Comparing EF-S 55-250mm STM vs EF 70-200mm f/4L pictures

JPG straight from 70D. iso 100. Focus on house in the middle.

Ef-s 55-250 STM 250mm F 5.6

Ef-s 55-250 STM 200mm

Ef-70-200 f/4L

Conclusion: It is better to take picture at 200mm with EF 70-200mm f/4L and crop the picture to look the same as picture taken with EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM at 250mm

Sorry for the last image. Can't remove it.

EXIF?  Difference in exposure appears greater than the diff in resolution.

The little IS lens is going to be preferred when shooting hand-held with shutter speeds longer than 1/200.

IMHO, YMMV

Next time I am gonna make sure the shutter speed is the same.
Comparing these pictures here in 100% details the Ef-s 55-250mm stm lens seems to have little bit more details in dead center of the image at 250mm than the Ef 70-200 L at 200mm .But when you move from the centre of the image Ef 70-200 f/4 L beats it.

Gudmundur wrote:

Next time I am gonna make sure the shutter speed is the same.
Comparing these pictures here in 100% details the Ef-s 55-250mm stm lens seems to have little bit more details in dead center of the image at 250mm than the Ef 70-200 L at 200mm .But when you move from the centre of the image Ef 70-200 f/4 L beats it.

When you do that, show us how to make the wide end of the 70-200 look like the wide end of the 55-250.

jvceac wrote:

Gudmundur wrote:

Next time I am gonna make sure the shutter speed is the same.
Comparing these pictures here in 100% details the Ef-s 55-250mm stm lens seems to have little bit more details in dead center of the image at 250mm than the Ef 70-200 L at 200mm .But when you move from the centre of the image Ef 70-200 f/4 L beats it.

When you do that, show us how to make the wide end of the 70-200 look like the wide end of the 55-250.

Easy . You crop the wide end of the 55-250 to match the wide end of the 70-200 

I use both an SL1 and a 6D, and both the 55-250 and the 70-200 f4 L (IS version), depending on what I'm doing.

I use the SL1 if I'm traveling light, or if I need maximum reach. On the SL1 I find the two zooms pretty equal in the center but the L lens is noticeably sharper away from center. So, I use the L lens when possible, but don't hesitate to use the 55-250 in certain situations. For example, I'm going on a family trip to NYC in July and will take the SL1 with 55-250 instead of the L lens for the extra reach and reduced weight and bulk.

Note: The 70-200 is noticeably sharper on the 6D than on the SL1, so that's my best IQ combo.

Same aperture and shutter speed.

Crop

L series lenses have higher quality, sharper pictures. They are heavier and more expensive.
STM lenses are good for video.

For the 55-250 you need to do the Canon lens corrections, especially the chromatic aberration correction. Then you should find the performance much closer.

The 70-200 also performs extremely poorly at 55mm.

Did you focus in LiveView or through the viewfinder?

ThrillaMozilla wrote:

For the 55-250 you need to do the Canon lens corrections, especially the chromatic aberration correction. Then you should find the performance much closer.

You can do the same for 70-200 too.

The 70-200 also performs extremely poorly at 55mm.

you mean at 70mm?

The 70-200 also performs extremely poorly at 55mm.

you mean at 70mm?

I think this was just a tongue in cheek remark reminding that in comparing the two lenses, the 70-200 will not cover the 55-70 range

The 70-200 looks better, especially on the borders.

HosseinG wrote:

ThrillaMozilla wrote:

For the 55-250 you need to do the Canon lens corrections, especially the chromatic aberration correction. Then you should find the performance much closer.

You can do the same for 70-200 too.

Of course you can, but if you do it for the 55-250, you might be surprised at how good the results are. It won't match an L lens, but it is a heck of a lot lighter, and your wallet will be a heck of a lot heavier.

You can do the same for 70-200 too.

Yes, but if there is near nothing to correct there is near no point in doing so.

I think that the L lens philosophy is "the best image that the lens can deliver to you"

While the "Consumer" system philosophy is "the best image that a digatl processing can give you"

I think that everybody is ok with the fact that an L lens HAVE to be better than a consumer one and i am also OK with the fact that for a prowork you need "the best image that the lens can deliver to you" but the result of the 55-250 STMis at least remarkable in its ballpark. Especially compared to other comsumer lenses.

ThrillaMozilla wrote:

For the 55-250 you need to do the Canon lens corrections, especially the chromatic aberration correction. Then you should find the performance much closer.

The 70-200 also performs extremely poorly at 55mm.

Canon Ef-s 55-250 stm is a much better lens than you give it credit for.

Taken from DXOMARK  https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Canon/Canon-EF-S-55-250mm-F4-56-IS-STM-mounted-on-Canon-EOS-7D-Mark-II---Measurements__977

Maximum lateral chromatic aberration vs focal length and aperture
Canon Canon EF S 55 250mm F4 56 IS STM on Canon EOS 7D Mark II

Chromatic aberration correction won't do much for the performance of this lens at all.

Gudmundur wrote:

ThrillaMozilla wrote:

For the 55-250 you need to do the Canon lens corrections, especially the chromatic aberration correction. Then you should find the performance much closer.

The 70-200 also performs extremely poorly at 55mm.

Canon Ef-s 55-250 stm is a much better lens than you give it credit for.

I actually wrote that you might be surprised at how good this lens is.

Chromatic aberration correction won't do much for the performance of this lens at all.

It is pretty good for chromatic aberration, but if you look at the posted photos, there is some visible lateral chromatic aberration. Fortunately, it's quite easy to correct for in software or in camera.  If you haven't already done it, it might improve the images further.  For another few hundred dollars the L lens is a heavier but better lens.