55-250 IS sample shots

Picked up the lens this morning and fired off a few shots for the curious. These were all taken with a UV filter on and a hood, except for the first shot of Rottnest Island which was done without a hood (for comparison). IS was on and all shots are handheld, the camera is a 400D, and they are all at 250mm. The RAW conversion was done in Aperture but I haven't tweaked the photos in any way, I just let Aperture do its thing, including the JPEG conversion for upload to flickr.

It feels better constructed than the kit 18-55 (non IS), but not by a long way. It's a lot less solid than the 17-55 IS. Focusing speed is OK, but it does seem to hunt a bit at long focal lengths.

The surf club is about 60 metres away, the starfish is about 4 metres away, and Rottnest Island is about 18 kilometres away.

Starfish:



Surf club signage:



Surf club chairs:



Rottnest (without hood):



Rottnest (with hood):

Thanks!
--
Peter Chung

Thanks!... Looks like the UV filter does degrade the image quite a bit. The one without the filter looks pretty sharp. (at least in comparison)
--

• Lars

Lars_J said:

Thanks!... Looks like the UV filter does degrade the image quite a
bit. The one without the filter looks pretty sharp. (at least in
comparison)

Click to expand...

The one "without the hood" I think you mean.

Wow, the first user pics posted here, and all are done WITH a UV filter?!?! Well, at least the OP didn't omit that little factoid... ;-)

--
-CW

Well, they're all with a filter, just one without a hood. There's a lot of UV here in Perth!

Chez Wimpy said:

Wow, the first user pics posted here, and all are done WITH a UV
filter?!?! Well, at least the OP didn't omit that little factoid...
;-)

Click to expand...

I didn't really imagine it'd make much difference for these kinds of shots, and should actually improve the rottnest shots. Would you like some without a filter? Weather should be the same tomorrow...

I have just reciently purchased one just to test.
Canon EF-S 55-250mm IS
See the link below.

Most of the shots have the dog's nose as the focal point except for the 2 portrait shots where the focal point is the eye. You can see that some of the images are under exposed. That's because I did not want to do any post processing. Also the images are full size taken with a 40D As you can see the lens is capable of sharp images. The auto focus is not super fast but is on par with the Sigma 18-50mm ex dg. And the real surprise for me was it did not hunt in low light as much as I thought it would. And the IS is very effective as you can see from the hand heald shot at 250mm 1/15th of a second 4 stops !! (the second photo from the top).

All in all a fine lens for the price. Maybe too good considering my 300mm f/4L prime doesn't have as good an IS system as this lens.

http://home.comcast.net/~mertmagphoto/site/?/photos/

some more...

http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?p=3615616

mattclark04 said:

Well, they're all with a filter, just one without a hood. There's
a lot of UV here in Perth!

Click to expand...

It is generally believed that for digital SLRs UV only serve for lens protection and make no difference (ideally, a cheap filter may affect quality) for the actual image.
--
Misha

one more sample,
focus on corner, no pp, distance 15 m.

Have one coming from Canada.

Any comments on vignetting? Does it occur only wide open? How about at f6.7? Based on Photozone.de review, am thinking I will shoot only at f6.7 or f8 & higher to avoid time consuming photo-by-photo post-shooting vignette correcting.
--
Regards, JG
Career bumpersticker:
don't slow down for learning curves, avoid them

http://www.flickr.com/photos/drobm/2130374063/
--
canonxti,60macro,24> 105,55> 250