# 55-250 IS on crop sensor vs 100-400 (mk I) on full frame



## m8547 (Jul 18, 2015)

Cross-posting from Reddit. There are probably more Canon users on this forum.

I recently bought a Canon 100-400 L IS to go with my 6D. Based on the reviews it looks like on the 6D it should be better than my 55-250 IS on my T3i, and almost as good as the highly regarded 100-400 II without having to spend $2k. But I've done some tests, and it doesn't look any better than what I had before. My 55-250 is much sharper than my 100-400 in the corners, and the same or slightly better in the center. But the 55-250 has a bit more CA and a bit lower contrast.

Here's my comparison: http://imgur.com/a/K5aAy
The 100-400 is on the left on my 6D. 400mm f/5.6 1/25 sec ISO320.
The 55-250 is on the right on my T3i. 214mm f/5.6 1/15 sec ISO800.

Is the 100-400 supposed to be this soft in the corners? Or did I get a bad copy? It's kind of disappointing to spend 8x as much ($800 used vs $100 used) on a lens and get worse results.

I adjusted the exposure of each in LR to be about the same, so don't compare the exposure settings above, but I applied no other adjustments and set sharpening to 0. The setup is not ideal, and the light is not that great. I left the tripod in the same position for both shots, except for re-aligning slightly. The chart is printed 11x17 size on plain paper, and it's at the size and resolution limit of my printer. I tried printing it on 8.5x11 paper, and the finest lines aliased despite setting "4800x1200 DPI equivalent" resolution whatever that means. The test chart is a vector PDF I found online. The distance from the camera to the chart is about 15 feet. A real test chart, longer working distance, better lighting, better alignment, sturdier tripod, etc would be nice, but I don't think it's necessary since I can get good results from the 55-250 and from the center of the 100-400

Here's The-Digital-Picture's comparison (with the 55-250 STM selected because that looks the most like my 55-250). http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=856&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=1&LensComp=113&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0 Note that the TDP test chart is twice the resolution of mine, and they have a much better test setup. (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Help/ISO-12233.aspx)


----------



## rpt (Jul 18, 2015)

Did you AFMA? Do a compare after you AFMA.


----------



## m8547 (Jul 18, 2015)

This is manually focusing or contrast focusing in Live View, so AFMA doesn't matter.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 18, 2015)

The 100-400 is of variable quality. The good ones are fine but there are too many bad copies. It's a lens you should never buy without testing it first. The Mk II, on the other hand, is of high uniform quality


----------



## rpt (Jul 19, 2015)

m8547 said:


> This is manually focusing or contrast focusing in Live View, so AFMA doesn't matter.


In manual or live view AFMA does not matter.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 19, 2015)

The 55-250 EFS is an excellent lens in terms of sharpness. Canon compromised on the build quality and focusing but not on sharpness. It far outperforms any of the consumer grade 300mm zooms Canon makes (which isn't hard to do.)

In real world use, don't expect to see much difference if any in sharpness between the 55-250 and the 100-400. The 70-300 mm "L" is a little sharper than the 55-250, but not hugely so. 

What you pay for with the 100-400 is reach, focus speed and overall build quality. It's not that there is anything wrong with the 100-400, it's just that the 55-250 has always performed well above its price point.


----------



## Big_Ant_TV_Media (Jul 23, 2015)

my 55-250mm stm lens is great 


9W9A1250-1 by Bigz Ant, on Flickr


9W9A1400-1 by Bigz Ant, on Flickr


----------



## Maximilian (Jul 24, 2015)

m8547 said:


> ...
> Here's my comparison: http://imgur.com/a/K5aAy
> The 100-400 is on the left on my 6D. 400mm f/5.6 *1/25 sec* ISO320.
> The 55-250 is on the right on my T3i. 214mm f/5.6 *1/15 sec *ISO800.
> ...


_Edited, because i did not read the OP and the following carefully enough. _
:-[ _sorry for that, but the core message stays the same._
***********************************************************************

Hi m8547!

Sorry, but I couldn't read anything from your post how you did your testing _in detail_, so how your setup was.
Did you shoot with tripod or handheld? did you shoot with IS on or off? How did you focus? How did you do the shutter release? How was the alignment of camera to target, etc.

When is saw that long exposure times highlighted above, then my first thought after looking at your pictures was shake from handheld, that could not be compensated from the IS or shake from the (old) IS in the 100-400 while mounted on a tripod (please refer to the manual _that IS should be switched off on tripod_).

I would recommend repeating your test with tripod, with IS switched off, with manual focus at live view, with remote or timer shutter release and with enough light to run the test shots at least at 1/400 sec (even a tripod can shake, from external vibrations).

I own the 100-400 and I've done several shots in bad light with 400 mm and about 1/20 sec and I can tell you that only 5% of them did become really sharp. You must have a calm hand like an olympic sports shooter or pure luck to get a shot without shake at these exposure times with the old IS from the 100-400. Maybe the one of the 55-250 is newer here and you just measured the improvement on the IS.

Of course there are also other reasons: bad copy, indeed bad optics, etc. But I would rethink your testing first.
_Looking at the testshots at TDP of all three (!) 55-250 versions against the 100-400 and seeing that the 100-400 is always the overall winner (center and midframe performance is much more important) there is only two reasons for your results:
1. failure during testing
2. bad copy of 100-400
I hope it to be the 1st one
_


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jul 24, 2015)

A lens testing should eliminate variables as much as possible.

As mentioned, recommend repeat your test in sunlight, with shutter speed 1/500 and off image stabilization.


----------



## jcarapet (Jul 24, 2015)

This doesn't surprise me. My copy of the 55-250 is really quite good, and i have always been impressed. Especially compared to my 18-55 kit lens. It unfortunately has started collecting dust since i got my 70-200


----------



## 9VIII (Jul 24, 2015)

Yup, I've very nearly bought that lens several times recently, and I still might.
The only thing holding me back is:
A. I already have the 400f5.6 Prime.
B. I would rather keep saving for the 100-400Mk2, which I know will AF like like nothing else, has the best IS on the market, and has borderline technically perfect IQ from 200mm up. A lens like that will serve you well for many decades.

Anyways.
Right now the 55-250STM is going to be one of my first recommendations to anyone without a supertelephoto lens.


----------



## JohanCruyff (Jul 24, 2015)

9VIII said:


> Right now the 55-250STM is going to be one of my first recommendations to anyone without a supertelephoto lens.


+1


----------



## TeT (Jul 25, 2015)

55 250 is great glass... 

it lacks build quality and maybe focus speed, For sharpness and IQ its a plus performer, it certainly wont wear you out carrying it either.


----------



## m8547 (Jul 25, 2015)

Maximilian said:


> m8547 said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



I used the following setup:
Manfrotto 055XproB tripod with 496RC2 head
IS off
Manual or live view focus
IR remote trigger or 2 second timer
Shooting from live view, which seems to be equivalent to or better than mirror lockup. The mirror doesn't move before taking a picture.
6D Mirror lockup: (mirror is up, shutter is closed), shutter opens then closes for exposure
6D Live View shooting: (mirror is up, shutter is open), clicking noise but no movement at start of exposure, shutter opens then closes
T3i Live View: (mirror is up and shutter is open), swiping noise but no movement at start of exposure, shutter and mirror close at end of exposure, then re-open to go back to live view

All the resolution crops I linked to in my first post are crops from the same image. The center of the 100-400 is sharp, therefore it's not camera shake unless it's weird rotational shake that only affects the corners (hint: it's not that). It's not the best test setup, but because I get good results in the center, it doesn't matter.

Another question is whether I aligned the lens to the test chart perfectly. I did not do it perfectly, but it was good enough. I was not able to improve the corners by zooming in on them in live view and manually focusing on them. So it's not an alignment of plane of focus or field curvature of depth of field issue.

I tested it again outside, infinity focus distance, 1/1000 sec exposure (and everything else the same as above). The problem is still there, but it's a little harder to tell because I used a line of trees on a ridge instead of a test chart. It might not be quite as bad focused at infinity.

I ended up returning the 100-400, and I ordered a 100-400 II. It was supposed to be here today, but it was delayed by UPS. Three of the last four packages I've gotten from them have been delayed.


----------



## Maximilian (Jul 25, 2015)

m8547 said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...


Thank you very much, m8547, for summing that up really perfect. 
And I now have nothing to "criticise" any more because you did all that you could have done in my eyes.

So indeed IMHO the copy that you did own was indeed a little bit worse in the corners than the one at TDP and I suppose that I would have returned it as well.



> I ended up returning the 100-400, and I ordered a 100-400 II. It was supposed to be here today, but it was delayed by UPS. Three of the last four packages I've gotten from them have been delayed.


Oh you lucky one  
I really would like to replace my old 100-400 by a vII as well. But I don't hve the budget right now. 
Please let us know how your copy performs and how pleased you are with it. Congrats on your decission.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jul 25, 2015)

m8547 said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > m8547 said:
> ...


Thanks for putting the 55-250 on my radar. Since I moved to full frame all my lenses have been EF with the only exception being the lovable 24mm STM.


----------



## m8547 (Jul 25, 2015)

StudentOfLight said:


> Thanks for putting the 55-250 on my radar. Since I moved to full frame all my lenses have been EF with the only exception being the lovable 24mm STM.



I'm confused by this. The 55-250 (STM, IS, or whatever) is an EF-S lens, so it won't fit on full frame. I've been using it on my T3i. I upgraded to full frame, but I wanted something with the same reach and image quality that I had with the old lens and body combo. It turns out that's harder to get than I anticipated. The 70-200 f/4 IS is probably the closest full frame lens, but then you would miss the extra reach of the crop sensor.





Maximilian said:


> Oh you lucky one
> I really would like to replace my old 100-400 by a vII as well. But I don't hve the budget right now.
> Please let us know how your copy performs and how pleased you are with it. Congrats on your decission.



It's a bit of a stretch, but I figure I'll want to upgrade eventually, anyway, so I might as well do it now. The better IS system in the new one was a factor, too, because the old IS isn't that great. The price on the version II finally dropped 10% if you get it through the CPW street price program, and you can save another 10% if you get it used. Lens Authority has one for $1800 right now.
https://www.lensauthority.com/products/canon-100-400mm-f-4-5-5-6l-is-ii-usm


----------



## Random Orbits (Jul 26, 2015)

m8547 said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for putting the 55-250 on my radar. Since I moved to full frame all my lenses have been EF with the only exception being the lovable 24mm STM.
> ...



Have you considered the 70-300L?


----------



## emag (Jul 26, 2015)

70-300L works well with a Kenko 1.4x TC also


----------



## m8547 (Jul 27, 2015)

I just picked up the 100-400 II, and it's basically perfect with the same test. I'm happy (but my bank account is not)!


----------



## Maximilian (Jul 28, 2015)

m8547 said:


> I just picked up the 100-400 II, and it's basically perfect with the same test.


Glad to hear that. 



> I'm happy (but my bank account is not)!


But you know: 
there is no pro without con


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jul 28, 2015)

m8547 said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for putting the 55-250 on my radar. Since I moved to full frame all my lenses have been EF with the only exception being the lovable 24mm STM.
> ...


It was implied that I still have an APS-C body (60D) which I use my EF-S 24mm STM on. I didn't see much value in selling it for peanuts, it's more valuable to me in my hands. Of course I can use my 70-200/2.8 on the 60D. I have and the results are great, but 55-250 is a wider range as you mentioned.

I also have friends/family and random strangers ask for equipment recommendations, so it's useful to know that the 55-250 offers good value for money and is available on a more affordable platform.


----------



## jthomson (Jul 30, 2015)

AlanF said:


> The 100-400 is of variable quality. The good ones are fine but there are too many bad copies. It's a lens you should never buy without testing it first. The Mk II, on the other hand, is of high uniform quality


Has anyone done any testing to back up that claim for the mark II having high uniform quality ? I also thought the consensus of opinion was that the variability issue with the 100-400 had been fixed back around 2008.


----------



## m8547 (Jul 30, 2015)

I think my 100-400 was from around or after 2008. It was not that old. But I can't remember exactly. 

I don't think I've heard anyone complain about the 100-400 II, and Lensrentals took one apart and determined it's extremely well built. Lens Rentals is the only one that could test it because no one else has enough of them to play with.


----------

