# Telephoto lenses for Canon.. fight!



## MDesigner (Jun 16, 2008)

Should I get...

The fairly new Tamron 70-200mm:
http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-70-200mm-Macro-Digital-Cameras/dp/B0012GLHL2

The Canon 70-200mm:
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-70-200mm-Telephoto-Zoom-Cameras/dp/B000053HH5

(edit) Canon 55-250mm:
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-55-250mm-4-0-5-6-Telephoto-Digital/dp/B0011NVMO8

Or the Canon 70-300mm:
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-70-300mm-4-5-6-Lens-Cameras/dp/B0007Y794O

The last one seems to be the cheapest quality lens (from what I've read), but it does have IS which is nice.  The Canon 70-200mm seems good and includes a lens hood, so the price evens out nicely against the 70-300mm.

Not sure what I'd be losing out on by going for 70-200mm over 70-300mm.  I'm undecided among these three lenses.. any advice?  As far as what I'd be using it for, think zoo trip.   Getting optically close to animals you can't really get close to physically...


----------



## Rhys (Jun 16, 2008)

70-300 f4-5.6 IS is OK. Not brilliant but OK. I was doing birdie photos today and rarely needed more than 200mm.

70-200 f4 IS is better.

I wouldn't look at independents though.


----------



## MDesigner (Jun 16, 2008)

Rhys said:


> I wouldn't look at independents though.



I assume by independents you mean 3rd party lenses like Tamron.  Why not?

PS: The Canon 70-200mm IS wasn't an option   Outside my budget, unfortunately ($1000)


----------



## jg123 (Jun 16, 2008)

I would go for the 55mm-250mm for around $300, here are some reviews


----------



## MDesigner (Jun 16, 2008)

WOW.  Thanks for the tip on that lens!  The zoo photos that guy posted are pretty awesome.  Plus, the 55-250mm covers me a bit better, since my only lens right now stops at 50mm.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Jun 17, 2008)

I've used the 70-200 f/4L before on more then a few occasions, it's a stellar lens and IMO that's what you should get and not even consider a 70-300 or 55-200 f/5.6.


----------



## MDesigner (Jun 17, 2008)

Hmm.. yeah but the 70-200mm f/4 (at the price I can afford) doesn't have IS.  The 55-250mm's got IS, and I'm looking through sample shots on that link posted above... it's pretty damn good.  I'm not even semi-pro, so I don't really need anything superb.  If I magically do happen to go semi-pro, I can upgrade.


----------



## MDesigner (Jun 17, 2008)

A few shots from the 55-250mm that really caught my eye...












This one here is a 100% crop:




















This is the bear photo at full size, 2048px wide:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3039/2440309932_1eaa4b0f82_o.jpg


----------



## Mav (Jun 17, 2008)

The only issue with the 50-250 is that it's an EF-S lens and won't cover any of the higher end bodies like the 5D or 1D/1Ds lineup since they require EF lenses, not EF-S.  Doesn't sound like that'd be a concern, but figured I'd point it out.


----------



## Dao (Jun 17, 2008)

hum .. very interesting.  I think I need to search and see if I can find some reviews on the new Tamron 70-200 f2.8 lens.  The price of the Tamron is some what cheaper than the Canon 70-200 f2.8.  Of course if the optical quality is as good as the Canon or close to it.  Then it may become another popular lens.   Just like the 17-50mm f2.8 lens did, lower cost with pretty good optical quality.


----------



## Village Idiot (Jun 17, 2008)

I own a Canon 70-200 2.8 IS. It is great.

The Canon 70-200 f/4 has probably gotten me the sharpest photo to ever come out of my camera. If you can live with it's limitation of f/4, you'll be more than happy with the image quality it produces. I think it's the best zoom lens that Canon produces under $1000.

You can also go onto www.photography-on-the.net or www.fredmiranda.com and find a used one with original box and everything for about $450-$500.


----------



## Dao (Jun 17, 2008)

Just saw the review of the Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 from Dpreview.com.  The optical quality seems to be pretty good.  But the Tamron lens is using the DC motor, not USM or anything like that.  So Autofocus is not as accurate nor fast as the Canon one.

So I guess it comes down to what type of shots.  If using the lens to take some action shots like ball games.  It may have issue of get a good focus photos.  But if it is used for a stationary objects.  It should be pretty good I think.  hum ...  for me, I may stay with my orginal plan of getting the 70-200mm f4L once I save up more money.


----------



## Rhys (Jun 17, 2008)

I have the 70-300 f4-5.6. The USM AF is fast. I took a great photo of a pelican flying with it. Most of the time though I was around 200mm not 300mm. I would go for the 70-200 f4 IS. I know you cannot afford it right now. Why not save toward it?

I would post some photos but at the moment I'm not at home. My Macbook is where I do my photoprocessing but it won't take my wife's PCMCIA Verizon wireless card. My wife's Verizon card is working at 14.4kbps so uploading would be painful - even if I transferred JPEGs - lol.


----------



## Buszaj (Jun 17, 2008)

Go for the 70-200 f/4 L. You won't regret it. Its the best choice out of them all. Even though it doesn't have IS, images are still great handheld (I use this lens). Very sharp, you'll love it. Its the best choice out of the three.


----------



## asfixiate (Jun 17, 2008)

Without Flash how good is the 70-200 f/4L in a low lit situation?

with my 50mm/f 1.8 i was able to take pictures in nocturnal exhibit at zoo without flash.  This lense can do that?


----------



## Buszaj (Jun 17, 2008)

asfixiate said:


> Without Flash how good is the 70-200 f/4L in a low lit situation?
> 
> with my 50mm/f 1.8 i was able to take pictures in nocturnal exhibit at zoo without flash.  This lense can do that?



No. And this lens is the closest out of the three to getting low light shots. I doubt 2.8 will even get those zoo shots. But you can get good handheld shots in a theatre/auditorium with this lens, just bump the ISO to 800.


----------



## Dao (Jun 17, 2008)

I believe the 70-200mm f4L is not the replacement of the 50mm f1.8.    But I think if I am going to take an outdoor Portrait shot, I may choose the 70-200mm F4L over the 50mm F1.8.  If I going to take a photo of my daughter running around in a outdoor playground, I may use the 70-200mm F4L because of the USM.   I did use my 50mm F1.8, but a lot of time, it end up the AF is not fast enough.  For the same token, taking a photos of a bird flying  ...  I think 70-200mm F4L is more capable.

Don't get me wrong.  Right now, I still love my 50mm F1.8


----------



## asfixiate (Jun 17, 2008)

I personally would recommend 85 f/1.8 100 f/2.0 and of course 50mm f/1.8. I used it the entire Philadelphia Zoo and was able to zoom in on far away shots with very decent results.

all those L lenses are great but IS is probably goign to be missed with f/4.

There's a guy that is member of this forum who only takes zoo shots.  his website is zoopictures.net or something.  When i think of his name he can probably give you some additional advice.


----------



## Buszaj (Jun 17, 2008)

asfixiate said:


> There's a guy that is member of this forum who only takes zoo shots.  his website is zoopictures.net or something.  When i think of his name he can probably give you some additional advice.



Sabbath999

For zoo shots, I think that the 300mm would give you extra reach for *some*shots, for most of them you may not need the 300mm. And like asfixiate said, even 100mm suffices. Its just that the 70-200 has such good quality for the dollar, you can get the 300mm shot with okay quality, but you can get a very sharp shot with the 200mm, crop it, and get a better result in the end. Not that the 70-300 is completely crap though.


----------



## MDesigner (Jun 17, 2008)

Well, I'm down to either the Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS or the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L USM.  The former has the advantage of being a good value at a great price.  The IQ looks great for the price!

I'm torn..


----------



## Buszaj (Jun 17, 2008)

Yes, but the latter is WHITE, and is an L lens!  Kidding. Pick which ever one you think will suit your needs the best.


----------



## MDesigner (Jun 17, 2008)

I could buy the 70-200 and maybe later sell it to upgrade to the version that has IS.  Hmm..see, I just think the IS will come in handy, but I could be wrong.


----------



## Buszaj (Jun 17, 2008)

Well, I think the handiness of the IS depends on when/what you're going to be shooting. Please describe. Is it only zoo, low light,etc.?


----------



## asfixiate (Jun 17, 2008)

My recommendations are different than your decision you want to make. If its between Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS or the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L USM. I'd go 70-200 in a heartbeat if those are your only choices. I've heard the 55-250 lense is average at best.

Don't forget its not like you're only buying a zoo lens.  Hopefully you're considering all types of photography to make your decision.  The 70-200mm f/4 is great for outdoor sports, portraits, etc.

I like Prime lenses because I don't mind switching.


----------



## Buszaj (Jun 17, 2008)

+1


----------



## sglshotkw (Jun 17, 2008)

I have used the 70-200 f2.8_  and it is a fantastic lense, everything I have read about the 70-200 f4 lense is extremely positive. I think_  would go with the 70-200 f4 because in the long run if you do upgrade the L lense hold there value  and you can usa a monopod or tripod if your worried about not having IS.
One more plus is if your shooting in bright light you can add the 1.4 extender and reach out farther


Good Luck with your choice


----------



## MDesigner (Jun 17, 2008)

OK.. now I'm leaning towards the 70-200 f/4L.   Just tell me it includes a lens hood...


----------



## Mav (Jun 17, 2008)

asfixiate said:


> My recommendations are different than your decision you want to make. If its between Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS or the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L USM. I'd go 70-200 in a heartbeat if those are your only choices. I've heard the 55-250 lense is average at best.


The 55-250 samples posted above look anything but average to me.  Particularly the face shot of the gorilla looks outstanding.  For landscape photos, I think this EF-S 50-250 IS or the 70-300 IS would be a better choice than the 70-200 f/4L non-IS.  IS is far more important for landscape photos than an additional stop of speed.  Depends on what you're shooting though.  The 70-200 f/4L non-IS is a great starter lens for sports photography where IS doesn't really matter.


----------



## Mystwalker (Jun 17, 2008)

MDesigner said:


> Well, I'm down to either the Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS or the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L USM. The former has the advantage of being a good value at a great price. The IQ looks great for the price!
> 
> I'm torn..


 

I've never used a 55-250, but can tell you that you can't go wrong with an "L".  I think you will be paying $500 for 50mm less, no IS, but faster lens - and it has "L" built.

Worst case scenario, you do not like it, you can resell it - "L"s have much better resell value.


----------



## Dao (Jun 17, 2008)

Mystwalker said:


> Worst case scenario, you do not like it, you can resell it - "L"s have much better resell value.




I agree.  Find a good used 70-200mm F4L, buy it for $x.  If I do not like it, most likely I can sell it back for $x ...  or a little less than $x.

Also, I really do not know if the 70-200mm F4L come with a hood or not.  But I am certain that it does not come with the tripod mount.  Maybe it is because the lens is a lot lighter than the IS or F2.8 IS version.  Or, Canon just want to make few bucks more.


----------



## Buszaj (Jun 17, 2008)

Mav said:


> IS is far more important for landscape photos than an additional stop of speed.  Depends on what you're shooting though.  The 70-200 f/4L non-IS is a great starter lens for sports photography where IS doesn't really matter.



What? Its the exact opposite. For landscapes you're using a much wider angle, so IS is not needed. For sports, where long lengths are involved, then its needed. Just look at the lenses, virtually all of the wider lenses do not have IS/VR/OS.


----------



## Josh66 (Jun 17, 2008)

It does come with the hood, but not the tripod mount.


----------



## Buszaj (Jun 17, 2008)

Oh, and the 70-200 does come with a hood, and a carrying pouch. If I'm not mistaken all L lenses come with a hood.


----------



## Dao (Jun 17, 2008)

I just found that the Sigma 70-200mm 1:2.8 EX DG Apo Macro HSM II is also not bad.  

Here are some sample pictures.

http://www.motleypixel.com/reviews/...enfile=sigma_70-200mm_f2.8_ex_dg_macro_01.jpg


----------



## MDesigner (Jun 17, 2008)

Dao said:


> I just found that the Sigma 70-200mm 1:2.8 EX DG Apo Macro HSM II is also not bad.
> 
> Here are some sample pictures.
> 
> http://www.motleypixel.com/reviews/...enfile=sigma_70-200mm_f2.8_ex_dg_macro_01.jpg



At $800, I'd rather spend an extra $200 and get the Canon 70-200mm f/4 L USM IS.

My budget is no more than about $550.



			
				O|||||||O said:
			
		

> It does come with the hood, but not the tripod mount.



How do I know if a tripod mount is necessary or not?  And where do I get one for any particular lens?


----------



## MDesigner (Jun 17, 2008)

PS, let me clarify now that I will hardly EVER be shooting sports or action.  Most likely still life (where I'm not able to get close for whatever reason) and wildlife.  But more often the former than the latter.  I just want a telephoto so I'm covered in case I need to do some reaching.  I AM going to the zoo next month, so there's that..  but I rarely go.


----------



## Dao (Jun 17, 2008)

Just for your information:

In July/August issue of American Photo Magazine, it name the Canon EF-S 55-250 F/4-5.6 IS together with the Tokina AT-X Pro DS AF 11-16mm F/2.8 as Best buy on page 49.



Of course those are not the American Photo Editor's Choice 2008.  But I believe best buy means they are very good for what it cost.


----------



## Senor Hound (Jun 17, 2008)

Buszaj said:


> What? Its the exact opposite. For landscapes you're using a much wider angle, so IS is not needed. For sports, where long lengths are involved, then its needed. Just look at the lenses, virtually all of the wider lenses do not have IS/VR/OS.



I always thought IS to be ideal not for sports or wildlife (cause of the fast subjects, you need a fast shutter speed), but for low-light still motion subjects, or for things where you want to achieve motion blur (waterfall, car, etc.) without blurring the rest of the photo.  Am I wrong in assuming this?

Remember too, that neither the Sigma nor the Tamron 70-200 have IS.  I would personally go with the 55-250.  A lens does not make a good photographer, and the photos you posted show that.  For the price, I would assume it will give you a few years of good service before you outgrow it.  Then again, if you're already really good or shoot things where you feel limited in that respect, you'll only be frustrated with your purchase.

But that's just me.  IMO most people get "better" lenses than they really NEED to be good photographers.  The equipment is great, but we need to remember its not necessary (otherwise all hope is lost for me  ).

Here's a link that may be of assistance...

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0806/08061602tamron70200review.asp


----------



## Mav (Jun 17, 2008)

Buszaj said:


> What? Its the exact opposite. For landscapes you're using a much wider angle, so IS is not needed. For sports, where long lengths are involved, then its needed. Just look at the lenses, virtually all of the wider lenses do not have IS/VR/OS.


You're mistaken.  Landscape photography tends to be either ultra-wide or ultra-long.  It's not just ultra-wide.  For those ultra-long photos where you're shooting still scenes, stabilization makes a huge difference.  For sports you'll typically need a quick enough shutter speed to freeze the action (1/500s or even quicker) that stabilization is never really going to do much for you, aside from assist with panning shots.


----------



## NateWagner (Jun 17, 2008)

well, to be honest I'm a little surprised that the Sigma 70-200 2.8 hasn't come up. It is known to be extremely sharp, has the hypersonic motor so it focuses very quietly, is built like a tank, and can be had used for just a little more than the f4/L. It doesn't have IS, and in lower light definitely needs to be mounted on a tripod, but it is faster than the 4L and much cheaper than the Canon version.


----------



## Rhys (Jun 17, 2008)

f2.8 lenses are nice but too darned heavy, IMHO.


----------



## MDesigner (Jun 17, 2008)

Well, if it's the case that IS comes in handy for hand-held shots at long focal lengths of landscapes, still life, etc., then maybe the 55-250 is the way to go?


----------



## Buszaj (Jun 17, 2008)

Mav said:


> You're mistaken.  Landscape photography tends to be either ultra-wide or ultra-long.  It's not just ultra-wide.  For those ultra-long photos where you're shooting still scenes, stabilization makes a huge difference.  For sports you'll typically need a quick enough shutter speed to freeze the action (1/500s or even quicker) that stabilization is never really going to do much for you, aside from assist with panning shots.



Really? I always thought of landscape shots of being on the wider end of the focal lengths. For sports IS is always handy, those long lengths need it, especially when hand-holding it. They also help with panning. Why is it then that all the teles have IS or VR?


----------



## Dao (Jun 17, 2008)

Buszaj said:


> Really? I always thought of landscape shots of being on the wider end of the focal lengths. For sports IS is always handy, those long lengths need it, especially when hand-holding it. They also help with panning. Why is it then that all the teles have IS or VR?




IS / VR is to compensate camera shake.  Camera shaking will affect the quality of the photo (motion blur) if shutter speed is not fast enough for a given focal length.  And the motion blur effect will increase with longer focal length.  Hence IS / VR come into place.

However, for sport action, the motion blur is not the result of camera shake.  And therefore IS / VR will have no effect on the blur photo.  The only way to Freeze the action is using a faster shutter speed.   So may as well turn the IS / VR off.

But as for wide angle view ...  I really do not know why IS / VR will matter unless light is not enough at the time if taking the photo.


----------



## Rhys (Jun 17, 2008)

I wish I could post photos of the birds I shot today and yesterday. I'll see if I can take a quick trip home to pick up my tripod and either my Windows (hiss) laptop (which has PCMCIA) or my XO Cat5 cable.


----------



## MDesigner (Jun 17, 2008)

OK, I've been thinking about it, and I'm quite sure I want IS in my telephoto.  At least for my first telephoto.  I'm not always going to have my tripod handy.. and I like shooting in not-so-well-lit scenes.  In the case I don't have my tripod with me, it would be nice to switch on IS and hope it works its magic (which I think it will).

So.. Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM vs Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS.  Besides the focal length difference, the 250mm has no USM.. not sure how important that is.

This review of the 55-250mm is interesting:



> I hvae just bought this lense from B&H, this one is very nice, lightweigh, very sharp, bokeh is very smooth at F5.6 / 250mm, IS is amazing. Last year I have bought 70-200 F4L, but after some weeks I have resold it because there is no IS that make it's impossible to take picture inside with or without flash with minimum speed required (1/x max focal lengtth). Image quality of the 55-250 is about 80% of the 70-200F4, The 70-200F4 is a little too much contrast. For the price I think there is no better choice that this 55-250



I'm leaning towards the 55-250mm, mostly due to the great price.  The photos it takes look pretty good.  Keep in mind, I'm a major amateur.  I probably won't want to sink more than $500 into a lens unless I'm at least semi-pro, which I'm not.  Anyway, for roughly $270, the 55-250mm looks good, it has tons of great reviews on both Amazon and B&H.  I'll have to sleep on it for a few days.. I'll post here once I make a decision.


----------



## Dao (Jun 17, 2008)

For taking a picture of a stationary object, I do not think the USM will make a big different.   If you taking a photo of a eagle flying in the sky, I believe (based on what I read and learn), you will have a better result (focusing) with a USM lens.


----------



## Buszaj (Jun 18, 2008)

The USM will help you to focus faster, whether you'll want this will depend on what you're shooting. Low light, might as well go for the IS.





Dao said:


> IS / VR is to compensate camera shake.  Camera shaking will affect the quality of the photo (motion blur) if shutter speed is not fast enough for a given focal length.  And the motion blur effect will increase with longer focal length.  Hence IS / VR come into place.



Yes, that is known.



Dao said:


> However, for sport action, the motion blur is not the result of camera shake.  And therefore IS / VR will have no effect on the blur photo.  The only way to Freeze the action is using a faster shutter speed.   So may as well turn the IS / VR off.



Once again, known. But, when you're handholding for sports, which is very often done (switch from the 400 2.8 to the 70-200 2.8 handheld for example), then its obviously needed. When panning, this also helps.


----------



## Rhys (Jun 18, 2008)

Here you are. Here's an action photo with a 70-300 f4-5.6 IS on a Canon XT.


----------



## sto12m (Jun 19, 2008)

Tele-lens are great stuffs to be owned but sadly, these lens can only be staying in my wish-list for the time being.

Tight in budget and low in photographing skills.

Anyhow, those images post are all great shots!


----------



## MDesigner (Jun 19, 2008)

Thanks for posting that pic, Rhys!  How did you get the exposure set properly on a fast moving object like that, just curious?

Great, now I'm deciding between the 55-250mm and the 70-300mm.


----------



## Rhys (Jun 19, 2008)

MDesigner said:


> Thanks for posting that pic, Rhys!  How did you get the exposure set properly on a fast moving object like that, just curious?
> 
> Great, now I'm deciding between the 55-250mm and the 70-300mm.



I set it to Aperture priority, opened up to f6.3 and shot in RAW so I could change the exposure later if necessary.


----------



## Village Idiot (Jun 19, 2008)

MDesigner said:


> Thanks for posting that pic, Rhys! How did you get the exposure set properly on a fast moving object like that, just curious?
> 
> Great, now I'm deciding between the 55-250mm and the 70-300mm.


 
You sure? Action shot taken with the 70-200 f/2.8L IS. Exif below. They say the 70-200 f/4 is marginally sharper.

*Camera:**Canon EOS 30D*
*Exposure:**0.01 sec (1/100)*
*Aperture:**f/13*
*Focal Length:**153 mm*
*ISO Speed:*250


----------



## MDesigner (Jun 19, 2008)

Rhys said:


> I set it to Aperture priority, opened up to f6.3



To give you a larger DOF in case autofocus was off by a pinch, right?


----------



## MDesigner (Jun 19, 2008)

Village Idiot said:


> You sure? Action shot taken with the 70-200 f/2.8L IS. Exif below. They say the 70-200 f/4 is marginally sharper.



Great shot!  But yeah, I'm sure.  The 70-200 f/2.8L IS is way way out of my budget range!  I'm just a hobbyist.  Won't spend more than $500'ish on a lens at this point in time.


----------



## Village Idiot (Jun 19, 2008)

MDesigner said:


> Great shot! But yeah, I'm sure. The 70-200 f/2.8L IS is way way out of my budget range! I'm just a hobbyist. Won't spend more than $500'ish on a lens at this point in time.


 
That's why I said the 70-200 f/4 is considered marginally sharper than the 70-200 f/2.8 IS.


----------



## MDesigner (Jun 19, 2008)

Woops, sorry, misread.

I've already determined I want IS for sure on my telephoto.  That rules out the 70-200mm f/4L.


----------



## Rhys (Jun 19, 2008)

MDesigner said:


> To give you a larger DOF in case autofocus was off by a pinch, right?


 
That and because lenses are sharper when not used wide open.


----------



## randerson07 (Jun 19, 2008)

I own both a 70-200f/4 and a 75-300 usm IS.

both are wonderful lens, the L is super sharp and creates some wonderfuly smooth background blur.

The 300mm is very useful when shooting wildlife, I often find I want more reach when using my L.  With the IS I can hand hold a shot under 1/125 at 300mm and still get a usable shot.

With the L when zooming to 200 there is no barrel to extend or twist, its all internal, so with a circular polarizer you just put it on and forget it.

With the 75-300 the barrel extends quite a bit and I see that as a week point with enough use, it will wobble im sure. Also when focusing the barrel twists, so with a polarizer you would need to focus, and then adjust.

If I had to choose only one, Id choose the L. The build quality is something you really need to feel to understand. My 70-300 lens is a year old with a load of shots on it and not showing any wear, but its just not build like the L.

Im also able to use either one on my EOS film cam, where if I had that efs lens I could not.


----------



## jg123 (Jun 19, 2008)

randerson07 can you explain a little more about the polarizer and the zoom lens?  I just got my polarizer in the mail today and want to use it on my 55-250


----------



## randerson07 (Jun 19, 2008)

You rotate them on the lens to get them to work right, Ive only toyed with them havent used them extensively.

If on your 55-250 the barrel of the lens rotates as it zooms or focuses you will need to adjust your polarizer as needed after you have locked your focus and zoom, otherwise your polarizer wont be set properly.

Hopefully someone can come in behind me here with more useful info, but thats the gist of it.


----------



## MDesigner (Jun 21, 2008)

PS, check this out

http://tinyurl.com/5vs58v

You can compare the 55-250 and 70-300 at different focal lengths & apertures.  Very cool.  The 70-300 seems sharper in middle focal lengths, but at 300mm, it's not as sharp as the 55-250 at 250mm.

That's an awesome site, btw.


----------



## MDesigner (Jun 22, 2008)

Went with the Canon 55-250mm.  Looked at tons of photos taken on the 55-250mm and the 70-300mm, checked out MTF charts, looked at comparison crops.. plus I wanted something light-weight too and affordable.  So the 55-250 won out in the end.


----------



## scot711 (Jun 22, 2008)

Hi,

this is my first post, so I hope I don't step on anyones toes!

I have the 70-200 canon IS.  Absolutely SUPERB lens!  If it's out of the budget, and I lost mine, I would just keep saving for this lens. Well worth it.

I suppose it depends on what you need.  For wedding, especially receptions, speed matters to me.  I have a 17-40L that's f4, and now I don't like to use it since it is slower.

One thing about the IS, it's much heavier.  And I have to say, it is a feature I rarely use. If I had it over again, I would but the cheaper, lighter non IS version. Especially since it is harder to hold steady a heavier lens.(there must be some trade off with the image stabilization there, right?)

Anyway, better to get what you want than compromise, and end up craving what you could have waited a little longer for.

Good luck!

By the way, I would never buy a variable focus (4 - 5.6) lens, at least not if consistent correct exposure is important. If you shoot in manual, as soon as you change the zoom setting your exposure is off.


----------



## MDesigner (Jun 25, 2008)

Got my 55-250mm in the mail today, totally happy with it!  I like the fact that it's very light-weight.  Image quality is great, and the IS is awesome.. almost eerie  (this is my first IS lens)  Half shutter press, and watch the magic happen..


----------



## asfixiate (Jun 25, 2008)

That's a plastic mount right?


----------



## MDesigner (Jun 25, 2008)

Yep.


----------



## MDesigner (Jun 25, 2008)

BTW, here's how awesome the IS works on this thing.  Both shots are ISO 800, f/5.6, 1/3sec, at 250mm.  100% crops.  First shot is without IS, the second is with IS.  Just so there's no confusion..this is the box for my Tamron lens, not the Canon


----------



## asfixiate (Jun 25, 2008)

were you running in place when you took the first shot?  I have 0 lenses with IS as of now and i can achieve blur free shots.


----------



## MDesigner (Jun 25, 2008)

You must have the hands of a surgeon then!  No.. these shots are at 1/3 at 250mm in low light.  I had my elbow propped against my chest for support, too (and I was sitting).


----------



## asfixiate (Jun 25, 2008)

Depending on nerves, health issues, etc there is a way to hold a camera that will give most support.  I prefer prime lenses to begin with but I have slow a$$ kit lenses and I achieve great results.

Its amazing what a flash can do for shots.


----------



## MDesigner (Jun 25, 2008)

asfixiate said:


> there is a way to hold a camera that will give most support.



I'd like to hear about it, I'm always looking for helpful tips!


----------



## asfixiate (Jun 25, 2008)

First thing I do is instead of putting strap around neck only I put it around my shoulder. Imagine this backslash as the strap / starting at your left side of waist and going to your right shoulder.

This keeps the camera closer to my body as well as allows elbows to be tucked easier.


----------



## MDesigner (Jun 25, 2008)

Good idea..thanks!


----------



## asfixiate (Jun 25, 2008)

Not a problem.  Its what works for me.  I'm heading out but will be back on forum tomorrow...cya all.


----------

