Did you read this entire thread? I think it is pretty clear that he prefers the Canon 55-200. At least that is what I gathered after reading all of it.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Canon 55-200USM-II - the New "Pocket Rocket" ?
- Thread starter Adam-T
- Start date
Adam-T
Forum Pro
Difficult, it depends on what you have - I like the Canon 55-200 because its fast(ish) focussing and great across the whoe frame full frame But i DO have a 100-400L for long stuff, the 70-300APO is a good buy and usable at the long end wide open
--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist
--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist
Thanks Adam -- I appreciate your input and it makes me feel better about my decision. I ended up going with the 70-300 Sigma (APO SM II) for it's extended reach and macro cabability. I'm just starting out with the d20 (but not to photography), so I wanted a couple of decent quality "entry-level" lenses.
Amy
Amy
I am just in the market for exactly this to complement my 18-55 kit and 50mm 1.8.
Can I just check this is the 55-200 4.5-5.6 II (52mm) that I've seen at £149 new? Also, I've seen the canon 80-200 4.5-5.6 at £89! Is this the 'pocket rocket'?
I have a 300d so am thinking the 55-200 is a more usable range, but I wonder if paying half the price for the 80-200 is a good option. If I understood the thread correctly, you do seem to rate the 55-200 more highly as well though.....
Can I just check this is the 55-200 4.5-5.6 II (52mm) that I've seen at £149 new? Also, I've seen the canon 80-200 4.5-5.6 at £89! Is this the 'pocket rocket'?
I have a 300d so am thinking the 55-200 is a more usable range, but I wonder if paying half the price for the 80-200 is a good option. If I understood the thread correctly, you do seem to rate the 55-200 more highly as well though.....
Adam - thanks for this review. I just got my 55-200 this morning, from Warehouse Express for £149, and it looks great. I just did some quick shots indoors on my tripod and am very impressed. I agree it looks a little cheap etc but the pictures are crisp, sharp and the focusing is quick and accurate. I also love this range on the 300d. The size means it will definitely do some miles with me.
Its easy to get swept up in L fever and I was certainly guilty of this - looking at lenses way above my level and am very glad you inspired me to get the 55-200 to compliment my kit lens and 50mm 1.8. I now have a great range thats fits my needs perfectly, at reasonable cost and is plenty for me to practise my art with. With the spare I bought a decent tripod and no doubt this will prove one of the best investments of all.....
I'll get some pics this weekend and post them when I get somewhere to host them.
Its easy to get swept up in L fever and I was certainly guilty of this - looking at lenses way above my level and am very glad you inspired me to get the 55-200 to compliment my kit lens and 50mm 1.8. I now have a great range thats fits my needs perfectly, at reasonable cost and is plenty for me to practise my art with. With the spare I bought a decent tripod and no doubt this will prove one of the best investments of all.....
I'll get some pics this weekend and post them when I get somewhere to host them.
I've wanted a compact sharp little 50/55-200mm lens for the EOS
mount for some time after a brief time with the Sigma SD9 and
55-200DC as the Sigma lens is superb - the problem is that I ALWAYS
have a camera which has larger than 1.6X Cropped sensor (1D then
1DS) so the superb Sigma is a no go and I had to make do with the
80-200mm range and the lovely little 80-200 F4.5-5.6-II "pocket
Rocket"-
I used the original plastic mount 55-200USM (the one which
partnered the 22-55USM for the IX cameras) and it wasn't exactly
"soft" but was very dreamy wide open, suffered CA and AF was hit
and miss even on EOSes which could focus on what you aimed them at
(read D60 or 1-series) so ignored it.. When the 300D was released,
two new lenses were released, teh 18-55 "Dog toy" EF-S and the
matching 55-200USM II which is full frame and same glass / mount as
the original BUT has improved coatings for use on Digital cameras,
improved AF algorithms (though going by the original 55-200, that
wasn't hard), faster AF drive and new "Dog Toy" looks (a downer
from the original) - a mint Boxed used one appeared at my lens
dealer so I thought I'd give it a go to see if those lens coatings
and AF improvements fixed the original.
1DS used, ISO320 due to lousy misty weather shot wide open and hope
for the best.. ALL I wanted was the same sharpness as the 80-200-II
but stretched out to 55mm but I wasn't expecting what I got..
Sheesh man, this thing is sharper than the damn Sigma 55-200DC wide
open! from end to end across the frame - I kid you not..... it Vigs
a bit on the 1DS at 55mm but it's easily livewithable - also every
shot was bang on (after taking my 1DS's slight rear focussing into
consideration - I'll have to get that fixed ;-) ..
so it's actually sharper than the cheapo 80-200-II at 200mm (some
feat for a cheap lens) and noticably sharper at 55mm than the
Rocket is at 80. I've only taken preliminary shots in lousy rainy
weather at ISO320 but at 200mm F5.6 it seems to match the old
100-300L** for SHARPNESS though I doubt the contrast will be
anywhere near as good and easily beats the 70-210 F3.5-4.5 USM for
everything bar AF speed, it certainly is less CA Prone than the
faster Ring USM Zoom... Quite a suprise, I've not shot it in good
weather yet or tested for flare but will post back should the sun /
sky come out to play if anyone is interested
55-200 USM II Pros ...
Sharper wide open than the 80-200 F4.5-5.6 or 70-210 F3.5-4.5 USM
.- even sharper than the Superb Sigma 55-200DC..
doesn't have a "one end of the zoom or the other" sharpness bias
like the 80-200 or the 70-210USM, it's equally sharp at both ends.
Light and compact
As Fast as Micro USM Gets in AF (a bit faster than the 80-200 Non USM)
Accurate AF
Very resilient to CA and dreaminess from what I can tell unlike the
90-300
Close focussing dist of 1.2m as opposed to 1.5m
cheap 52mmm Filters
Full Frame....
55-200 USM Cons
Not exactly Cheap (Camera world in the UK have the best deals
though), especially compared to the 80-200 version which can be had
for £50 used..
2cm longer than the 80-200 and bigger than the Sigma too
Vignettes a bit full frame at 55mm
Same Dog-Toy styling as the 18-55-EFS and the awful Mk2 versions of
the 28-90 and 28-105 F4-5.6
100% Wide open Crops from the 1DS shot RAW, the 55mm ones are all
taken from ONE scene which is supplied as a resized image - ISO320
in rain and mist (hence no contrast or real colour) the 200 ones
are from 2 different scenes
--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist
Sigma Zoom Normal-Telephoto 55-200mm f/4-5.6 DC Autofocus
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=335761&is=USA
Sigma Zoom Telephoto 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO Zoom Macro Super II Autofocus
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=163657&is=REG
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=335761&is=USA
Sigma Zoom Telephoto 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO Zoom Macro Super II Autofocus
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=163657&is=REG
Adam-T
Forum Pro
the great thing is that you can upgrade your camera or add a film body fully knowing that it'll perform decently wide open on whatever you get (up to a 1DS anyway, the 1DS2 may be pushing it) , the excellent Sigma 55-200 is tied to 1.6X and the EFS stuff is tied to 2 cameras at present.
Even if you DO get a 70-200L IS or whatever, the 55-200 will always come in handly for those times when you just want a Tele lens with you and don't want to lug the L - another coat pocket wonder like the 80-200
..--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist
mungozan
Senior Member
..for choosing 90-300 over 55-200 USM.. Alhough at the time, I didn´t stumble across this thread :-(
Although at the store 55-200 seemed very soft.. And I´m not sure if it was I or II..
Thank you all for great info on this thread! I know which lens I want to supplement my long end next.. 55-200 is almost perfect range and compliments 17-40 really well..
rgds,
mungozan
Adam-T wrote:
--
Equipment list on profile.
http://www.pbase.com/mungo
http://www.mungofoto.tk
Although at the store 55-200 seemed very soft.. And I´m not sure if it was I or II..
Thank you all for great info on this thread! I know which lens I want to supplement my long end next.. 55-200 is almost perfect range and compliments 17-40 really well..
rgds,
mungozan
Adam-T wrote:
--
Equipment list on profile.
http://www.pbase.com/mungo
http://www.mungofoto.tk
I have both and I'm gonna sell 550200.
Just imagine the bad lighting condition, you have already increased the ISO,
and let's say the camera suggests you to use F4 and 1/200s on "L" lens.
If you use 55-200 there is no way to to achive the comparable results in this lighting conditions unless you use TRIPOD and the following exposure settings: F8 and 1/50s .
Just imagine the bad lighting condition, you have already increased the ISO,
and let's say the camera suggests you to use F4 and 1/200s on "L" lens.
If you use 55-200 there is no way to to achive the comparable results in this lighting conditions unless you use TRIPOD and the following exposure settings: F8 and 1/50s .
JNB199155
Well-known member
Canon 55-200USM-II vs 28-135 IS in same range?
For Adam or anyone else who has both these lenses, I would be appreciative of any opinions about how these two compare in the 55-135 range.
I've often thought that there might be a place for a 50-135/150L for 1.6x bodies (an approximate equivalent of 80-200). The 50-200L seems to be quite rare. I might consider the 55-200-II if it were at least as good as the 28-135 in the same range.
--
http://www.pbase.com/burnettjn
For Adam or anyone else who has both these lenses, I would be appreciative of any opinions about how these two compare in the 55-135 range.
I've often thought that there might be a place for a 50-135/150L for 1.6x bodies (an approximate equivalent of 80-200). The 50-200L seems to be quite rare. I might consider the 55-200-II if it were at least as good as the 28-135 in the same range.
--
http://www.pbase.com/burnettjn
Adam-T
Forum Pro
I haven't got the two to compare but I'm pretty sure that the 55-200 is at least on a par optically but of course doesn't have IS
--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist
--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist
I say old friend, how would the 55-200II stack up against the 70-200F4? Well the reason I ask is because my 70-200IS is starting to become somewhat cumbersome as a walkaround tele.
1. It's heavy! My left arm can't stop trembling after a 30 minute session with it and people think I'm either a nervous wreck or I need my injections.
2. It attracts too much attention. NO PRO PHOTOGRAPHY ALLOWED!! That sort of thing.
I was thinking about the F4 for some time now although it's still white. Now the Pocket Rocket sounds fantastic and less than half the price of the 70-200F4. But how far apart are they in image quality?
1. It's heavy! My left arm can't stop trembling after a 30 minute session with it and people think I'm either a nervous wreck or I need my injections.
2. It attracts too much attention. NO PRO PHOTOGRAPHY ALLOWED!! That sort of thing.
I was thinking about the F4 for some time now although it's still white. Now the Pocket Rocket sounds fantastic and less than half the price of the 70-200F4. But how far apart are they in image quality?
I have both lenses, and the 28-105/3.5-4.5 USM is no match for the 55-200. I second Adam's review. The 55-200 is very sharp open, whereas the 28-105 is not really sharp below f=8. I love the 55-200 for its light weight and image quality. The 70-200/4 L lens is of course somewhat better, but not too much (it has definitely less CA than the 55-200, however, with the 55-200, CA, though noticeably, is quite well controlled and not really a big problem). Just my 0.02$...
--
Gabi
http://www.gabis-galleries.com/
JNB199155
Well-known member
Thank-you Adam. That's encouraging, and it makes the 55-200 a much better bargain for my intended use, which is to fill from the 17-40 up to 135mm.
--
http://www.pbase.com/burnettjn
Eric Chi
Senior Member
Robert,
Great color with the Sigma. Remind me of my Velvia days. I never use a Sigma before. The color just stands out!
Hi Adam,
How is the Canon MKII stand colorwise? Is it as constrasty and vivid?
Thanks.
Eric.
Great color with the Sigma. Remind me of my Velvia days. I never use a Sigma before. The color just stands out!
Hi Adam,
How is the Canon MKII stand colorwise? Is it as constrasty and vivid?
Thanks.
Eric.
Adam-T
Forum Pro
It's fine in both repspects, no 80-200L of course
--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist
Eric Chi
Senior Member
Thanks.
Eric.
Eric.
It's fine in both repspects, no 80-200L of course
--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist
geoffballinger
Well-known member
Here is an example taken recently with my new Canon 55-200 MKII (thanks for the suggestion Adam!). 100% crop of the original frame and a little USM. I am sure others have many better examples???
Am hoping for many more like this as the weather improves!
Geoff.
Adam-T
Forum Pro
Damn Birds can't keep still can they ;-).. have Fun Geoff
Here is a resize with a 100% Crop inset on the bottom right, You may have seen it in a previous post but it does show that you've got a Pocket Telezoom for LIFE as it's from the 1DS
--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist
Here is a resize with a 100% Crop inset on the bottom right, You may have seen it in a previous post but it does show that you've got a Pocket Telezoom for LIFE as it's from the 1DS
--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum