Getting What You Pay For

photonius wrote:

beagle1 wrote:

Generally speaking, you get what you pay for. This lens definitely falls into the "cheap thrills" category. But I have to say, I was not disappointed for its price.

I think the original 55-250 at $50 (cropped) is better than those pics !

but sometimes you don't (quite) get what you paid for !

That is probably true. Reminds me I wanted to do a shoot-out at some point. I have a Tamron 500mm mirror f8, and a 55-250 IS (mark I). The convenience of AF and IS of the 55-250 beats the mirror lenses in day to day use anyway. And the 55-250 does 1:3 as well. Many of Canon's bigger lenses don't have such good minimal focus distances. The 100-400 II now has also good close-focusing capability with about 1:3, so minimal focus distance is also not an issue with 55-250 or 100-400 lenses.

I would love to see the results of that shootout!

I also agree that from a day to day handling standpoint almost any conventional lens beats the mirror. This test was on how the lens behaves in my typical "ad-hoc" walkabout style. This is not the lens for spontaneous street shooting.

There is something to be said, however, about needing that extra thought and planning in order to extract even reasonable imagery that triggers a different kind of creativity. If I were going to a venue that lent itself to a tripod and more considered shots, this lens might have acquitted itself admirably.