EF 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS question

Background

I have the EF-S 17-85mm f4-5.6 IS USM lens which I use on a canon 30D. I have found this lens very useful as I spend lots of time in museums and art galleries when I travel. I am very attracted to the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM lens which would be even better for museums. However, there would be quite a few occasions where I would miss the extra range of the 17-85 lens. I am considering replacing the 17-85 lens with both the 17-55 and the EF 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS lenses

Question

For the range of 55 to 85mm how would the quality of the 55-250 lens compare to the 17-85IS? Aside from the nuisance of changing lens, would there be any noticeable difference in using the 55-250 lens instead of the 17-85 lens for the overlapping range?

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_55250_456is/index.htm
Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS - Photozone Lens Test Report / Review

That review has some good answers for you I think.

Hi,

I own the 17-85IS, a lens which made me understand the benefits of IS !!

Yes, I also know that large aperture are good (I love my 50mm 1.8) but sometimes IS is unvaluable ! My main subject is my 15 monthes old daugther, and I appreciate both (large aperture and IS) for low light.

Large apertures are cool but ultra narrow depth of field is not always what we want... then IS is here.

I juste received the 55-250 IS which is incredible for the price ! I did a very quick comparison test under very bad conditions, at 55mm, with the 55-250 at f4 and 17-85 at f5.6, and sharpness was comparable to my eyes ! And there was less CA / purple fringe on the 55-250.

I think that for image quality, the 55-250 will be at least as good as the 17-85 from 55 to 85, with the benefit of larger apertures (I don't know precisely, but right now I am manipulating the zoom, and it says the following:
55mm: f4 then just at 70mm: f4.5 then 100mm f5 and a bit above 135 f5.6)

The real difference would be... the USM... the 17-85 has many drawbacks, but wow, it focuses soo fast !! The 55-250 is not exactly quick, it won't be suited for sports/action.

But I love it so far ! And really light. Excellent value for the money I think.

something I forgot: the 55-250 has another small drawback: minimum focus distance is 1.1 meters !

So I am very happy with my 17-85 / 55-250 combo, the overlap adds some comfort !

Also, I am surprised to see that 85mm on the 17-85 leads to an image that is slighty less "zoomed" than 70mm on the 55-250...

and I checked the Exifs, they confirm that I was at 85 and 70...
The focus distance was around 1,50meters I would say...

Any explanation ?

EDIT: I just tried with my old 75-300, results are similar to 55-250... meaning that at 75mm, the image looks really more "zoomed in" than my 17-85 at 85mm (at least for objects not too far, around 2 meters...)

it seems to be so common here...

next time I won't take the time to write detailed answers !

Happy new year anyway !

Cedric Simon said:

it seems to be so common here...

next time I won't take the time to write detailed answers !

Happy new year anyway !

Click to expand...

Don't be discouraged. I appreciate the response. I'm looking at the 55-250 as well. My main concern is the focus speed. Ring type USM would make this a perfect lens in my opinion.

husky91 said:

Don't be discouraged. I appreciate the response. I'm looking at the
55-250 as well. My main concern is the focus speed. Ring type USM
would make this a perfect lens in my opinion.

Click to expand...

the AF speed is VERY fast in good light. It's as fast as a ring usm. Trust me it is fast. It does not hunt. No hesitation. And the AF is as silent as micro usm, not micro motor at all such as the 50 f1.8 mk-II. I've tried focusing from 20ft to infinity and vice versa and it is fast in good light.

But when there is poor contrast, or it is dark, that's the time it racks focus. Then it is slow. So, if you know the conditions where it is slow, avoid it. Using the latest camera also helps. I have no doubt that this lens will work better with the 40d than a 20d or a 400d. My 400d focuses this lens better than my 20d.

I still have to try it, but my guess is that I can fairly use this in a soccer game with relatively success. Not a 100-400L, but I think it will be good enough.

--
--------------------

• Caterpillar

'Always in the process of changing, growing, and transforming.'

caterpillar said:

the AF speed is VERY fast in good light. It's as fast as a ring usm.
Trust me it is fast. It does not hunt. No hesitation. And the AF is
as silent as micro usm, not micro motor at all such as the 50 f1.8
mk-II. I've tried focusing from 20ft to infinity and vice versa and
it is fast in good light.

But when there is poor contrast, or it is dark, that's the time it
racks focus. Then it is slow. So, if you know the conditions where it
is slow, avoid it. Using the latest camera also helps. I have no
doubt that this lens will work better with the 40d than a 20d or a
400d. My 400d focuses this lens better than my 20d.

I still have to try it, but my guess is that I can fairly use this in
a soccer game with relatively success. Not a 100-400L, but I think it
will be good enough.

Click to expand...

That's great to hear. The only sports I would use it for are outdoor sports where I'll need fast shutter so presumably good light. I have a 400d as well.

I agree with Caterpillar. The IS also helps.

I saw two small dogs chasing each other and I found them funny so I took the camera out of the bag and took this shot. I expected handshake or misfocus since I did it in a hurry with no look at camera settings (P mode btw), at least that would have been probably the result with my prev sigma 55-200, but surprisingly the shot came in focus and no handshake, light was also not that good (under the trees)

Canon EOS 30D
1/200s f/6.3 at 135.0mm iso200



--
Antonio
http://www.pbase.com/antonio_2