canon 70-300mm vs 55-250mm vs 70-200mm F4
- Thread starter magic1980
- Start date
- Status
That's a very biased and strong statement.
The EF 70-300mm IS USM is a very good lens. It's optical quality and build is much better than the 55-250mm. So, between the 2, the 70-300mm wins hands down. It is a UD lens in it, which is the high quality lens used in L lenses.
But image quality wise, the 70-200mm L is still a little better and it does have fixed aperture, which is a big advantage. But IS is really very helpful for handholding a tele. So, between the 70-300mm IS and the 70-200mm L non-IS, I would still go for the 70-300mm IS.
Of course, the 70-200mm L IS is really great. I used to own it. But it is very conspicuous because it is a big white lens... which attract a lot of attention. Also, it is super expensive. So, I just sold it last week for a good price.
The 70-300mm IS is optically superior to its DO counterpart, and cheaper. The big advantage of the DO lens is the size. I'd love to own one if not for the price... but the DO lens is optically inferior to the non-DO version. So, I don't understand why you recommend the DO one without giving any justification.
The only advantage of the 55-250mm is the price... and nothing else.
So you see, each lens has its pros and cons. It really depends on what you want. For me, I find the 70-300mm IS to be the most useful for my usage. It is lighter, cheaper and less conspicuous compared to the 70-200mm IS f/4L, while maintaining very respectable optical quality. That's why it is my choice. Since it is a non-L, the resale value is lower... so it makes sense to get it used, right? You can get it for a very good price used... so it is certainly worth considering.
55-250IS for me, as it produces good quality image and the very affordable price. Plus it's good for traveling too, light and small compared to the L lens.
However if you were to pixel peep, a 70-200 f4 L IS USM is definitely a better choice. Just that the price is most prob gona burn a hole in your pocket.
However if you were to pixel peep, a 70-200 f4 L IS USM is definitely a better choice. Just that the price is most prob gona burn a hole in your pocket.
do u plan to go ff? if so 70-200 unless u plan to stay crop get the 55-250. do try all lenses though.
i wonder why is the 70-300 disregarded? do the people who disregard the 70-300 even use it before?
It is disregarded out of ignorance. It is a very worthy lens. The pecking order for portable teles should be:
1) EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM
This lens is just the best in its class and needs no justification.
2) EF 70-200mm f/4L USM or EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6mm IS USM
I rank these 2 on par. They are in the same price range. The L lens has better optics and fixed aperture, but the 70-300 has better reach and has IS. This is important. IS is especially useful at the tele range when you handhold the camera. Also, the extra reach will come in handy. Just take a trip to the zoo and you will know what I mean. So, which lens you choose depends on your needs. The 70-300's optics is actually very good. Just read any review and they will tell you so. It is just not as good as the L.
3) EF-S 55-250mm IS.
This is a budget tele and should not even be considered in the same breath as the lenses above. It is cheap and serves its purpose... but it has poorer build and optics. It's as simple as that. It is usually coupled with the kit lens to extend the range.
I have owned and used the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6mm IS USM and the EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM.
Last edited:
As for the outperform part, I would say they're equally the same though.Price wise, yeah, DO IS is priced way higher than typical 70-300mm IS.
They are not 'equally the same'. The non-DO version is optically superior, but the DO version is much smaller. It really depends on what is important to you.
TS has no mention what the lens will be use for, if use for sports, indoor/outdoor performance then IS do not help to freeze the objects. To freeze the motion you need to increase the shutter speed for example dancing 1/500 sec.
My vote will be 70-200mm f/4 L USM.
Cheers.
My vote will be 70-200mm f/4 L USM.
Cheers.
That is true if you plan to tripod the lens all the time... but you see, people carry these portable teles because they want them light and handholdable. So, if you plan to handhold it, the 3rd generation IS gives you a 3 f/stop advantage... so that you have more opportunities to achieve 1/500 sec.
The IS of the 70-300mm and the 70-200mm f/4L IS work really well. As I mentioned, I tried them both. So, if you want L quality, you should go for the 70-200mm f/4 L IS. Between the non-IS 70-200 and the 70-300 IS, my vote goes to the 70-300 IS... because I hardly use the tripod.
My 70-300IS is good..brought it to the zoo and i could zoom onto the ape's faces, at 300mm on crop, its a blessing. the IS is very important when lenses are long, unless youre built like arnold swatzenegger with rock solid tripod biceps you need IS. For handheld on the non IS, you have to take most pictures at higher speeds to eliminate handshakes, therefore, either higher ISO or apertures, so 70-200L no IS is for tripod. That being said I found that i still needed to take pictures in RAW to later boost the exposures. 55-250mm is not on par with 70-300mm do some research on google, there are reviews.
Between the 55-250IS & the 70-300IS, Optically there is not much difference (compared full res 100% crop pictures between the 2 before).
The 70-300 cost approx 3x the 55-250.
Do consider if the following differences is worth 3x the cost
1. 70-300 is EF lens, 55-250 is EFS ( cannot mount on Full frame camera )
2. Is the 50mm extra reach worth the extra $
3. Is the better build (guess both are mainly plastic) worth the extra $
4. You lost 55-70 reach on the lens that cost 3x as much. The 15mm difference at the wide end may be more significant than the 50mm at the tele end in practical use.
If priced the same, the 70-300 would probably be a better choice. At 3x the cost, probably not.
Of course, if got money, 70-200Ls will be better. It should be worth the extra $$.
The 70-300 cost approx 3x the 55-250.
Do consider if the following differences is worth 3x the cost
1. 70-300 is EF lens, 55-250 is EFS ( cannot mount on Full frame camera )
2. Is the 50mm extra reach worth the extra $
3. Is the better build (guess both are mainly plastic) worth the extra $
4. You lost 55-70 reach on the lens that cost 3x as much. The 15mm difference at the wide end may be more significant than the 50mm at the tele end in practical use.
If priced the same, the 70-300 would probably be a better choice. At 3x the cost, probably not.
Of course, if got money, 70-200Ls will be better. It should be worth the extra $$.
Between the 55-250 and the 70-300, the optical difference is small. But between the 70-300 and the 70-200 f/4L, the difference is also small. So, the question is, what is good enough for you?
As to the 70-300 being too costly... that is true in Singapore. Don't know why this lens is priced so high in Singapore. That is why I got it used. I paid only $650 for it, so I'm happy. You can easily get an excellent condition used one at around $700. I agree that the 70-300 is not worth 3x the 55-250. I personally think it is probably worth about 2x. This lens is sold at USD550 in the US. Strange that it is priced so much here. We are not talking about just 50mm reach when we talk about its value. We are talking about faster focusing, sharper images, less vignetting, better build, etc.
As for the reach, I don't think the gap between 55mm to 70mm is anything to worry about. Neither is the extra reach between 250 to 300mm. Neither is significant.
Build wise, the difference is very obvious. It is not just plastic vs. plastic. It is like comparing the EF 50mm f/1.8 and the EF 50mm f/1.4. One is cheapo plastic all round, and the other is the normal Canon build with the metal mount. The main complain I have heard about the plastic mount is that it wears out after some time, and the rear cap tends to fall out during transport. But of course, when mounted to the camera, it is secure because of the locking mechanism, even when the plastic mount is a bit worn out.
As to the 70-300 being too costly... that is true in Singapore. Don't know why this lens is priced so high in Singapore. That is why I got it used. I paid only $650 for it, so I'm happy. You can easily get an excellent condition used one at around $700. I agree that the 70-300 is not worth 3x the 55-250. I personally think it is probably worth about 2x. This lens is sold at USD550 in the US. Strange that it is priced so much here. We are not talking about just 50mm reach when we talk about its value. We are talking about faster focusing, sharper images, less vignetting, better build, etc.
As for the reach, I don't think the gap between 55mm to 70mm is anything to worry about. Neither is the extra reach between 250 to 300mm. Neither is significant.
Build wise, the difference is very obvious. It is not just plastic vs. plastic. It is like comparing the EF 50mm f/1.8 and the EF 50mm f/1.4. One is cheapo plastic all round, and the other is the normal Canon build with the metal mount. The main complain I have heard about the plastic mount is that it wears out after some time, and the rear cap tends to fall out during transport. But of course, when mounted to the camera, it is secure because of the locking mechanism, even when the plastic mount is a bit worn out.
Last edited:
I bought the 70-200mm f/4L IS and the 70-300 f/4-5.6mm IS. The L lens is indeed better. How much better? Build wise, it's like comparing heaven and earth. Optics wise, the L is a bit better... but sometimes, it's that bit of difference that seperates really awesome pictures from good pictures. Why did I choose the 70-300 in the end? I like the extra 100mm reach and it is much cheaper, so I can afford to use it casually and not like some bao bei. But I emphasise again that the IS helps a lot... that is why I never considered the non-IS L... even though it is optically superior without a doubt.
The people here who just say things like 'disregard the 70-300' or 'forget the 70-300' are not being objective. As I said, it is a very worthy lens and definitely has a place in Canon's lens lineup.
Last edited:
Not that I'm trying to challenge you but if you look at photozone's tests you'll see in terms of resolution the 55-250 and 70-300 are neck and neck at all focal lengths. The 55-250 vignettes more but the 70-300 has more CA. If you don't take in to account price i would say these 2 lenses are equals but if you consider price then the 55-250 is the obvious choice. The only reason to pay 2.5-3x as much for the 70-300 is only if you plan to go fullframe.
I owned the 70-200 f4 non IS and am currently using the 55-250IS. If you view your photos at 100% then yes there is a difference between the 2. But if you view the photos as a slideshow then the difference are really very small, you can identify the photos taken with the L based on contrast but not on sharpness.
This is what it says of the 70-300 on Photozone:
"The performance of the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 USM IS came as a total surprise. Unlike its predecessor the lens is capable to produce a very high performance throughout the zoom range without the significant drop in quality at 300mm typical for most consumer grade lenses in this range. It seems as if the new UD element helps to lift the optical quality significantly. Distortions, CAs as well as vignetting are also very respectable. So in terms of optical quality the EF 70-300mm IS can be almost described as a hidden Canon L lens. As much as it may promise here its build quality remains in line to what you can expect from a consumer grade lens and the small max. aperture is limiting its scope specifically regarding portraits where you seek for a pronounced fore-/background blurr only possible via large apertures (f/2.8 and larger). However, if you're looking for a very good, light-weight tele zoom e.g. for travel photography this lens should be high on your shopping list. "
As you can see, it sings high praises of the 70-300mm. But from my experience, I don't think it's a hidden L. The L counterpart is really perceivably better. Also, it does not compare the results with the 55-250 directly. Yes, the resolution numbers may be the same... but are the results the same? Take a look at The-Digital-Picture.com's review, which shows the comparison. In that one, the 70-300mm's image is perceptibly superior to the 55-250... while the L lenses' image is the best amongst the lot... but all taken with a tripod of course (so not comparing the effect of the IS).
Of course, if you just want to view your pictures as a slide-show on the PC, there is no need to get good lenses and the 55-250 would suffice. It is not really a bad lens, especially at that price. But we need to do some pixel peeping if we want to answer the question on which lens is better. But you are right to say that 3x the cost for the 70-300 is too much. We should buy this lens used or overseas because the price in Singapore is a rip-off.
But... my view is, if I were to opt for the budget kit lens plus 55-250 combo, I would be better off with the 18-200 IS. I sacrifice on quality, but I gain a lot of convenience. The reason why we bother to go through the trouble to swap lenses and all is because we want the improved image quality.
Last edited:
Extract from
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=24452081
I have compared the MTF charts of the new 55-250 IS vs the 70-300 IS. Unfortunately, the Japanese site has it's chart load in java and I can't link to the chart and show them here with side by side comparison.
For those who know how to read MTFs, at 55mm vs 70mm, at with being mindful to look at the 70-300 only up to 15mm on the chart, the 55-250 is hands on sharper than the 70-300. At their longest end, the 70-300 is better, sharper at the center. The 55-250 however, at 250mm doesn't lose sharpness either. The 70-300 IS even is sharper at the edges at 300mm though the spike can't be seen in a crop camera and in most instances, it's the center of the frame that needs to be sharp. The 70-300 IS overall is 1 notch better in this area, but it does lose it's sharpness rapidly going to the edge, and it's S and M lines tend to drift apart more.
The performance of the 55-250 is akin to the non-EF-s 55-200 mk2 in terms of the S and M lines staying close together (w/c is a good sign and a sign of sharpness all around). But the newer lens is much better. It is sharper (above 7 vs 6) and better in contrast. The contrast is really much higher and this will reflect on the images of the new lens. Overall, the 55-250 wins hands down even compared to the 55-200 mk2. I believe those UD glass has a lot to do with it.
At 55mm, if you look at the 100 f2 or 85 f1.8 at f4 (extrapolate it), you will find that the 55mm of the new lens is almost like a prime in sharpness. It's almost unbelievable that a consumer zoom can do it this. But if you look at the 70-200 f4L IS, you will find that it's the same thing.
I didn't compare it with the 50 f1.8 mk2 at f4 because the f1.8 diagram isn't representative and is hard to extrapolate from that.
Also, like the 55-200 mk2, the 55-250 IS, also tend to maintain it sharpness and doesn't break down at the longer end, though the 55-200 mk2 is more consistent at f5.6 as it holds the S and M lines together (a great feat if you ask me), ,while the new lens has a loss in sharpness at the long end in the corners as far as the M line goes. The S lines stays on top and is very high, higher than at 55mm, so as far as we will see it from pictures, in most likelihood, without pixel peeping, the images at 250mm will likely be as sharp or just slightly off compared to the 55mm capture. Contrast is way better with the 55-250 IS at the long end compared to the 55-200 mk2.
Also to remind everyone, MTFs don't tell us and can't show vignetting, CAs, AF speed, AF accuracy, handling, where the apeture change points occur as we zoom, colors, and other field performance variables. However, MTFs are a good way to gauge a lens performance on paper, when the we don't have an image or sample pictures. Even analyzing after the fact, I find that most lenses do behave similarly as their MTF charts show. If we say a lens is sharp based on experience, I find that MTF charts usually explains it especially with lenses at 50mm and above. I
It is harder to read MTF charts with wide angle lenses as the lines usually swing also wildly all over the chart, not to mention that the S and M lines usually stay far apart. But medium to long zooms or primes are easier to analyze. Look at a 24mm or even the 16-35L lenses vs say an 135 prime or 100-400 and its easier to read the latter 2 lenses.
So based on the the MTF charts, I'd say the new 55-250 is sharper than the 70-300 IS on the wide end. The 70-300 is slightly sharper at the center at the long end. But the 55-250 isn't really far behind. The 55-250 also exhibit the same MTF performance of the 55-200 mk2 throughout the range, meaning the S and M lines relatively don't break apart. Assuming this is so, I expect the 55-250 to be very good at at 55-180mm. Overall, the new lens also has a better sharpness and contrast than the 55-200 mk2.
Conclusion?
Unless there are other side issues like the 70-300 IS having sharpness problems when tilted vertically, or some motor or other problems that might come out later, vignetting, etc., based on the MTF charts alone, the 55-250 IS is an excellent lens that will surprise many. In fact, if the MTF charts aren't lying, many will find that this lens will likely be very sharp at 55-135 wide open that one will find it hard to believe that a consumer grade lens took the shot. Canon may not have given us a ef-s 50-135 f2.8 IS, but if only if sharpness is as the basis alone, we might start having people comparing it with the 70-200 f4L IS instead of the 70-300 IS.
MTF comparison samples can be found here:
http://www.pinoyphotography.org/forum/index.php?topic=19730.15
P.S. The 70-300 is no "hidden L". I find it laughable that Photozone could make such a ludicrous comment...
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=24452081
I have compared the MTF charts of the new 55-250 IS vs the 70-300 IS. Unfortunately, the Japanese site has it's chart load in java and I can't link to the chart and show them here with side by side comparison.
For those who know how to read MTFs, at 55mm vs 70mm, at with being mindful to look at the 70-300 only up to 15mm on the chart, the 55-250 is hands on sharper than the 70-300. At their longest end, the 70-300 is better, sharper at the center. The 55-250 however, at 250mm doesn't lose sharpness either. The 70-300 IS even is sharper at the edges at 300mm though the spike can't be seen in a crop camera and in most instances, it's the center of the frame that needs to be sharp. The 70-300 IS overall is 1 notch better in this area, but it does lose it's sharpness rapidly going to the edge, and it's S and M lines tend to drift apart more.
The performance of the 55-250 is akin to the non-EF-s 55-200 mk2 in terms of the S and M lines staying close together (w/c is a good sign and a sign of sharpness all around). But the newer lens is much better. It is sharper (above 7 vs 6) and better in contrast. The contrast is really much higher and this will reflect on the images of the new lens. Overall, the 55-250 wins hands down even compared to the 55-200 mk2. I believe those UD glass has a lot to do with it.
At 55mm, if you look at the 100 f2 or 85 f1.8 at f4 (extrapolate it), you will find that the 55mm of the new lens is almost like a prime in sharpness. It's almost unbelievable that a consumer zoom can do it this. But if you look at the 70-200 f4L IS, you will find that it's the same thing.
I didn't compare it with the 50 f1.8 mk2 at f4 because the f1.8 diagram isn't representative and is hard to extrapolate from that.
Also, like the 55-200 mk2, the 55-250 IS, also tend to maintain it sharpness and doesn't break down at the longer end, though the 55-200 mk2 is more consistent at f5.6 as it holds the S and M lines together (a great feat if you ask me), ,while the new lens has a loss in sharpness at the long end in the corners as far as the M line goes. The S lines stays on top and is very high, higher than at 55mm, so as far as we will see it from pictures, in most likelihood, without pixel peeping, the images at 250mm will likely be as sharp or just slightly off compared to the 55mm capture. Contrast is way better with the 55-250 IS at the long end compared to the 55-200 mk2.
Also to remind everyone, MTFs don't tell us and can't show vignetting, CAs, AF speed, AF accuracy, handling, where the apeture change points occur as we zoom, colors, and other field performance variables. However, MTFs are a good way to gauge a lens performance on paper, when the we don't have an image or sample pictures. Even analyzing after the fact, I find that most lenses do behave similarly as their MTF charts show. If we say a lens is sharp based on experience, I find that MTF charts usually explains it especially with lenses at 50mm and above. I
It is harder to read MTF charts with wide angle lenses as the lines usually swing also wildly all over the chart, not to mention that the S and M lines usually stay far apart. But medium to long zooms or primes are easier to analyze. Look at a 24mm or even the 16-35L lenses vs say an 135 prime or 100-400 and its easier to read the latter 2 lenses.
So based on the the MTF charts, I'd say the new 55-250 is sharper than the 70-300 IS on the wide end. The 70-300 is slightly sharper at the center at the long end. But the 55-250 isn't really far behind. The 55-250 also exhibit the same MTF performance of the 55-200 mk2 throughout the range, meaning the S and M lines relatively don't break apart. Assuming this is so, I expect the 55-250 to be very good at at 55-180mm. Overall, the new lens also has a better sharpness and contrast than the 55-200 mk2.
Conclusion?
Unless there are other side issues like the 70-300 IS having sharpness problems when tilted vertically, or some motor or other problems that might come out later, vignetting, etc., based on the MTF charts alone, the 55-250 IS is an excellent lens that will surprise many. In fact, if the MTF charts aren't lying, many will find that this lens will likely be very sharp at 55-135 wide open that one will find it hard to believe that a consumer grade lens took the shot. Canon may not have given us a ef-s 50-135 f2.8 IS, but if only if sharpness is as the basis alone, we might start having people comparing it with the 70-200 f4L IS instead of the 70-300 IS.
MTF comparison samples can be found here:
http://www.pinoyphotography.org/forum/index.php?topic=19730.15
P.S. The 70-300 is no "hidden L". I find it laughable that Photozone could make such a ludicrous comment...
Last edited:
- Status
