Sharpness and Contrast from Crop of 70-200 f/4 L Non-IS vs 55-250 IS

[sanjeet_vaishnav]

<p>I read at many places that crop from 70-200 f/4 L non IS is sharper and contrasty than EF-S 55-250 IS lens<br>

Does any one have supporting observations/data?<br>

If we take a photo at 250mm using 55-250 IS lens, and we crop a photo taken by 70-200 L lens for same portion (giving roughly same frame).. which one would be sharper and with better contrast?<br>

This is going to be very important factor for me whether to go for 70-200 or to stay with 55-250<br>

Thanks.</p>

 

[matthijs]

Hand held: Slow shutter speeds (below 1/200) favor the 55-250. But remember that the 70-200 is a stop faster. So 1/150

with the IS lens will be 1/300 with the L.

 

Tripod: 70-200 all the way.

[ds_meador]

<p>I have the 55-250 IS and have never used the 70-200 you mention. The 55-250 does not seem as sharp at 250 as it does at 200, so the 70-200 will probably be sharper comparing 250 to 200. Since you already have the 55-250, have you tried using is only zoomed out to 200? That will let you know how you like the FL max of the 70-200. Also, you could look for comparisons between the 70-200 and the 55-250 at 200. <strong>If</strong> the 55-250 at 200 is nearly as good as the 70-200 at 200, would you really want to spend the money on a new lens when limiting the FL on the one you have would be almost as good?<br>

DS Meador</p>

[tdigi]

<p>Keep in mind what makes the L so much better is build and focus speed. Both are probably capable of sharp photos.</p>

[Sunset-Lounge]

<p>rent before you buy</p>

[brett_w.]

<p>the Canon 55-250IS at 250mm will be sharper than the 70-200 f4 non-IS at 200m (cropped to match). I've seen this exact comparison at an airshow - save your money and stick with the 55-250IS (until you can afford 400mm!)</p>

<p> </p>

[richard_martin10]

<p>The 55-250 better then the L? Utter rubbish. Check here for a test on it:http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-55-250mm-f-4-5.6-IS-Lens-Review.aspx<br>

I have compared these 2 lenses, AF performance on the IS lens is very slow, contrast is weak, its not as sharp. Someone else said tripod all the way with the L, absolutely not true. IQ of the L lens is far superior, AF performance is lightning fast, this lens is the best bargain in the Canon lineup.</p>

[matthijs]

All the way L means the L wins at any shutterspeed on a tripod.

[richard_martin10]

<p>I doubt you need a tripod to make this comparison. I never use one, its so light and easy to handhold that it couldn't possibly affect the results of a comparison.</p>

[brett_w.]

<p>at 250mm the cheap Canon 55-250IS wins the IQ race !</p>

<p> </p>

[matthijs]

<p>@Richard: Hand holding at shutter speeds of 1/15 the EF-s will probably give you usable results while the L will be hard pressed to give a good result at 1/30. (which all else being equal will be the shutter speed under those conditions)</p>

<p>But hey, I'm with you, the L is a great lens.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>One of these is a very affordable (read, cheap) simple lens made as a kind of loss-leader for Canon newbies. The other is an extremely well-built lens aimed at a professional and advanced amateur market. What part of "2X the price" are you unclear on? Not <em>everything</em> that costs more is better; but, unfortunately for us cheapskates, the differences in the Canon line are not just due to bigger markups of lenses that are otherwise the same.</p>

<p>The 55-250 is a very fine lens for the price, but so is the 70-200mm non-IS. I personally would buy either the 55-250mm IS or save my money for the 4X price IS version of the f/4 70-200mm L lens. Or buy the 55-250 and save your pennies. I think the 55-250 will continue to have a brisk trade as a used lens.</p>

[arie_vandervelden1]

<p>Here's a comparison of the 55-250 at 250/5.6 vs 70-200/4 plus 1.4x TC (effective 280/5.6)<br /> http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=456&Camera=452&Sample=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=1&LensComp=104&CameraComp=452&SampleComp=0&FLI=5&API=1<br /> As you can see, it's close. Now, compare the two at 200/5.6 and the L lens wins handily.<br /> http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=456&Camera=452&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=104&CameraComp=452&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=2</p>

<p>I have the 55-250 and I've shot with my friend's 70-200/4. The 70-200/4 is the clear winner in the following departments: bokeh (far superior), AF, build quality. It is also compatible with FF gear. Sharpness, color, and contrast is as good as it gets, and the bokeh is very very nice.</p>

<p>The 55-250 wins in the following departments: weight, size, price. The IS comes in very handy, especially while shooting video. It's a very handy lens for travel and hiking. Optical performance is surprisingly good given that it's a kit lens. I've messed with quite a few cheapo telephoto zooms, and this one is the only one that hasn't been gathering dust of a shelf.</p>

[brett_w.]

<p>bottom line: take your Canon 55-250IS and Canon 70-200 f4 to an air show or surfers 100 meters off shore, take pics with each lens, - guess which pic will have the better image quality?<br>

hint: it won't be from more expensive lens!</p>

<p> </p>