no
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
55-250mm vs 70-200mm L at 200mm
- Thread starter FJG3
- Start date
Here the respective advantages:
70-200/4L IS: slightly sharper and better contrast, better build quality, USM/FTM focus, constant f-stop and slightly faster, full frame, not extending
55-250: longer zoom range at both ends, much better maximum magnification, much sharper close to MM, less loss of focal length at close focus distance, smaller and lighter
The 55-250 is an excellent lens and it is easy to find advantages compared to the L, irrespective of price. The $1000 savings are an additional bonus.
70-200/4L IS: slightly sharper and better contrast, better build quality, USM/FTM focus, constant f-stop and slightly faster, full frame, not extending
55-250: longer zoom range at both ends, much better maximum magnification, much sharper close to MM, less loss of focal length at close focus distance, smaller and lighter
The 55-250 is an excellent lens and it is easy to find advantages compared to the L, irrespective of price. The $1000 savings are an additional bonus.
Is a ten Deutsche Mark bill also OK?
The bare 70-200 was shot from correspondingly closer. All areof course from tripod, MLU, live view focusing, best of several selected.
jitteringjr
Veteran Member
Are you compairing the bare L or the TC one or both? I am surprized by how much image softness there is with the 2x TC. But the bare L is clearly a lot sharper to my eyes.
Thanks for posting Matt
These are 100% crops from a 60D. On a 5D2 the TC effect would be smaller at 100%.
Yes at f/5.6 the difference is pretty big. However, this is the cheap lens wide open compared to the L stopped down two stops. At f/7.1 the L is still better but IMO they are suprisingly close. The main advantage of the L is always better contrast.
fmian
Veteran Member
I understand people do different things with their images, and I mean no disrespect, but I feel seeing it at 200-400% is more suitable if you want to consider large format printing. ie anything bigger than 8x10in.
Also keep in mind that most of us are viewing them on 72dpi monitors as opposed to the approx 300dpi prints that can be output from our consumer grade printers. So we are seeing them at roughly 2-4x more dot density with a $200 A4 printer.
I think the only reason people compare 100% crops online is to keep results consistent.
the creditability of the test is reduced by:
1, shots were taken at iso800, which already kills of some details
2, shots were taken at very small aperture, way pas optimal resolution for both lenses and diffraction limit of 7D
as to the claim of this test shows there isnt 1000 dollars worth of difference, the problem this test presence are:
3, shots were not taken at maximum aperture, a strong selling feature of 70-200L is max aperture IQ, in comparason 55-250 needs stop down to get good IQ
4, subject was static, another important selling feature of 70-200L is af speed.
and there are yet more to 70-200L:
5, max aperture is 1 stop faser than 55-250
6, non extending barrel
70-200L isnt the best value L tele zoom, but it isnt crap in the presence of 55-250. what I think is pretty crap is 17-40 when compared to 18-55 IS.
The roof tiles are considerably sharper and the venetian blinds behind the window are much more clearly defined. That's probably where he is seeing it. And you have to remember, that a constant aperture zoom, being larger, will almost always be more expensive to produce than a variable aperture zoom.
mmullen
Veteran Member
It is not necessary to use charts and graphs to determine which lens is better for taking photos. Just go use them for taking actual photos. This little dog had just escaped from it's owners and was taking a unauthorized romp through a new and exciting field. I had one chance to get the shot as it sped right by me. Don't let it's small size fool you - it's a fast little dog and I had to wait until he was right upon me to trigger the shutter (even at 200mm).
f/4 200mm 1/2500 sec
f/4 200mm 1/2500 sec
I was glad I had a lens with fast and accurate USM AF which produced two memorable shots that can be printed large enough to grace a good sized wall. I took the owners e-mail and sent them the results. They were very grateful.
So you are right that a lens is much more than it's showing on charts or graphs (or it's ability to shoot a still life with good sharpness).
Do you think I would have had similar results if I had the 55-250 instead of the 70-200?
--
Mike Mullen
JackM
Veteran Member
f/5.6 is going to give a shutter speed half as fast as f/4, regardless of focal length, assuming the same ISO and an evenly lit scene. End of story.
you mean making the owners of the dog happy with your shot of their dog running towards you?
of course....
look L lens are great, no questions, people who drink bottled foreign beer enjoy their beverage, others buy local tap beer.
having cheaper glass in certain circles will not make you look professional!
we all know the drill...
some care for it, others don't give a s........
mmullen
Veteran Member
No. I mean achieving shots in which the small, fast moving subject is in sharp focus at close range. Maybe some don't care if the shot is in focus but I do.
--
Mike Mullen
it is a great shot..
but how do you know the 55-250m couldn't take the same shot?
you will never know unless you revisit those conditions.
mmullen
Veteran Member
fmian
Veteran Member
A non USM lens would have fallen over backwards trying to perform in those conditions. The dogs tail would have been in focus.
The only way to make a 55-250 take a shot like this without 100:1 pot luck is to master manual focus and learn to anticipate the moment.
When I went and used my 55-250 for taking actual photos of hummingbirds I found it to be a much better lens than the 70-200L... ;-)
I agree with you that the L is better for fast moving subjects. Just be careful with general claims "which lens is better for taking photos".
I never said this is wrong. I said it is unfair to conveniantly ignore the longer FL of the 55-250. You may be able for example to use the 55-250 at higher ISO to get a similar shutter speed. The longer FL will result in more subject resolution allowing more noise reduction.
JackM
Veteran Member
You seemed to say the f/4L is less than 1/3 stop faster.
Given the 55-250's performance at 250mm, I'd much rather use a 70-200/4L at 200mm, f/4, half the ISO, and then crop to simulate that last 50mm. I'll enjoy better sharpness and IQ due to both the lens, and the lower ISO. Or if I use the same ISO, I can use twice the shutter speed
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=104&Camera=452&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=456&CameraComp=452&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=1 .
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum