[Dimitris]

The 50mm f1.4 is probably the most unreliable lens I ever had in terms of focusing. IQ it very good though.

 

[roastpuff]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dima1109 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Ah, the 55-250 Canon lens is extremely tempting. Would the image quality be significantly better compared to the Sigma/Tamron?

That seems to be the case.

Canon EF-S 55-250 f/4-5.6 IS - Nifty Two-Fifty - Canon Digital Photography Forums Some sample images.

 

[dima1109]

Looks like I've found my new christmas present to myself

 

[roastpuff]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dima1109 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Looks like I've found my new christmas present to myself

Hooray! I'm aiming for the 70-200 f2.8L IS, myself.

 

[dima1109]

Sweet deal

I hope this photo thing doesn't turn out like the headphone thing

I came here looking for a cheap replacement for MDR-EX71, and eventually ended up with an amp and a D2000

 

[roastpuff]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dima1109 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Sweet deal I hope this photo thing doesn't turn out like the headphone thing I came here looking for a cheap replacement for MDR-EX71, and eventually ended up with an amp and a D2000

Too late!

Eventually you'll be infected by the Red Ring of Canon Doom Disease and have a collection of a zillion lenses and half a zillion pro bodies.

5DMK2, anyone?

 

[ast]

hmmm..... I thought the point of having SLR is to optimize the usage of different lenses. Otherwise I can get a good P&S like G10 or similar. I don't quite understand the rationale behind the Jack of all trade 55--250mm type of thing, which does everything OK but nothing the BEST.

Even for light travel purpose, a 17-55 or 24-70 would be more appropriate.

 

[archosman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ast /img/forum/go_quote.gif hmmm..... I thought the point of having SLR is to optimize the usage of different lenses. Otherwise I can get a good P&S like G10 or similar. I don't quite understand the rationale behind the Jack of all trade 55--250mm type of thing, which does everything OK but nothing the BEST. Even for light travel purpose, a 17-55 or 24-70 would be more appropriate.

I really want a 24-70 2.8...

 

[lan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ast /img/forum/go_quote.gif hmmm..... I thought the point of having SLR is to optimize the usage of different lenses. Otherwise I can get a good P&S like G10 or similar. I don't quite understand the rationale behind the Jack of all trade 55--250mm type of thing, which does everything OK but nothing the BEST. Even for light travel purpose, a 17-55 or 24-70 would be more appropriate.

Arguements for having an SLR include, lower shutter lag, faster autofocus, more subject isolation, better high ISO, and higher fps.

There's no point in the best lenses with better sharpness if you only print 4x6. High ISO noise is less visible at those smaller prints also. There's nothing wrong with the 55-250 lens. It has it's strengths and weakness you have to play off of.

The Canon 24-70 2.8 is not a light lens and most casual / intermediate users would agree. Start adding the grip and flash and it'll be something you'll feel at the end of the day. The Tamron 28-75 2.8 on the other hand is pretty light.

Quote:

Originally Posted by archosman /img/forum/go_quote.gif I really want a 24-70 2.8...

My feelings on this is I prefer 24-105 f4 since It's range is more useful to me and if i need low light, I use my 35 1.4

 

[ast]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lan /img/forum/go_quote.gif Arguements for having an SLR include, lower shutter lag, faster autofocus, more subject isolation, better high ISO, and higher fps. There's no point in the best lenses with better sharpness if you only print 4x6. High ISO noise is less visible at those smaller prints also. There's nothing wrong with the 55-250 lens. It has it's strengths and weakness you have to play off of.

Very true. I myself opt for dSLR mainly for the lower shutter lag, low light performance, faster focus, and the opportunity to play with all kinds of lenses.

55-250 seems a little odd to me as I can't think of a case of using it.

 

[lan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ast /img/forum/go_quote.gif 55-250 seems a little odd to me as I can't think of a case of using it.

I guess it just doesn't fit your shooting style. I use my nikon 55-200 VR (of course on nikon body) sometimes because it's light, 55 is wider than 70 and I like 50ish on crop sensor for full body shots. 200 is enough for me to get across street candids. The slowness of the lenses doesn't bother me as I sometimes use it for shooting models between f8 and f10.

You don't like this range of lens because it's too slow or too telephoto?

 

[ast]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lan /img/forum/go_quote.gif You don't like this range of lens because it's too slow or too telephoto?

I guess a little bit of both.

On the tele end, I can think of sports/wild life type of application, where this lens could be too slow. Same for portraits if you want to blur the background to get the 3D effect. Then for travel/landscape it is too "tele" to be useful. I guess it indeed doesn't fit my shooting style.


...

 

[dima1109]

From my short experience with the 55-250, it's very useful for medium to longer FL's. I really only use it at 200+ mm. For shorter stuff, I use the 50 mm 1.8 or the XS kit lens.

I've been looking at 70-200 f4 IS, it looks very attractive, but I could never justify buying one for the kind of casual shooting I do. Too heavy, too expensive, and I very rarely print any photos (even when I do, it's 5x7 max), so I really wouldn't find much use for the sharpness. The only truly useful quality for me in it compared to 55-250 is USM, but I focus manually about half the time anyway.

My point is - 55-250 is indeed a compromise between size/weight, price, and image quality. If I wanted sharpness, I would get the 70-200, if I wanted the extra reach, I would get the Bigma. But I don't have the money for either, so I have to compromise. 55-250 does its thing very well for an amateur, so it has its niche. I personally am yet to find a serious weakness, so I'm perfectly satisfied with the lens (thanks, roastpuff

)

 

[lan]

If you're always at 200+, you can always get the 200 2.8L. It's a small prime and it's sharper at 200 than the other zooms.

 

[B.Dylan]

Hey hey!

New to the forum and kinda new to photography too

My camera gear is small but I like it:

Canon 40D
Canon 70-200 2.8L
Tamron 17-50

My next buy will probably be the nifty-fifty (50 1.8)!