Those who have 55-200, was it worth getting the 55-250?

jackwelch wrote:

DerGuator wrote:

I already had the 55-200 when I bought the 55-250. I only bought it because I wanted a compact super-tele lens and I saw here on the forums how some folks were using it with a 1.4x extender.

For normal use I prefer the 55-200 though because it's a native lens and therefore so much smaller.

That extender is quite pricey where I'm at, I too also thought about getting one, but at nearly $200, it's like buying a new lens. I would prefer to put that money into something like the tamron 100-400mm or sigma 150-600mm.

Or even this ef-s 55-250mm STM

And you're right, who knows 1 year down the road someone might want to sell his kenko 1.4x teleplus hd cheaply so it would be cool to pair it with the 55-250mm STM.

You can find older EF 1.4 Kenko teleplus extenders on ebay for a lot less than $200. You then just need to follow Larry Rexley's instructions to remove the pcb from the inside and then you have a sharp 77-350 setup. That gives you a full-frame equivalent of 560m at the long end, which is capable for wildlife etc. A worthwhile investment in my opinion. I have a 2X extender made by Larry, but the 1.4X is the easier conversion. You'll need an EF rear mount plate conversion for the lens as well. They can also be found on ebay.

55-250 + Rexley-Kiron 2X extender

jackwelch wrote:

So just out of curiosity, for those that have the ef-m 55-200mm, was it worth getting the ef-s 55-250mm STM?

I can get one for $170 new and this is pretty much the best price you'll see in Malaysia.

Would love to hear your experience

I have both.

I like the EF-S, but I love the EF-M. I’m going to keep both.

Has anyone compared either the 55-200 or 55-250 to the EF 70-200 f/4 on an M body, perhaps the M6II?

jackwelch wrote:

User1303423862 wrote:

jackwelch wrote:

DerGuator wrote:

I already had the 55-200 when I bought the 55-250. I only bought it because I wanted a compact super-tele lens and I saw here on the forums how some folks were using it with a 1.4x extender.

For normal use I prefer the 55-200 though because it's a native lens and therefore so much smaller.

That extender is quite pricey where I'm at, I too also thought about getting one, but at nearly $200, it's like buying a new lens. I would prefer to put that money into something like the tamron 100-400mm or sigma 150-600mm.

Or even this ef-s 55-250mm STM

And you're right, who knows 1 year down the road someone might want to sell his kenko 1.4x teleplus hd cheaply so it would be cool to pair it with the 55-250mm STM.

You can find older EF 1.4 Kenko teleplus extenders on ebay for a lot less than $200. You then just need to follow Larry Rexley's instructions to remove the pcb from the inside and then you have a sharp 77-350 setup. That gives you a full-frame equivalent of 560m at the long end, which is capable for wildlife etc. A worthwhile investment in my opinion. I have a 2X extender made by Larry, but the 1.4X is the easier conversion. You'll need an EF rear mount plate conversion for the lens as well. They can also be found on ebay.

Thank you for the info, definitely something I'm looking out for. And I've been monitoring but even these other models/variants are pricey where I am at.

Definitely something to consider.  I did the “Larry Rexley” conversion on my other 55-250 STM, with a Kenko 1.5x (plus eBay backplate) and it works great!  A few samples here…

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66535831

R2

nnowak wrote:

jackwelch wrote:

So just out of curiosity, for those that have the ef-m 55-200mm, was it worth getting the ef-s 55-250mm STM?

I can get one for $170 new and this is pretty much the best price you'll see in Malaysia.

Would love to hear your experience

I shot the EF-S 55-250mm STM side by side against the EF-M 55-200mm STM. With my copies, the EF-S lens was noticeably sharper at the long end and basically the same at the wide end. This is on top of also having more reach. It was years ago, but the EF-M lens was purchased new and the EF-S lens was either used or refurbished, can't remember for sure. Larry Rexley did a similar comparison a few months ago and came to the opposite conclusion. As with most lenses, sample variation appears to be an issue.

Here is another way to look at it... If you need 250mm of reach, you would need to crop the 32mp M6 II down to 20mp to get a similar field of view with the 55-200mm lens. If you are using one of the 24mp bodies, this crop would drop you to 15mp.

I 'second' this post --- the optical quality of the EF-M 55-200 and the EF-S 55-250 are quite similar, it really isn't easy to tell images made with them apart.

It really comes down to whether you prefer the compact and lighter 55-200 or the extra range, slightly brighter max aperture, and possible teleconverter use of the EF-S 55-250. And now with the refurb EF-S 55-250 IS STM (and the refurb Canon EF - EOS M adapter) being such a low price, cost may now be a deciding factor as well. If I had to choose only one --- I need the reach and would opt for the 55-250, no question.

I own both and take one or the other with me in my camera bag much of the time (but never both) depending on what else is in the bag and what I think my needs are. There are so few telephoto lenses for EOS M mount that I like having both and would not consider selling either.

Normally I'm shooting the EF-S 55-250 with a 1.5x teleconverter making it more of a 90-375mm lens.

JRET wrote:

Has anyone compared either the 55-200 or 55-250 to the EF 70-200 f/4 on an M body, perhaps the M6II?

I compared 70-300 f/4-5.6L to both of them and it is sharper.

I have both and use them for different set-ups.

• The EF-S 55-250mm STM IS goes with M6ii and 1.4  converter for extra reach.
• The EF-M 55-200mm is permanently on one M100 body (15-45mm on another one) in 1 small messenger bag as light dual camera setup. 

As stated, EF-S has closer focus distance and thus better macro capabilities. I have not yet done a benchmark test on IQ.

If you're thinking of changing to R sometime in the future, then you'll be able to adapt the 55-250. For that reason alone, it might be worth getting one while they're still available.

Regards,

Alan

Alan WF wrote:

If you're thinking of changing to R sometime in the future, then you'll be able to adapt the 55-250. For that reason alone, it might be worth getting one while they're still available.

Regards,

Alan

I am kind of interested in one of the crop Rs as soon as they hit M50 pricepoint.

KEG wrote:

Alan WF wrote:

If you're thinking of changing to R sometime in the future, then you'll be able to adapt the 55-250. For that reason alone, it might be worth getting one while they're still available.

Regards,

Alan

I am kind of interested in one of the crop Rs as soon as they hit M50 pricepoint.

I'm not interested in crop Rs at ALL. No matter the pricepoint.

I am kind of interested in one of the crop Rs as soon as they hit M50 pricepoint.

I'm not interested in crop Rs at ALL. No matter the pricepoint.

Let's try to keep the conversation on-topic.

If someone is interested in an R, then there is a specific advantage to an EF/EF-S lens over a similar EF-M lens, and that's relevant for this discussion.

However, I don't think stating personal positions on R in this context really helps anyone.

Regards,

Alan