# Canon EF-S 55-250 f/4-5.6 IS STM Announced



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 22, 2013)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/08/canon-ef-s-55-250-f4-5-6-is-stm-announced/"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/08/canon-ef-s-55-250-f4-5-6-is-stm-announced/">Tweet</a></div>
<p>The <b>Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM Telephoto Zoom Lens</b> is a long-reaching zoom lens that provides a 35mm-equivalent focal length range of 88-400mm, covering portrait-length to telephoto perspectives to suit working with distant subject matter. Greatly benefitting this lens’ reach is the incorporation of image stabilization, which works to minimize the appearance of camera shake by up to 3.5 shutter speed steps to support handheld use in low-light conditions.</p>
<p>An STM stepping focus motor is also integrated into the lens’ design to provide smooth, quiet, and fast focusing performance that is ideally-suited to video applications as well as tracking moving subjects. The rear focusing system, high-speed CPU, and an enhanced AF algorithm also contribute to quickened overall AF speeds. Full-time manual focus is also supported to permit fine-tuning of focus even while working in AF modes. Additionally, the front lens section does not rotate during focusing to better facilitate the use of polarizing filters.</p>
<p>The optical construction of the lens employs one ultra-low dispersion glass element to help reduce chromatic aberrations and distortion throughout the zoom range while also enhancing contrast and clarity. Optimized lens coatings have also been applied to ensure color fidelity by countering the effects of lens flare and ghosting.</p>
<div>
<ul>Long-reaching zoom lens provides a 35mm-equivalent focal length of 88-400mm, covering portrait-length to telephoto perspectives.</ul>
<ul>Optical image stabilization helps to minimize the appearance of camera shake by up to 3.5 shutter speed steps to benefit shooting handheld in dim lighting and with greater zoom magnifications.</ul>
<ul>The STM stepping focus motor produces near-silent, smooth, and quick autofocus performance that is well-suited to video applications.</ul>
<ul>One ultra-low dispersion element helps to reduce chromatic aberrations and distortion while also contributing to greater image sharpness, contrast, and clarity.</ul>
<ul>Enhanced lens coatings minimize flare and ghosting in order to produce true colors with maintained contrast.</ul>
<ul>A minimum focusing distance of 2.8′ throughout the zoom range and a maximum magnification of 0.29x at the telephoto end enables working with close-up subject matter.</ul>
<ul>A seven-blade circular aperture helps to produce an aesthetic out-of-focus quality to benefit selective focus and shallow depth of field imagery.</ul>
</div>
```


----------



## IceAgeDX (Aug 22, 2013)

So excited about this!
The previous version is great, and all the other STM lenses have been getting stellar sharpness reviews.


----------



## pj1974 (Aug 22, 2013)

IceAgeDX said:


> So excited about this!
> The previous version is great, and all the other STM lenses have been getting stellar sharpness reviews.



+1

My thoughts exactly (and I wrote the same a few minutes ago on the 'pre-order' thread about this lens and the new PowerShots.


----------



## trav.cunningham (Aug 22, 2013)

+1

Full time manual focus and rear focusing are great upgrades to this lens.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Aug 22, 2013)

trav.cunningham said:


> +1
> 
> Full time manual focus and rear focusing are great upgrades to this lens.



It's a promising piece of glass, now seriously starting to threaten the 70-300 IS for crop owners. 

Rear focusing means it must be a different optical design than the current 55-250.


----------



## IceAgeDX (Aug 22, 2013)

mrsfotografie said:


> trav.cunningham said:
> 
> 
> > +1
> ...



Lens what is rear focusing?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 22, 2013)

mrsfotografie said:


> trav.cunningham said:
> 
> 
> > +1
> ...



Perhaps it is another mini 'EF-S L' like the 17-55.
Sounds promising for the APS-C folks!


----------



## Zv (Aug 22, 2013)

Looks like a decent lens. Even from the picture you can tell the build quality is gonna be way better.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 22, 2013)

mrsfotografie said:


> It's a promising piece of glass, now seriously starting to threaten the 70-300 IS for crop owners.



I'd say the previous (non-STM) versions of the 55-250 were already a better choice for crop users than the 70-300 non-L. This lens is significantly better, with FTM and a non-rotating front element.


----------



## tnargs (Aug 22, 2013)

How does STM compare with USM? (Not in technical details, but in how it performs)


----------



## 2n10 (Aug 22, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > It's a promising piece of glass, now seriously starting to threaten the 70-300 IS for crop owners.
> ...



Having had both the 55-250 and 70-300 non L the only difference I have noticed is the 70-300 seems to focus a little faster, a slightly better build and the greater focal length. IQ seems to be pretty close. I do agree with your assessment that the STM model is a a better choice.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 22, 2013)

tnargs said:


> How does STM compare with USM? (Not in technical details, but in how it performs)



STM is slower, in general (but not quite as slow as the USM in the 85L II!).


----------



## tgara (Aug 22, 2013)

tnargs said:


> How does STM compare with USM? (Not in technical details, but in how it performs)



As a practical matter, STM makes for faster and quieter autofocusing. But that is only one aspect of this new lens as compared to its predecessor. The internal/rear focusing, nonrotating front element, upgraded CPU and electronics, and full manual focus are nice improvements IMHO. The closest focus distance is nearly a foot less than the previous version (2.8 ft vs 3.6 ft). Plus the filter size is the same as the previous version (58mm), so I don't need to buy new filters. And despite all these improvements, the new version weighs 15 grams less than its predecessor (375g vs. 390g). The images it produces will tell the whole story, but on the surface, it looks like this lens was improved in every way that really matters.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 22, 2013)

tgara said:


> tnargs said:
> 
> 
> > How does STM compare with USM? (Not in technical details, but in how it performs)
> ...



Faster than USM? With a couple of exceptions (like the 85L), USM is _much_ faster than STM.


----------



## Hammer (Aug 22, 2013)

tgara said:


> And despite all these improvements, the new version weighs 15 grams less than its predecessor (375g vs. 390g).


This is the part that kind of surprises me. The main knock on the old 55-250 was the "cheap, plasticky" build quality. It's weird to think that they improved the housing while also making it lighter.


----------



## silvestography (Aug 22, 2013)

Hammer said:


> tgara said:
> 
> 
> > And despite all these improvements, the new version weighs 15 grams less than its predecessor (375g vs. 390g).
> ...



I'm not so sure they did. The old one had a plastic mount and from the photos on CR and B&H, it doesn't look like that's changed. 



neuroanatomist said:


> tgara said:
> 
> 
> > tnargs said:
> ...



Doesn't that depend on what kind of USM? I've heard the 70-300 non-L doesn't use ring USM like most of canon's lenses, but a slower, less accurate variant. As for STM being faster, that applies to live view on cameras with phase-detect AF on the sensor, like the 70d. USM will have a slight delay before focusing whereas STM will move right to your subject.

Correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 22, 2013)

silvestography said:


> Doesn't that depend on what kind of USM? I've heard the 70-300 non-L doesn't use ring USM like most of canon's lenses, but a slower, less accurate variant. As for STM being faster, that applies to live view on cameras with phase-detect AF on the sensor, like the 70d. USM will have a slight delay before focusing whereas STM will move right to your subject.
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong.



True - I was referring to Ring USM, but there's also Micromotor USM which is quieter but no faster than a regular arc-form drive micromotor. 

I'm not sure which would be faster overall (ring USM or STM) in Live View with Phase AF - the STM lenses that I have (40/2.8, 22/2) move quite slowly relative to my ring USM lenses. But they're also front-focusing designs.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Aug 22, 2013)

I've often switherd with the original 55-250 or mk2, I could use a cheap telezoom for the days when I want light gear...

So long as this isn't priced way more than the current version I might just get one, and of course the mk1 or mk2 may actually get a wee drop in price...


----------



## Hammer (Aug 22, 2013)

The II version has been available on eBay NIB for $140ish for the past month or so. I grabbed one.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Canon-EF-S-55-250mm-f-4-0-5-6-IS-II-Telephoto-Zoom-Lens-for-Digital-SLR-Camera-/390617361238?_trksid=p2050601.m1256&_trkparms=clkid=78678368759489167


----------



## WoodyWindy (Aug 22, 2013)

Holy Guacamole! The MTF looks amazing - much more like the 70-300 L than anything else, possibly better even than the 70-200 f/4 L IS.


----------



## RGomezPhotos (Aug 22, 2013)

When I first saw this I thought "Ho-Hum, an EF-S lens..." But I'm becoming more fascinated with it. It's a relatively cheap lens so I wonder about the quality. I was highly impressed with the 18-200mm EF-S I tried a few weeks ago. But it's also 2x the cost...

Can't wait for pics....


----------



## trav.cunningham (Aug 22, 2013)

IceAgeDX said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > trav.cunningham said:
> ...



Rear focusing means the front element does not move while focusing. A big plus when using filters.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 23, 2013)

trav.cunningham said:


> Rear focusing means the front element does not move while focusing. A big plus when using filters.



True, but that's not mutually exclusive. There are front focusing lenses where the front element doesn't rotate, like the 85L, 40/2.8, etc. A rotating front element is only an issue for polarizers and grad NDs.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 23, 2013)

WoodyWindy said:


> Holy Guacamole! The MTF looks amazing - much more like the 70-300 L than anything else, possibly better even than the 70-200 f/4 L IS.



yeah, other than at the corners the MTF are better than the 70-200 f/4 IS at the wide end wide open (granted that was always the weak spot of the 70-200 f/4 IS, but still....) and even at the long end, where the 70-200 is VERY good, the new EF-S lens actually has better MTF there too wide open! for the center and center mid! although the near and far edges and corners are worse and granted you are comparing f/4 to f/5.6, the 70-200 f/4 IS might be universally ahead once set to f/5.6 (then again you are comparing 200mm to 250mm too so....).

anyway it looks to be quite a fine performer, aps-c only though, slower and slower AF, still, quite a bargain, a new 'secret L' of sorts perhaps.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Aug 23, 2013)

MTF may be good, but color and contrast are the question...


----------



## jdramirez (Aug 23, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > trav.cunningham said:
> ...



Canon isn't going to give you L quality and performance and not charge a premium for it.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Aug 23, 2013)

jdramirez said:


> Canon isn't going to give you L quality and performance and not charge a premium for it.



What is L quality and performance?

It's a term I've often heard, but I don't know what specific criteria it refers to.

It's not weather sealing because I own and have owned L lenses with and without weather sealing.
It's not AF performance, because the AF on my old TS-E 24mm f3.5L was lousy to the point of being non-exsistent.
It certainly isn't MTF figures on their own, becuase there are many non-L lenses that match or exceed L lenses in some resolution regards, such as the fast short telephoto primes.

I'm knowingly being pedantic here. I know L is a marketing term that in actual fact means you have a red ring round your lens and thats about it, but I always have to question those blithely using the term 'L quality'. If it's quantifiable then go on, quanitfy it.

What is L quality.

I don't think anybody is realistically expecting the 55-250 STM to have Canons best build, weather sealing, or the fastest AF, or smoothest bokeh etc etc. But here's the rub... It's canon doing in some ways what they do best, what got me using canon EOS in the first place back in the early 90's, what keeps canon top of the market..

Right kit for the target market at the right price.

Anybody who jumps on giving budgets users half decent kit (with things like FTM and non-rotating filter threads wowsers!) because it isn't 'L quality' just looks like a snobby tit.

This lens isn't for the most serious of users, or for the phallic extension rich dads at schools sports day. But it's the right lens for a lot of folk, and thats why canon will sell shedloads, and stay in business.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 23, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> I'm knowingly being pedantic here. I know L is a marketing term that in actual fact means you have a red ring round your lens and thats about it, but I always have to question those blithely using the term 'L quality'. If it's quantifiable then go on, quanitfy it.
> 
> What is L quality.



In general, the build quality of L-series lenses is more rugged than non-L lenses. That's not always commensurate with price - compare the EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS with the EF 24-105/4L IS, two similarly-priced lenses (kit pricing notwithstanding). The zoom the lens barrel out, the 24-105L hits the stop with a solid shhhuuuuuk sound, whereas the 17-55 hits the stop with a hollow clunnnk sound. Turn the focus ring of a non-L vs. an L lens - the non-L often feels a bit sloppy, gritty, and has play whereas the L is smooth and well damped. Note the technical terminology used to describe the differences  .

So yeah, mostly it's the red ring and it's like one of our esteemed (or not so much) US congressmen once said about p0rn - you know it when you see it.


----------



## hgraf (Aug 23, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> True - I was referring to Ring USM, but there's also Micromotor USM which is quieter but no faster than a regular arc-form drive micromotor.
> 
> I'm not sure which would be faster overall (ring USM or STM) in Live View with Phase AF - the STM lenses that I have (40/2.8, 22/2) move quite slowly relative to my ring USM lenses. But they're also front-focusing designs.



FWIW the 18-135 EF-S IS STM is FAST, REALLY fast at focusing. I haven't compared to ring USM, but it's way faster then the old 18-135 with micromotor, and faster then the 40mm pancake.

Even better, the STM in the 18-135 is silent. I seriously can't hear it unless I place my ear right to the lens, and even then I often can hear it. Amazing.

I can't comment on the 55-250 STM since obviously I don't have one in my hand, but if it's anything like the 18-135 STM it'll be a keeper.

TTYL


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Aug 23, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> paul13walnut5 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm knowingly being pedantic here. I know L is a marketing term that in actual fact means you have a red ring round your lens and thats about it, but I always have to question those blithely using the term 'L quality'. If it's quantifiable then go on, quanitfy it.
> ...



"Often"

"General"

It was pretty much a rhetorical question. Thanks for your answer anyway. I'm not doubting that L lenses are more expensive for a reason, nowhere in your answer have you came up with the specifics. There are for example plenty of lenses with lovely smooth focus rings that aren't part of the L family.. Don't worry, you are in good company, I can't recall Canons definition of L.

My point is that to draw negative or positive comparisons to an ill defined concept such as L or non-L is ridiculous. It is what it is. The greater point is that if canon is making the new cheap gear this good then the expensive gear users must have plenty to look forward to.


----------



## Jim O (Aug 23, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> So yeah, mostly it's the red ring and it's like one of our esteemed (or not so much) US congressmen once said about p0rn - you know it when you see it.



Actually, it was Potter Stewart, an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, someone far more esteemed than some unnamed congressman.



> I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But *I know it when I see it*, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that. [Bold added.]
> —Justice Potter Stewart, concurring opinion in Jacobellis v. Ohio 378 U.S. 184 (1964)



Justice Stewart also later rued having made the statement. He recanted this view in Miller v. California, in which he accepted that his prior view was simply untenable.

FWIW, I know "it" when I see it too.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Aug 23, 2013)

And this lens isn't.

Great for many other reasons though.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 23, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> Don't worry, you are in good company, I can't recall Canons definition of L.



Here you go...

[quote author=Canon, Lens Work III, p.15]
_The bright red line engraved on the lens barrel. And an L for “luxury.”
The Canon EF lens L series possesses a level of quality sufficiently high to be called professional,
designed to include groundbreaking image performance, outstanding operability, and resistance to weather and aging. “L.” This name is reserved only for those few lenses that can meet stringent standards of performance,
using fluorite (an artificial crystal), a ground and polished aspherical surface,
UD, super UD lenses, or other special optical materials.
Optical design without compromise together with optical theory and precision engineering
technologies that are as steeped in tradition as they are cutting edge.
And the result of our relentless pursuit of these ideals is the L series of Canon EF lens_
[/quote]

(@Jim O, thanks for the correction!)


----------



## Jim O (Aug 23, 2013)

"L" is for "Luxury" or for "as expensive as 'ell".


----------



## mrsfotografie (Aug 23, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Here you go...
> 
> [quote author=Canon, Lens Work III, p.15]
> _Optical design without compromise_



[/quote]

Hmmm. 'without compromise' is a bold statement, if that were true then almost none of the 'L' lensed could be afforded by mere mortals


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Aug 23, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> paul13walnut5 said:
> 
> 
> > Don't worry, you are in good company, I can't recall Canons definition of L.
> ...



(@Jim O, thanks for the correction!)
[/quote]

No, you misunderstand. I had actually read that. It doesn't actually say anything.

I'm just wondering which part of the marketing speil we should use as a distinction of 'L quality' as this seems to be benchmark to which all lenses should aspire.

I have L glass, i've owned and sold L glass, and I've loved using them, some have been good, some have been brilliant, but other than the red ring there is no single technical aspect that anybody anywhere can use as a distinctive measure of 'L quality'.

'L quality' is not a measure of anything. So its pointless to describe or compare the 55-250 to 'L quality' as a generic benchmark. Compare it to a specific L lens by all means, but 'L quality' is an entirely arbitrary pretext.

That is all.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 23, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> I have L glass, i've owned and sold L glass, and I've loved using them, some have been good, some have been brilliant, but other than the red ring there is no single technical aspect that anybody anywhere can use as a distinctive measure of 'L quality'.
> 
> 'L quality' is not a measure of anything. So its pointless to describe or compare the 55-250 to 'L quality' as a generic benchmark. Compare it to a specific L lens by all means, but 'L quality' is an entirely arbitrary pretext.



It's not pointless at all, IMO. For example, there's no L lens with a plastic mount. The EF-S 55-250mm has a plastic mount. Not L quality. Simple.


----------



## jebrady03 (Aug 23, 2013)

Ummm, I'll take a plastic mount for 1/10 of the price if all else is equal


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 23, 2013)

jebrady03 said:


> Ummm, I'll take a plastic mount for 1/10 of the price if all else is equal



Me, too...


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Aug 23, 2013)

Neuro, I don't know why you are even bothering, they clearly aren't making this lens for somebody like you. It's too small and light for you not to loose it in those deep pockets of yours.

But I'm glad we are getting to a shortlist of things that make an L lens an L lens.

1. Red ring
2. Metal mount

Although I am aware that there are other lenses also have a metal mount that aren't L lenses..
Maybe I should make the list of things that make an L lens exclusively an L lens.

So I'm back to:

1. Red ring.

I know you are an educated man, so I know you'll get the difference between me picking holes in the use of the term rather than decrying L lenses as products. 

This 55-250 IS lens looks like a great addition to Canons range, a good value, well performing lens with hopefully a modest price. I don't know why 'L quality' or not has to come into it. Mainly because the term 'L quality' means very little, it may allude to a set of expectations (some of which not every L lens will even match) but to a potential buyer of this lens, 'L quality' means nothing. And it's not marketed as being top end.


----------



## jebrady03 (Aug 23, 2013)

I, admittedly, don't know enough about the L line to be able to do this myself, but I think it would be pretty funny/alarming for someone to make a mock marketing campaign about a forthcoming L series lens which said the lens was on par with the very worst of the worst attributes of well known L lenses. For instance...

The new _______ L has the build quality of the (insert poor build quality L lens here), AF speed and accuracy of the (insert worst offender here), weather sealing and durability of the (insert worst here), etc., and it's only 2x the price of (a fantastic performing 3rd party lens of equal focal range, but faster).

I agree Paul13walnut5, there's no single specific attribute that can be assigned to the L series.


----------



## Jim O (Aug 23, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> Neuro, I don't know why you are even bothering, they clearly aren't making this lens for somebody like you. It's too small and light for you not to loose it in those deep pockets of yours.


I have no pony in this race, but having deep pockets does not imply willingness to throw one's money away, nor the ability to recognize a bargain.

If the *only* difference between "L" lenses and others was a plastic mount, and if one could get them at 10% of the cost, one would be foolish not to fill their bag with lenses that have plastic mounts. After all, if the mount breaks, one can throw away the lens (many times over) and still be ahead of the game.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Aug 23, 2013)

The new _______ L has the _push pull design of the 100-400_, the _extending design of the 70-300 L_, the AF speed of the _24mm TS-E_ and accuracy _of the 50mm f1.2_, weather sealing of the _70-200 f2.8L_ _corner optical quality of the 17-40 wide open_ max aperture of the _400mm f5.6_ and durability of the (insert worst here), etc., and it's only 2x the price of sigma 18-35 f1.8.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 23, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> I know you'll get the difference between me picking holes in the use of the term rather than decrying L lenses as products.



Yeah, I get it...and you're right, there's certainly not 'one technical metric' anyone can point to, that defines a L lens. It's more of a combination of elements - better build, faster aperture than other lenses of similar focal length(s), constant f/number where another zoom might have a variable aperture, weather sealing in some cases, etc. You also have to keep the timing factor in mind - weather sealing is a (relatively) newer feature, with the exception of TS-E lenses, all of the more recent L-series lenses have sealing.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Aug 23, 2013)

Jim O said:


> paul13walnut5 said:
> 
> 
> > Neuro, I don't know why you are even bothering, they clearly aren't making this lens for somebody like you. It's too small and light for you not to loose it in those deep pockets of yours.
> ...



I was making a joke. Neuro has the best of gear. An abundance of the best of gear. Other than liking to have his say this lens isn't on his radar.

I'm making two points here.

1. The lens is a god send to all the folk buying canon gear within modest means. Canons ability to make good gear at competitive prices is the key to their success. 

I recall Neuro saying his first DLSR or first Canon DSLR was a 500D. I'm willing to be corrected on that, but if I'm right, canon pitched their entry level 500D perfectly - it worked well enough to bring folk into the system, and gave folk enough taste to go onto to better more expenisve things. The 500D was good business for Canon in this case, even though there would be contemporaneous pundits on forums like this going 'aah but it's not a 5D mark 2, is it?' So much like this lens. Todays first time DSLR buyer, or person expanding their rebel kit might suddenly have an epiphany using this lens. They might get the sharpest wildlife or sports shot they've had to date. They might get the taste to really get into their photography. Or it might give them a shot of a loved one that wouldn't have been possible with their 18-55. I'm all for great lenses for little money.

2. 'L Quality' doesn't have any meaning. 

and I suppose ..

3. The death of APS-C has been vastly over-stated.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Aug 23, 2013)

If the new 55-250mm STM is as good as the 18-55mm STM, will be the most cost-effective for APS-C. The weakness of the current model is the mechanical construction, and this seems to have been greatly improved in version STM except mounting that remains plastic. However, for the weight of the lens, an assembly of metal is not essential. I do not understand how Canon continues to make lenses like 75-300mm, that no owner of full-frame camera would buy. Perhaps there is market for an EF-S 135-500mm ... Who knows. This is my first post. Sorry for bad English google.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Aug 23, 2013)

Great point, it's a light lens so plastic should be fine, I remember EOS cameras with plastic lens mounts!!!


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Aug 23, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> Great point, it's a light lens so plastic should be fine, I remember EOS cameras with plastic lens mounts!!!


Are you saying that there were bodies with EOS bayonet plastic? I started using Canon EOS in 2002 and never saw a bayonet plastic body. At that time, my dream of consumption was a 28-105mm F4-5.6 USM I bought some time later, and she had plastic bayonet, but I never found it a problem.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Aug 23, 2013)

Yes!

My EOS 1000 had a plastic mount, my 5 (Ae2) didn't, I don't think my 50e had (Elan II I think in dollars), my insurance claim 300 did, my 3 and 300x did not.

I don't think any DSLRs have had plastic mounts, but I was a late adopter, so missed the start of the party (i.e. arrived fashionably late)


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 23, 2013)

My Rebel 2000 has a plastic mount.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 23, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> I was making a joke. Neuro has the best of gear. An abundance of the best of gear. Other than liking to have his say this lens isn't on his radar.
> 
> I'm making two points here.
> 
> ...



Actually, I was thinking the new 55-250 might pair well with my EOS M (via adapter), for a light kit when AF speed isn't critical. 

Yes, T1i/500D was my first dSLR, bought with a 17-55/2.8 IS, 85/1.8 and 430EX II. The 100/2.8L Macro IS was my 'gateway drug'. 

1. Agree

2. Disagree - pick up a 17-55 and a 24-105, or a 50/1.4 and a 50/1.2L, and 'L build quality' is obvious. 

3. APS-C is dead. Long live APS-C (and it will...).


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Aug 23, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> paul13walnut5 said:
> 
> 
> > 2. 'L Quality' doesn't have any meaning.
> ...



Yeah, but pick up any of the fast USM primes and say a 200 f2.8 or 135 f2.8 and the difference isn't so apparent.

The L's are properly designed as tools for a given job, so it's not to be unexpected that they have individual characteristics, some are state of the art and have everything that could be reasonably expected from a lens by a working professional. Others are robust precision tools with the money spent where it matters rather on redundant features like say AF on a TSE or IS on a fisheye...

My gripe is not about the general greatness of L lenses and the expectation that the red ring rightfully inspires, it's just that as a parameter of comparison, it's not the greatness, it's the general bit that bothers me.

To decry a budget lens ('gateway' was spot on) as being or not being 'L quality' just isn't all that useful.

It's blind submission to marketing speak. 

I've came up with two things for my list...

1. Red Ring
2. EF mount

Dang, there are other lenses with EF mounts that aren't L's.

Sheeeeeet (to quote Clay Davis)

1. Red Ring.

I'm aware I'm being a boring pedantic pr1ck here. I just don't know what L quality means. Well I do. But really, literally, we don't. Canon doesn't. As their EOS Works statement belies. 

It shouldn't be so easy a thing to say, if it isn't so easy to define.

And it shouldn't really be applied to a lens like the 55-250 STM in any terms. It's just not helpful at all to anybody.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Aug 23, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> Yes!
> 
> My EOS 1000 had a plastic mount, my 5 (Ae2) didn't, I don't think my 50e had (Elan II I think in dollars), my insurance claim 300 did, my 3 and 300x did not.
> 
> I don't think any DSLRs have had plastic mounts, but I was a late adopter, so missed the start of the party (i.e. arrived fashionably late)



The 50e mount was metal, in fact it also had a partially aluminium body.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Aug 23, 2013)

I'm just thinking back to my 50e, I couldn't quite place if it was metal or that metal effect paint. It had that champagne lustre (which was actually quite nice) from this distance looking back I couldn't remember if that was a trim feature or indicative of the build of the camera.

I remember it was a chunky bugger, bigger than my 5 (AE2), I can't recall ever truely falling in love with my 50e..
Although when I bought it I thought the switchgear for functions was briliant.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 24, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> Yeah, but pick up any of the fast USM primes and say a 200 f2.8 or 135 f2.8 and the difference isn't so apparent.



Ok, let's see...

50/1.2L USM - ring USM, aspherical element, circular aperture, weather sealing
50/1.4 USM - micromotor USM, no special elements, no circular aperture

85/1.2L II USM - aspherical element, circular aperture
85/1.8 USM - no special elements, no circular aperture

100/2 USM - no special elements
135/2L USM - two UD elements
200/2.8L II USM - two UD elements

The other thing to remember is that not all elements are created equal. For example, Canon uses four types of aspherical elements, ranging from moulded plastic at the low end to ground and polished glass at the top; replica elements (resin layered on glass) and moulded glass are in between. So, while the EF-S 18-55 IS kit lens has an aspherical element as does the 85L II, the former's is moulded plastic whereas the latter's is ground and polished glass. 

It seems you think there should be a list of features exclusive to L-series lenses, but that's not how it works. 'L quality' is a gestalt of image quality, features (f/number, number of aperture blades and circularity, etc.), and build/construction. That, and a red ring.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Aug 24, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> paul13walnut5 said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, but pick up any of the fast USM primes and say a 200 f2.8 or 135 f2.8 and the difference isn't so apparent.
> ...



But now you are twisting my reply.

You really should quote the first bit competely, which was:



paul13walnut5 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > paul13walnut5 said:
> ...



I did of course mean the 135mm f2.0 rather the the f2.8, but in every other regard, you are talking about internal specifics rather than *build quality*, which is where I picked up from.

I'm going to have to let this go. I thought I was being discursive with an enthusiast. I've actually picked a fight with a zealot hypnotised by the red ring. 
You win.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 24, 2013)

Zealot? 

My point really boils down to the fact that L-series lenses are 'better' in one or more ways than their non-L counterparts. Better in one or more ways doesn't mean better in all ways, and in fact, they're often not better in all ways - and if you factor in price (and/or value - 50L, I'm looking at you), they're never better in all ways. 

Specifically regarding build quality they are generally better, even if the differences are mainly/only internal (heavier glass elements require more robust support, etc.). 

Even if we can't specifically define 'L build quality,' I hope we can agree that the new 55-250 doesn't have it, and I think we can also agree that no one should expect it to, and that doesn't change the fact that it appears to be an excellent lens and a great value.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Aug 24, 2013)

And these are all points I made specifically along the way if you read back.

I didn't expect you to take my response (or an incomplete quotation without vital context) to one specific point (build quality) and then try to make me out to be a fool based on other criteria.

Naughty play, my debating is done with you.


----------



## Zv (Aug 24, 2013)

When I first gor the 10-22 it seemed like L quality build compared to the 18-55 kit lens. Then I got the 17-40L and realized what actual L build quality was. Pretty sure I could use the 17-40 as some kind of crude weapon in a fight and it would come out less bruised and bashed that I would!

I forgot why are we arguing about L build quality? If you think non L is fine try putting it in a regular backpack, unpadded with no case and throw in a few cans and then go for a jog up a mountain. Might survive. Might not. But you'd be worried right? Not so much with the L. 

This was not aimed at Paul just everyone on this thread because I think we lost track of what we were meant to be discussing.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Aug 24, 2013)

The term was 'L quality' initially.

It's all semantics.

I've been worn down.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 24, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> The term was 'L quality' initially.
> 
> It's all semantics.
> 
> I've been worn down.



There's the dead horse, now, where'd I put that stick? 

It appeared to me that your point was that since 'L quality' can't be specifically defined by inclusionary and exclusionary criteria, it shouldn't be considered at all. You then concluded the only differentiating factor was the red ring (which I hope was hyperbole). I pointed out a few things left off your list, not focused exclusively on build (for example, is there a non-L lens with a ground/polished aspherical element?). 

But it can be semantics, I suppose. Most things are, in the end. Why is Sigma's 35/1.4 an Art lens - can't I shoot basketball from under the net with it? Canon says L is for Luxury. There are some cars that are called 'luxury cars' and many that aren't called that. What distinguishes them? My Subaru has power everything, heated wiper blades, and even heated seats to warm my butt on a cold winter day - those features are found in 'luxury cars', does that make my station wagon a luxury car?


----------



## jdramirez (Aug 24, 2013)

Wow... I started a fire storm. I suppose designations are entirely subjective, but sometimes you just know. 

Tom Brady's wife is a Super model... what makes her super... who knows, but I'd love to put my finger ON it.


----------



## jdramirez (Aug 24, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > paul13walnut5 said:
> ...



There are a ton of aspects to a lens that aren't simply covered in an MTF chart.

1. Build quality (metal v. plastic)
2. Weather sealing
3. Aperture variable v. constant regarding zooms.
4. Max aperture
5. Sharpness @ center and at edges
6. Color replication/saturation
7. Contrast
8. Chromatic abberation
9. aperture design (round v. hexagonal) 
10. vignetting
11. barrel distortion
12. full time manual focus
13. auto focus speed
14. bokeh rendering

Every lens is a sacrifice. We are dealing with the properties of bending and capturing light. And while "L Quality" may be a vague term, you can often say that many of the 14 should be an improvement over the non-L counter part. 

There are too many smart people in these threads and photographers in general who would be swayed by branding and advertising.


----------



## Zv (Aug 24, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> paul13walnut5 said:
> 
> 
> > The term was 'L quality' initially.
> ...



This should be one of the 10 CR Commandments (see that thread). Thou shalt NOT use a Sigma 35 1.4 Art lens for Sports! Blasphemy!

;D


----------



## WoodyWindy (Aug 25, 2013)

Let's see...

Roughly two pages of commentary on the new lens, its characteristics, and how they compare to other lenses (including "L" lenses).

Three pages (at posting time) of "So, define 'L'?" flame war.

Sad.


----------



## YZF197 (Aug 29, 2013)

i use everything from tamron 2.8 zooms to "muh L lenses!". right now i'm borrowing a 70-200 2.8 (1995 version, no IS) for football season as last year i shot with the awesome 200 2.8 L (old version, early 90's). L lenses should stand for in a 'L'eague of their own. that 200 2.8 'L' had the worst chrom abs in high contrast of any lens i've ever shot with but i didn't buy it for high contrast high light situations, i bought it because i needed a job to be done and only the 'L' version was up to the task. canon doesn't make a 200 f/4 consumer lens, and i was fed up with 70-300 4-5.6 crap tier lenses.

'L' lenses either go full retard with awesome features OR get you focal lengths and aperture combos that plebs can't get with regular EF/EF-s lenses. the red ring is just to show you're serious - take that as you may. i've seen plenty of red ringers acting like it was babby's first photo shoot or a freshman art student. it's a tool for a specialty job, kinda like a jackhammer or a grinder. you don't send a hammer and a screwdriver to do a jackhammer's job or a nail file to do a grinder's job. just like you don't send a gripped 5D mk III to do a cell phone's job.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Aug 29, 2013)

Disapointed to hear about your negative experience with the 200mm f2.8 (metal sliding hood = mk1, clip on plastic hood mk2, identical in everyother regard) i had this lens for a few years and absolutely loved it.
No chroma issues I can remember (unlike say, my 100mm f2.0 in bright light wide open)

Maybe you got a bad copy, was the lens filtered?

P.s. What do you mean by 'full retard'?


----------



## jdramirez (Aug 29, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> Disapointed to hear about your negative experience with the 200mm f2.8 (metal sliding hood = mk1, clip on plastic hood mk2, identical in everyother regard) i had this lens for a few years and absolutely loved it.
> No chroma issues I can remember (unlike say, my 100mm f2.0 in bright light wide open)
> 
> Maybe you got a bad copy, was the lens filtered?
> ...



I heard somewhere you NEVER go full retard.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Aug 29, 2013)

I'm hoping it's an unfortunate translation by the likes of babel fish. Thats the only reason I've not reported it.

Horrible word. Much like we in the UK have banished the term 'spastic' maybe the term 'retard' should be replaced.



jdramirez said:


> paul13walnut5 said:
> 
> 
> > Disapointed to hear about your negative experience with the 200mm f2.8 (metal sliding hood = mk1, clip on plastic hood mk2, identical in everyother regard) i had this lens for a few years and absolutely loved it.
> ...



I might however report you jdramirez.


----------



## mrzero (Aug 29, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> P.s. What do you mean by 'full retard'?



http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/full-retard


----------



## jdramirez (Aug 30, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> I'm hoping it's an unfortunate translation by the likes of babel fish. Thats the only reason I've not reported it.
> 
> Horrible word. Much like we in the UK have banished the term 'spastic' maybe the term 'retard' should be replaced.
> 
> ...



tropic thunder... good movie. and feel free to report me. if people are going to be offended by words out of context, then there are bigger issues for them than the censor ship of the English language.


----------



## Zv (Aug 30, 2013)

jdramirez said:


> paul13walnut5 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm hoping it's an unfortunate translation by the likes of babel fish. Thats the only reason I've not reported it.
> ...



Seriously? Tropic Thunder! Watch it before reporting anyone!


----------



## jdramirez (Aug 30, 2013)

Zv said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > paul13walnut5 said:
> ...



I wonder if I have it on my computer... I have a hankering to watch it now.

Nope.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Aug 30, 2013)

jdramirez said:


> if people are going to be offended by words out of context, then there are bigger issues for them than the censor ship of the English language.



It's an offensive word in the wrong context, I sought context, you merely repeated the word, without context.

It's not censorship. It's keeping things civil. Words like 'nigger' and 'poof' appear in the dictionary also. That doesn't make them fair game to be used without a thought for the consequences.


----------



## 9VIII (Sep 30, 2013)

So, the lens is out now, and so far reviews look pretty darn good.


----------



## Zwentibold (Oct 9, 2013)

9VIII said:


> So, the lens is out now, and so far reviews look pretty darn good.



Well until now I was not able to find any test. Do you have some magical url to give ?


----------



## Ruined (Oct 9, 2013)

While I don't have a technical test per se, from my own experience I can state that the EF-S 55-250 STM blows away the EF 70-300mm IS USM (non-L) in virtually every category aside from the plastic mount. If you have APS-C and you are using the 70-300 IS USM, the 55-250 STM is a nice upgrade.


----------



## jdramirez (Oct 9, 2013)

interesting. I always held the 55-250 in high regard for its price.


----------



## valkerie (Oct 11, 2013)

my 55-250 STM will be here on Monday oct. 14th .. oops , my wifes lens will be here on the 14th ... I just purchased in june a SL1 for her . her first DSLR .. it came with a 18-55 stm lens .. just before the new lens was announced I purchased a 55-250 mkll .. so that will be going .. I wanted to see any reviews on the lens , but I'll just do my own ..


----------



## trav.cunningham (Oct 23, 2013)

Bryan over at TDP posted the 55-250 STM review:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-55-250mm-f-4-5.6-IS-STM-Lens.aspx

"After using this lens a healthy amount including on a couple of short-duration trips in addition to locally, I have to admit that keeping this lens in my kit has been a consideration for me. The results it delivers are quite good. The 55-250 IS STM is a very good option for those times when traveling light is very highly desirable including trail running, hiking, traveling, etc."

The text where I added the yellow highlight really stood out to me. For Bryan to consider keeping the lens in his kit speaks volumes for this bargain lens.


----------

