# New Lens Announcement Tonight [CR3]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 21, 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/new-lens-announcement-tonight-cr3/"></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/new-lens-announcement-tonight-cr3/">Tweet</a></div>
<p><strong>Not too exciting….

</strong>Canon will announce an update to the EF-S 55-250 f/4-5.6 IS by adding STM and some optical upgrades.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## WoodyWindy (Aug 21, 2013)

Optical upgrades?!?! The old 55-250 is already a pretty solid piece of work optically. I can't wait to see how it could improve. I mean, if it gets much better, it would practically eliminate the need to go to an L in that range.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 21, 2013)

14-24/2.8L? 35L II? 

Naah, this is way better. : At least it means no money out the door.


----------



## jebrady03 (Aug 21, 2013)

Can I get it in an M mount please?
Thank you!


----------



## crasher8 (Aug 21, 2013)

I've never owned one but I suspect it's probably the #3 if not #2 lens for new shooters behind the kit and 75-300 lenses. Of course it needs a refresh.


----------



## preppyak (Aug 21, 2013)

WoodyWindy said:


> Optical upgrades?!?! The old 55-250 is already a pretty solid piece of work optically. I can't wait to see how it could improve. I mean, if it gets much better, it would practically eliminate the need to go to an L in that range.


A lens is more than just image quality...the build on the 55-250 is very plastic-y and as such, wouldn't have much of a chance holding up as well as the L's do in outdoor conditions (knocking around in a pack, in the rain, etc).


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Aug 21, 2013)

WoodyWindy said:


> Optical upgrades?!?! The old 55-250 is already a pretty solid piece of work optically. I can't wait to see how it could improve. I mean, if it gets much better, it would practically eliminate the need to go to an L in that range.



I wouldn't go quite that far: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=456&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=738&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Yeah, the L lens is five times as much, but it is in a whole different league optically.


----------



## Act444 (Aug 21, 2013)

jebrady03 said:


> Can I get it in an M mount please?
> Thank you!



+1


----------



## zim (Aug 21, 2013)

or reverse the results

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=456&Camera=474&FLI=1&API=0&LensComp=738&Sample=0&SampleComp=0&CameraComp=736&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

why is that?


----------



## J (Aug 21, 2013)

jebrady03 said:


> Can I get it in an M mount please?
> Thank you!


I would be sufficiently happy if it came with a metal mount. Betting against though.


----------



## Janbo Makimbo (Aug 21, 2013)

Such snobbery...... Not too exciting.... a lot us users love this lens and can't afford the more expensive L Series glass.

I thought your site was for all canon users !!


----------



## SouthTune (Aug 21, 2013)

.....announce an update to the EF-S 55-250 f/*3.5*-5.6 IS
you cannot update a lens that does not exist... ;D probably you are referring to the EF-S 55-250 f/*4.0*-5.6 IS


----------



## crasher8 (Aug 21, 2013)

Um, hello? There is an EF adapter for EOS-M


----------



## jebrady03 (Aug 21, 2013)

crasher8 said:


> Um, hello? There is an EF adapter for EOS-M



Yes, because a 7" lens balances well on the M when you add an extra inch to it via adapter.


----------



## Cali_PH (Aug 21, 2013)

crasher8 said:


> Um, hello? There is an EF adapter for EOS-M



Not everyone wants to use a larger, heavier DSLR lens + adapter on the M. For many (not all) that'd defeat one major reason purpose of having it.


----------



## rs (Aug 21, 2013)

Cali_PH said:


> crasher8 said:
> 
> 
> > Um, hello? There is an EF adapter for EOS-M
> ...


A crop lens that starts at 55mm is very unlikely to be a retrofocus design, so I fail to see how it could be made any smaller with the shorter flange distance of the EF-M mount.


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 21, 2013)

"Canon will announce an update to the EF-S 55-250 f/3.5-5.6 IS by adding STM and some optical upgrades"

:-\ :-[ :-[ :'( :'( :'(

*MORE PANCAKES*


----------



## tnargs (Aug 21, 2013)

I hope to see a bit more centre sharpness at the 250 end, and faster focusing when tracking at 250. My only other regular annoyance is having to turn AF off to manually adjust focus; if that is upgraded it will be a great buy.


----------



## Cali_PH (Aug 21, 2013)

rs said:


> Cali_PH said:
> 
> 
> > crasher8 said:
> ...



I won't speak to whether they can or not, I was only commenting on why several people above asked for one, and why crasher8's comment may not be an answer for those requesting it.


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 21, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> 14-24/2.8L? 35L II?
> 
> Naah, this is way better. : At least it means no money out the door.


+1


----------



## sagittariansrock (Aug 21, 2013)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> WoodyWindy said:
> 
> 
> > Optical upgrades?!?! The old 55-250 is already a pretty solid piece of work optically. I can't wait to see how it could improve. I mean, if it gets much better, it would practically eliminate the need to go to an L in that range.
> ...



Yeah, try doing that comparison with a crop sensor camera on both sides and it will level the field a lot 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=456&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=0&LensComp=738&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

I am not going to suggest the 55-250 is better than the 70-300L, but using the 1DsIII with the L and 50D with the 55-250 is hardly a fair comparison.


----------



## crasher8 (Aug 22, 2013)

fwiw I sold my M. Not because I couldn't mount a 55-250 on it though. I for one am surprised at people defending this so so lens. If money is an issue, buy used. Buy Sigma. Buy Tokina and Tamron.


----------



## raptor3x (Aug 22, 2013)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> WoodyWindy said:
> 
> 
> > Optical upgrades?!?! The old 55-250 is already a pretty solid piece of work optically. I can't wait to see how it could improve. I mean, if it gets much better, it would practically eliminate the need to go to an L in that range.
> ...




Not really, if you compare them both on an APS-C body then the L lens is just barely better than the 55-250. On the other hand compare the 55-250 vs the 70-200 is ii at 200mm both on crop and you'll see a world of difference.


----------



## Zv (Aug 22, 2013)

I'm sure the 55-250 is a nice lens but you can't compare it to an L. The Ls have a (wider) constant aperture and are weathersealed. That alone is reason to buy them. How annoying is using manual exposure with a varying aperture lens? Not good at all.


----------



## jhanken (Aug 22, 2013)

> Um, hello? There is an EF adapter for EOS-M



Yes, but it is an inelegant solution for many of the M use cases. It works great when your M's job is to serve as a backup/second body. But for the reason I believe the M really created, to serve as compact travel system and compete with the NEX et. al., the adapter is sub-optimal. I am glad I got one, though!

I would love the the EOS-M 11-22mm and a nice telephoto zoom, likely 55-250mm or similar. Maybe a 35 or 50 prime and we have a pretty complete system.


----------



## WoodyWindy (Aug 22, 2013)

Well, I was time limited, so I didn't specify which L. Of course, if you want the speed or fixed aperture of the 70-200's, you can't really compare.

And no, the existing lens isn't quite in the same league optically or even close in build to most L lenses, though it is optically among "the best of the rest". However, if the optics truly are improved (which was the point of my original post), it will make it hard for most casual or even fairly serious crop users to justify kicking up to the 70-300 L.


----------



## kphoto99 (Aug 22, 2013)

WoodyWindy said:


> And no, the existing lens isn't quite in the same league optically or even close in build to most L lenses, though it is optically among "the best of the rest". However, if the optics truly are improved (which was the point of my original post), it will make it hard for most casual or even fairly serious crop users to justify kicking up to the 70-300 L.



When I first got T2i kit with the 18-55, I also bought the 55-250mm 4-5.6 IS lens. It was my first dSLR. I found both lenses to be horrible. I was surprised that Canon would make such bad lenses. The 55-250 is really bad, even my son who is now using the T2i does not want to use it.

If this is really "the best of the rest", then what lenses are worst then the 55-250?


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Aug 22, 2013)

raptor3x said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > WoodyWindy said:
> ...



Wow - I've never done that before, but that seems really odd to me. I don't know why the image quality from the 70-300L should be that different between the FF body and the crop - I have not seen that to be evident in actual use. Something seems wrong there. I seriously doubt the 55-250 would look that much better on a FF body if it were capable of being mounted there.


----------



## spturtle (Aug 22, 2013)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Wow - I've never done that before, but that seems really odd to me. I don't know why the image quality from the 70-300L should be that different between the FF body and the crop - I have not seen that to be evident in actual use. Something seems wrong there. I seriously doubt the 55-250 would look that much better on a FF body if it were capable of being mounted there.



These Canon APS-C format cameras have a significantly higher pixel resolution than their 35mm format counterparts. So to me it is not strange that the image quality goes down from FF-> APS-C. The effect is similar to putting a 1.4x extender on the lens. For the 55-250 on a 35mm format Canon camera, sure the center sharpness should go up but the edges and corners may be black or otherwise very bad.


----------



## pj1974 (Aug 22, 2013)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> raptor3x said:
> 
> 
> > TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> ...



The results of lens resolution tests on The Digital Picture (TDP) have recently been discussed on this forum:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=16229.0
and
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=10289.0

The results can not be compared between different sensor sizes / camera systems (eg FF vs APS-C).
FF will generally yield sharper results per pixel than APS-C. Some APS-C bodies can _sometimes_ be an advantage of FF when focal length limited. 

Back to the original topic, Canon's 55-250mm lenses are great, but noticeably not as sharp as the 70-300mm L. Yes, I have used both - and I've kept the awesome 70-300mm L.

If there's an improvement for Canon's 55-250mm lens that would be good. Particularly in the AF specs, eg if it would be a STM: awesome! I feel that lens being a non-USM / non-STM lens is its greatest 'weakness'.

Paul


----------



## WoodyWindy (Aug 22, 2013)

kphoto99 said:


> WoodyWindy said:
> 
> 
> > And no, the existing lens isn't quite in the same league optically or even close in build to most L lenses, though it is optically among "the best of the rest". However, if the optics truly are improved (which was the point of my original post), it will make it hard for most casual or even fairly serious crop users to justify kicking up to the 70-300 L.
> ...



There must be something wrong with that particular 55-250, as not only I, but almost every other user of that lens gets very good results from it. The attached images are resized, but they were also sharp at full resolution (I don't have access to my main image library right now, otherwise I'd post crops...)


----------



## unfocused (Aug 22, 2013)

WoodyWindy said:


> kphoto99 said:
> 
> 
> > WoodyWindy said:
> ...



I agree.

I've owned or own the 70-300 L, the 100-400 L, the 55-250 and the Tamron 70-300. In terms of sharpness, the 100-400 L, the Tamron and 55-250 are all very close. The 70-300 L is better, but you pay a real premium for a marginal improvement. 

I consider the 55-250 one of the most underrated and best value lenses in the Canon lineup. And, that comes from actual use of the lens. In the 55-250, Canon focused on optical quality and scrimped on build and, of course, no USM. 

In a few hours we will know, but my guess is the sharpness won't change much (it really doesn't need to) but they may add STM, improve the coatings and possibly up the build quality a bit.


----------



## kphoto99 (Aug 22, 2013)

unfocused said:


> WoodyWindy said:
> 
> 
> > kphoto99 said:
> ...



I wish I could say this about my copy, especially at the 250mm end. 
The review on TDP at http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-55-250mm-f-4-5.6-IS-Lens-Review.aspx also indicates that it is not a very good lens.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 22, 2013)

That should become quite a fine lens, the new 55-250, wow!

But, but, but.... 16-50 f/4 IS with prime-like quality??? Where is mention!


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 22, 2013)

raptor3x said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > WoodyWindy said:
> ...



They have a really crappy 70-300L since it did worse than their 70-200 f/4 IS at 70mm f/4, 200mm f/5 and even 280/300mm! Sure doesn't match my results, nor those on most blogs I read, nor Photozone, nor Canon's own MTF charts.


----------



## adhocphotographer (Aug 22, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> "Canon will announce an update to the EF-S 55-250 f/3.5-5.6 IS by adding STM and some optical upgrades"
> 
> :-\ :-[ :-[ :'( :'( :'(
> 
> *MORE PANCAKES*



Could not agree more! Come on EF(-S) 22mm!


----------



## bvukich (Aug 22, 2013)

WoodyWindy said:


> kphoto99 said:
> 
> 
> > WoodyWindy said:
> ...



I have one I picked up for my kids to use, and it's great for what it is, and for the cost; but in a direct comparison to any of the L lenses, it doesn't hold up.

I like the images you posted, but with the possible exception of the lizard one, they're not very sharp (that being said, they are small, and it's tough to judge). Which is to be expected of that lens unless stopped down to f8-11 or so. Bokeh is also really nervous, and AF is slow and tends to hunt. None of these things make it a bad lens though. I own one, and it was worth EVERY penny. But to compare it to the 70-300L or any of the 70-200s and try and say it's a better lens, is just not true.


----------



## WoodyWindy (Aug 22, 2013)

bvukich said:


> ...
> I have one I picked up for my kids to use, and it's great for what it is, and for the cost; but in a direct comparison to any of the L lenses, it doesn't hold up.
> 
> I like the images you posted, but with the possible exception of the lizard one, they're not very sharp (that being said, they are small, and it's tough to judge). Which is to be expected of that lens unless stopped down to f8-11 or so. Bokeh is also really nervous, and AF is slow and tends to hunt. None of these things make it a bad lens though. I own one, and it was worth EVERY penny. But to compare it to the 70-300L or any of the 70-200s and try and say it's a better lens, is just not true.



I never, EVER said the existing lens was as good as the L's optically. Only that it was very good for what it was, and if they made any improvement to the optics it would be even harder to justify upgrading to an L for most buyers.

I'm glad you like the images.  I know they aren't perfect, but they show off the lens very well.

The snake (which I admit exhibits a very small amount of camera shake) has VERY narrow DOF, centered on its eye, and there isn't a lot of detail there to resolve. (It was shot at 250mm, f/5.6, 1/10 sec exposure, handheld, through glass, at essentially minimum focal distance.)

The lizard and the baboon in full size both exhibit clear single-pixel level detail, though shadows on the baboon suffer because it was accidentally taken at ISO 1600 in relatively bright light. (all three were taken with 450D/XSi)

(See, I can pick my work apart as well as anybody...)


----------



## Strobe the globe (Aug 22, 2013)

Are Canon replacing the EF-S lenses with STM versions to accommodate videographers?


----------



## schill (Aug 22, 2013)

When people are talking about the image quality from their 55-250 lenses, are they actually comparing the same lens? What's the difference between the original and the II version?

I've got a refurbed II that I purchased for about $200 from Canon. I'm happy with it and it complements my EOS-M and SL1 nicely. It's not quite the same as my 700-200/2.8 on my 7D, but it's a nice lens and much more compact. I think the image quality is very good for the price.

Does anyone make a comparable, but better image quality, EOS-compatible lens in this price range?


----------



## WoodyWindy (Aug 22, 2013)

schill said:


> When people are talking about the image quality from their 55-250 lenses, are they actually comparing the same lens? What's the difference between the original and the II version?
> 
> I've got a refurbed II that I purchased for about $200 from Canon. I'm happy with it and it complements my EOS-M and SL1 nicely. It's not quite the same as my 700-200/2.8 on my 7D, but it's a nice lens and much more compact. I think the image quality is very good for the price.
> 
> Does anyone make a comparable, but better image quality, EOS-compatible lens in this price range?



No, and that is the real point.  To get significantly better on a crop body, you MUST go to an L "class" lens, and for many folks, it isn't worth the trip.

P.S. My understanding is there is no optical difference between the original and the II, just cosmetics.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 22, 2013)

schill said:


> When people are talking about the image quality from their 55-250 lenses, are they actually comparing the same lens? What's the difference between the original and the II version?



None - they are optically the same. Canon changed the AF algorightms in the MkII version of the non-STM lens, but the main 'updates' were cosmetic only, changes that made the production costs for the lens slightly lower (I suppose with the number of units sold, even a slight reduction in unit production cost meant major profit).


----------



## Ruined (Aug 22, 2013)

I am, too, disappointed with the plastic mount. While I know its probably good enough, given the metal mount on the actual body I don't see how it would hold up over time if you change lenses frequently.

In terms of optical performance I am wondering if this might exceed the non-L 70-300mm IS USM. The 70-300mm was a better performer optically than the 50-250mm but not by a landslide. So if this lens makes large optical strides over the original 50-250mm I could see it outdoing the 70-300mm even. But that plastic mount, ugh.


----------



## kphoto99 (Aug 22, 2013)

WoodyWindy said:


> There must be something wrong with that particular 55-250, as not only I, but almost every other user of that lens gets very good results from it. The attached images are resized, but they were also sharp at full resolution (I don't have access to my main image library right now, otherwise I'd post crops...)



Just wanted to check, are you referring to the II or the original 55-250 when you say it is a good lens? Mine is the original (silver color zoom scale).


----------



## schill (Aug 22, 2013)

Ruined said:


> I am, too, disappointed with the plastic mount. While I know its probably good enough, given the metal mount on the actual body I don't see how it would hold up over time if you change lenses frequently.



I'm not troubled by plastic mounts for the smaller, lighter lenses. While I don't use them as often as lenses with metal mounts these days I've never had any problems.

If nothing else, they reduce the wear and tear on your camera body.  You are unlikely to damage the metal mount on the camera with a plastic mount on the lens. I'd rather need to repair/replace my 55-250 than my 7D (although I don't think I've ever used it on that body).


----------



## tnargs (Aug 23, 2013)

schill said:


> When people are talking about the image quality from their 55-250 lenses, are they actually comparing the same lens? What's the difference between the original and the II version?



The main optical quality improvement was when they added IS. Prior to that, this lens was not too wonderful. Ditto for the 18-55.

The plastic mount is still on the spec sheet. Wear is not really a problem for the average user. More of a risk is if you accidentally bang the lens on something when swinging the camera around.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Aug 23, 2013)

schill said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > I am, too, disappointed with the plastic mount. While I know its probably good enough, given the metal mount on the actual body I don't see how it would hold up over time if you change lenses frequently.
> ...



Personally, I feel very nervous about plastic mounts and for that reason I've never purchased the 55-250 even though it was better value for money than the 70-300 I bought and sold later. I often hold the setup at the base of the lens with only a part of my palm supporting the body and I'd never be comfortable doing that with a plastic mount. And metal mounts don't significantly wear the body. I've seen many old bodies (including my own EOS 650) with many lens changes and the wear is miniscule. 

By the way, what surprises me is that Canon still makes and sells the old, crappy 75-300 and even more surprising, even people using Rebels buy them!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 23, 2013)

sagittariansrock said:


> By the way, what surprises me is that Canon still makes and sells the old, crappy 75-300 and even more surprising, even people using Rebels buy them!



I think a lot of people buy them - because it's cheap, common in retail stores (Target sells them for example, but not the 55-250), and because 300mm sounds better than 250mm, it's a popular lens.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Aug 23, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > By the way, what surprises me is that Canon still makes and sells the old, crappy 75-300 and even more surprising, even people using Rebels buy them!
> ...



I guess so, and somehow Canon manages to convince people it is okay to get a non-IS telephoto lens on a crop-sensor camera for people who might not have plenty of light all the time. It took a lot of convincing to get my brother-in-law to buy the 55-250 instead.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Aug 26, 2013)

sagittariansrock said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > sagittariansrock said:
> ...


----------

