best I possibly can. Thanks for the interest in the findings because I enjoy doing comparisons, though I have to admit I don't always know exactly what I'm looking at; this is where I depend on your expertise.

I'm going to do the first test over and see if there is a different result. Then lastly I want to compare the 50mm prime but this time at f/5.6.

I should have asked if you thought there were any tests that should or could be done?

David

AnnieBananie wrote in post #11990972
Vectoria, lens decisions are always tough, but for whatever it's worth, I absolutely LOVE my 55-250. I even like it better than the 100-400L that I've been using the past week or so (the rental lens). My only little gripe is that I need more range, and you can't use a teleconverter with this lens.

And your pictures always turn out beautiful 55-250 is where am thinking of going now
I will wait a month before getting it because I am getting a new car in the next couple weeks but I am excited and can't wait