# Buy EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS II now or wait until September?



## NostraHistoria (Feb 28, 2013)

I am going to get the EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS II. I am not sure if I should just get it now or wait until September to see if an update comes in the mean time. Any suggestions?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 28, 2013)

No need to wait, I'd not expect an update. The last 'update' wasn't really one, either - same lens optically, just some cosmetic changes to make production a little cheaper for Canon, and addition of an automatic panning detection algorithm for the IS system.


----------



## NostraHistoria (Feb 28, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> No need to wait, I'd not expect an update. The last 'update' wasn't really one, either - same lens optically, just some cosmetic changes to make production a little cheaper for Canon, and addition of an automatic panning detection algorithm for the IS system.



Can you tell me which petal hood to get?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 28, 2013)

If you are in the USA, get a refurb now while they are on sale.
http://shop.usa.canon.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/product_10051_10051_323780_-1

Sometimes you can find a used one for under $200. Most of the time, used ones are unused or very seldom used. There are not a lot of users who use them frequently, they are just something that came with their camera.


----------



## NostraHistoria (Feb 28, 2013)

On ebay, you can get one for about $160.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 28, 2013)

CustomizedMacs.com said:


> Can you tell me which petal hood to get?



It doesn't take a petal hood, those are generally for wide angle lenses. The compatible hood is the ET-60.


----------



## Hesbehindyou (Feb 28, 2013)

CustomizedMacs.com said:


> I am going to get the EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS II. I am not sure if I should just get it now or wait until September to see if an update comes in the mean time. Any suggestions?



Get it now. It's as cheap as it'll be and it's already had a recent update (mainly cosmetic, a few changes to construction that don't affect IQ).


----------



## NostraHistoria (Feb 28, 2013)

I just read in this article that the old version is better: http://lenstests.com/reviews/canon-ef-s-55-250mm-f4-5.6-is-ii-page-3

What do I do? Get the old one or new one?


----------



## preppyak (Feb 28, 2013)

CustomizedMacs.com said:


> I just read in this article that the old version is better: http://lenstests.com/reviews/canon-ef-s-55-250mm-f4-5.6-is-ii-page-3
> 
> What do I do? Get the old one or new one?


That's now how it reads to me...it says the old one might be a little better optically (though that is likely sample variation), but that mechanically the new one is better (tighter zoom ring, etc).

As others have said, the 55-250 comes up in deals in the $150-175 range from time to time, so I'd wait for one of those. If not that, then it gets sold off "used" (but really new in box) when people buy kits but don't want it; and you can usually get it for $150 then too.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 28, 2013)

preppyak said:


> CustomizedMacs.com said:
> 
> 
> > I just read in this article that the old version is better: http://lenstests.com/reviews/canon-ef-s-55-250mm-f4-5.6-is-ii-page-3
> ...


 
If you decide on one, and are not in a hurry, and are capable of testing it, you can look for a deal on craigslist. They usually ask $200-250 for them, rarely $175, and once every year or two for $150.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 28, 2013)

CustomizedMacs.com said:


> I just read in this article that the old version is better: http://lenstests.com/reviews/canon-ef-s-55-250mm-f4-5.6-is-ii-page-3
> 
> What do I do? Get the old one or new one?


 
The lenses are said to be identical except for some cheaper plastic parts in the newer one. I'd get either one, depending on the condition and operation.

Even a expert cannot determine which is sharper when looking at both, it takes careful and extensive testing of many samples, since just one individual lens can vary from another by a large amount. Don't read just one review, particularly if they only tested one lens.
By getting a new or refurb with Return rights, you can spend some time testing the lens and return it if its not what you expected. Thats worth something, sending the lens on a trip to Canon will likely cost $100 or more.


----------



## NostraHistoria (Feb 28, 2013)

I just ordered a new one from eBay for $169.99. Now, I need a petal hood. Which is the best? I have a T3i with a 18-55mm.


----------



## unfocused (Feb 28, 2013)

I owned this lens ("loaned" it to my daughter, so I suppose I still own it technically, but I will never see it again). It's one of Canon's best bargains. It's very sharp and has IS. 

Maybe it's just me, but on a lens this cheap, I would pay the small premium to buy new from an authorized dealer rather than risk buying used. Particularly because it isn't the most robust lens in the world and you just never know what kind of abuse a used lens has been subjected to.


----------



## bseitz234 (Feb 28, 2013)

Why do you want a petal hood? Just get the ET-60 that's designed for it... 

The EW-63II might fit, it's designed for the 28 f/1.8 (among others) which shares the 58mm filter threads, so it should be close in size. Won't be as useful, since it's not really deep enough though. That's probably the closest you'll get... or just take the ET-60 and cut it to a petal shape if it's that important.


----------



## jeff92k7 (Feb 28, 2013)

You don't want a petal hood for that lens. The front element rotates (along with any attached lens hood), so every time you change focus, you would have to adjust your lens hood. Get the lens hood that is designed for it as has already been mentioned more than once.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 28, 2013)

bseitz234 said:


> Why do you want a petal hood? Just get the ET-60 that's designed for it...
> 
> The EW-63II might fit, it's designed for the 28 f/1.8 (among others) which shares the 58mm filter threads, so it should be close in size. Won't be as useful, since it's not really deep enough though. That's probably the closest you'll get... or just take the ET-60 and cut it to a petal shape if it's that important.



No, the EW-63II won't fit - the number in the hood designates the mount diameter for the hood itself, and a hood with a 63mm diameter hood won't fit on a lens that's got a 60mm hood mount.

As stated, just get the ET-60 or a knock-off version of the same.


----------



## NostraHistoria (Feb 28, 2013)

I read somewhere that if I get the ET-60 for the 18-55mm, it will be useless. True?


----------



## jeff92k7 (Feb 28, 2013)

CustomizedMacs.com said:


> I read somewhere that if I get the ET-60 for the 18-55mm, it will be useless. True?



For images, that is true. It is pointless. But it does stick out a small bit in front of the lens and may help reduce impacts to the front element.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 28, 2013)

CustomizedMacs.com said:


> I read somewhere that if I get the ET-60 for the 18-55mm, it will be useless. True?



The ET-60 will cause vignetting on the 18-55mm lens. The E*W*-60 is the dedicated hood for that lens.


----------



## NostraHistoria (Feb 28, 2013)

Is the EW 60C ok?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Lens-Petal-Snap-on-Hood-EW-60C-for-Canon-EF-S-18-55mm-f-3-5-5-6-IS-/290860032445?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item43b89be1bd


----------



## sama (Feb 28, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> bseitz234 said:
> 
> 
> > Why do you want a petal hood? Just get the ET-60 that's designed for it...
> ...



http://www.ebay.ca/itm/Replacement-Lens-Len-Hood-ES-62-EW-78D-EW-78E-ET-60-ET60-For-Canon-Camera-Kamera-/271029057175?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&var=&hash=item3f1a973697


----------



## crasher8 (Feb 28, 2013)

How about a 70-200 f.4? They're going for $474 refurb at Canon USA. Superior in every way.


----------



## NostraHistoria (Feb 28, 2013)

crasher8 said:


> How about a 70-200 f.4? They're going for $474 refurb at Canon USA. Superior in every way.



Too much money. I will get this one and then maybe the best in a few years.


----------



## rs (Feb 28, 2013)

CustomizedMacs.com said:


> Is the EW 60C ok?
> 
> http://www.ebay.com/itm/Lens-Petal-Snap-on-Hood-EW-60C-for-Canon-EF-S-18-55mm-f-3-5-5-6-IS-/290860032445?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item43b89be1bd


Both the 18-55 and the 55-250 have a front element that rotates when focusing - if the hood is petal shaped, the cut out corners will spin around as it focuses. If the hood is deep enough to offer the correct amount of shading when lined up, it'll cause series (read: image destroying, unless you want to just crop to use the centre) vignetting at wider settings on the zoom range as you change focus. That hood you've found simply looks like a copy of the shallow EW-60C with corners pointlessly cut out of it, making it less effective, and no doubt annoying when the lens focuses as it highlights the rotation of the front element.

Both lenses have a different angle of view, so the wider lens will need a shorter hood than the more telephoto lens. Just get the recommended Canon hoods, or get copies without the pointless (or even image destroying, if deep enough) petal shape:

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_s_18_55mm_f_3_5_5_6_is_ii#SuppliesAndAccessories
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_s_55_250mm_f_4_5_6_is_ii#SuppliesAndAccessories

To re-iterate, just get the recommended Canon hoods, or get copies. Stay clear of petal hoods with those two lenses.


----------



## NostraHistoria (Mar 1, 2013)

I read a lot on the hoods, and it seemed that the petal hood was the best to block light in a picture. The following pictures on this site prove it: http://digital-photography-school.com/why-you-should-use-your-lens-hood

Whenever I get it, I will probably post pics.


----------



## bseitz234 (Mar 1, 2013)

CustomizedMacs.com said:


> I read a lot on the hoods, and it seemed that the petal hood was the best to block light in a picture. The following pictures on this site prove it: http://digital-photography-school.com/why-you-should-use-your-lens-hood
> 
> Whenever I get it, I will probably post pics.


Where does that anywhere say a petal hood blocks light better? That picture shows that using a hood helps. Which it does. The ET-60 will give you exactly that protection against flare.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 1, 2013)

bseitz234 said:


> Where does that anywhere say a petal hood blocks light better? That picture shows that using a hood helps. Which it does. The ET-60 will give you exactly that protection against flare.



+1

The point is that you should use a hood. Importantly, you should use a hood designed for the lens. In some cases (usually zooms with a wide angle or ultrawide zooms), that's a petal hood. In other cases (standard and longer primes, most telezooms especially 'slow' ones), it's a not petal-shaped. The folks who design the optical formula of the lens also design the hood for optimal light blocking without vignetting, sometimes with practical compromises (like where possible avoiding rounded edges which result in a lens falling over if set down on the front of the hood).


----------



## rs (Mar 2, 2013)

If you think you know better than Canon, Neuro, and all the other great people who give up their time and expertise on this forum for free, then fair enough. Get a petal hood, and enjoy watching it spinning around when you focus. 

If you do feel like reading on, a petal hood is shaped like it is because the lens produces a circular image, but the sensor sees a rectangular (3:2) image. The lens hood is designed to shield the lens from stray light which would only add flare. The lens hood on a zoom is always optimised for the widest setting, so as to avoid shielding the corners/edges, hence the reason why the 18-55 needs a shorter lens hood than the 55-250.

The petal shape comes about because of the fact that more expensive lenses have front elements which _do not rotate_. Because of that, they can have a lens hood which is shaped to provide shading to match that rectangular shape of the sensor, optimising the shading. These petal shapes are exclusively found on lenses with front elements which do not rotate, and almost only on wider angle lenses.

If you find a petal shaped hood which offers the perfect amount of shading for your lens, the moment your lens refocuses, that 3:2 rectangle of shading provided by the hood will rotate, and won't line up with the sensor. There will be completely black corners or edges. It will be terrible. But if you find one like that eBay one you pointed out, it's the normal (shallow) one with badly and pointlessly cut out corners, which only reduce the effectiveness of the hood, and will wind you up every time the lens refocuses. 

It's your choice, your money, and if you're certain you know better than Canon, feel free to get something off eBay which is made by people willing to exploit your viewpoint.


----------



## NostraHistoria (Mar 4, 2013)

I do not know who to believe now.

Lens Hood T3i Canon 600D
Lens Hood for


----------



## RC (Mar 4, 2013)

unfocused said:


> Maybe it's just me, but on a lens this cheap, I would pay the small premium to buy new from an authorized dealer rather than risk buying used. Particularly because it isn't the most robust lens in the world and you just never know what kind of abuse a used lens has been subjected to.


Agree. 

Then you can sell it when you are ready and get...


crasher8 said:


> How about a 70-200 f.4? They're going for $474 refurb at Canon USA. Superior in every way.


----------



## aroo (Mar 4, 2013)

I bought my 55-250 for $199 on Amazon with an Xsi and 18-55 several years ago. The round (NOT petal) lens hood fits both lenses and causes a round solid vignette on the wide end of the kit lens. When you focus, the part of the lens that attaches to the hood rotates, so the radially symmetrical shape (pretty much a cone) is the only good one for the hood on these lenses. Most Canon lenses are not that way; even the 18-135 uses a petal hood, just like the 24-70s, etc. because the front doesn't rotate.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 4, 2013)

aroo said:


> I bought my 55-250 for $199 on Amazon with an Xsi and 18-55 several years ago. The round (NOT petal) lens hood fits both lenses and causes a round solid vignette on the wide end of the kit lens.



A bent paper clip fits into an electrical outlet, too...just because something 'fits' doesn't mean it's the right fit. : The _correct_ hood will not vignette. The 18-55 takes the EW-60c (the 'W' is for wide angle), the 55-250 takes the ET-60 (the 'T' is for...you guessed it...telephoto). I presume you used the ET-60 on your 18-55, and that's why you got vignetting. The EW-60c fits on the 55-250, also...and would be totally useless in terms of protection from flare. 



CustomizedMacs.com said:


> I do not know who to believe now.



Of course, you should believe the outfit trying to get you to buy their 3rd party hood, because the company that makes the lens clearly doesn't understand how to design a hood to match the lens they designed. 

Sounds like you *really* want a petal hood. It'll look so much cooler and fancier than the one designed by Canon, making you look like a cooler, fancier photographer. How you look is more important than the pictures you take, anyway. So please, just get the petal hood. Be sure to do a lot of focusing from close subjects to far ones, while people watch. You will want to call lots of attention to that petal hood as it rotates with the front element. Heck, maybe it won't even vignette when it does that. Also, I really like the convenience of the screw-on one the guy in the first video bought, too. You should get that exact one, because not only will you look like a better photographer, it'll be a lot easier than the pesky, reversible bayonet mount Canon has for that lens. </sarcasm>

Just get the Canon hood or a knockoff that looks like the Canon hood, mmmm'k?


----------



## tntwit (Mar 4, 2013)

Just curious, I had the 70-200 F4 non-IS on my future list. I currently have the 75-300 IS. I'm using a T3i. To prevent blur, I understand that I need 1/320 of a second. That's relatively fast in certain lighting conditions. Looking back at some of my photos and thinking about it, I'm not sure I want to go without IS. So I thought it was an interesting comment that this 70-200 F4 non-IS is "better in every way" than the 55-250 IS. No doubt they're in different leagues, but in certain, maybe many, low light situations, wouldn't the IS out perform? Yes, the L is a sharper lens, but not if it blurs, right? 

I just bought the 15-85 at the Canon refurb sale, so I'm out of the market for a little while, but I noticed the 70-200 F4 IS was under $900, so that looks more appealing the next time a refurb sale comes around.

Interestingly, I was actually wondering if I might be better off to sell the 75-300 IS for a used 55-250 in the short term, since I've never really liked the lens. Too soft, slow to focus and hunts frequently for focus. Probably better to just wait for the better lens, but just curious on opinions on my ramblings.

I'll probably end up with the 85 1.8 first, but the better telephoto is in my future plans.


----------



## aroo (Mar 4, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> just because something 'fits' doesn't mean it's the right fit.



True, ET-60 isn't intended for the 18-55 but in a pinch you can stop some flare and crop rather than see a ton of flare. The vignetting is also kind of a fun look if you're just trying out different things with a camera.


----------



## aroo (Mar 4, 2013)

tntwit, the IS on the 55-250 makes it more useable in low light than the 70-200non4. I like the pictures it can get hand held after the sun has set. My copy can do pretty darn low shutter speeds. In good light, it's a tad cloudy with subdued contrast. The L is far better there. Have used both pretty thoroughly.


----------



## rs (Mar 4, 2013)

CustomizedMacs.com said:


> I do not know who to believe now.


I know it's not April fools day, but this has to be a wind up, right?

Presuming for a second that you are being serious, it's your money, so please do buy whatever you like. But if you do end up buying a petal hood for one of those lenses, can you do me a favour? Take a video of the lens + hood mounted on your camera, showing the combo focusing. And then another video taken in your SLR though the lens (at the wide end if the zoom), showing it focusing. Then edit the two scenes together, upload it you youtube, and title it 'Petal hood on rotating front element'.

In my limited searching on YouTube, I was unable to find any videos like that - I was looking for one to help you out - I presume it's because anyone that's been scammed by these eBay retailers by buying one is too embarrassed to admit it. Your video will serve as a good lesson for anyone else as stubborn as you.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 4, 2013)

CustomizedMacs.com said:


> I am going to get the EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS II. I am not sure if I should just get it now or wait until September to see if an update comes in the mean time. Any suggestions?


No disrespect, but I always find such a question strange bcoz, if someone can wait for over 6 months to get a lens (especially when the lens is currently available at a really good price), it basically means that they don't really need that lens. But if you really do need the lens, get the one available now and sell it when a new lens is released and is on sale/rebate ... I bet you can still sell your old lens for at least half the price ... think of the other half you are losing as lens rental charges.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 4, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> A bent paper clip fits into an electrical outlet, too...just because something 'fits' doesn't mean it's the right fit. :


A little vignetting couldn't kill you like a bent paper clip in an electrical outlet could


----------



## SDFilmFan (Mar 4, 2013)

I used a 55-250 for a few years, until I stepped up to a 7D and L-lenses. The 55-250 is the telephoto I recommend to anyone not buying an L. It is small, light, and really quite sharp. The IS worked well, and I regularly got sharp handheld 250mm shots down to 1/30 sec (4 stops by my figuring).

I bought the lens as soon as it hit the local stores, and it is still going strong in the hands of the cousin I sold it to, so it is reliable and sturdy. Actually, I kind of wish I'd kept it, as it is a great lens for traveling.

Oh, the round hood is the right one, and I do recommend getting it.


----------



## NostraHistoria (Mar 12, 2013)

The petal hood has come in. There is NO vignette with the 18-55mm. 

RIP.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 12, 2013)

CustomizedMacs.com said:


> The petal hood has come in. There is NO vignette with the 18-55mm.



Well, that's good. The point of a properly-designed petal hood is that the 'petals' can stick out _beyond_ where the baseline of the round hood would be, based on the rectangular shape of the sensor vs. the round shape of the image circle. Since the petal hood you bought does not vignette as it rotates around, that simply means the 'gaps' are recessed from the baseline where the round hood would extend, rather than the petals extending beyond. In other words, the hood you bought will most likely offer _less_ protection from flare than the round hood designed by Canon.

But hey, lots of people prefer looks over function, so you're in good company there.


----------



## NostraHistoria (Mar 12, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> CustomizedMacs.com said:
> 
> 
> > The petal hood has come in. There is NO vignette with the 18-55mm.
> ...



We will see about quality. However, I bought it as a recommendation from sites. Plus, it looks cooler.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Mar 12, 2013)

CustomizedMacs.com said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > CustomizedMacs.com said:
> ...



Yet it's the wrong hood. Oh well. Have fun.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Mar 12, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> CustomizedMacs.com said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



+1 

Misunderstanding, miscommunication or ignorance? Sometimes too many words are used to discuss a simple thing


----------



## bdunbar79 (Mar 12, 2013)

Agreed. Sometimes I wonder why people even post questions on here. A lot of times they already know the answer and/or only want to hear the answer they want to hear, and if posters post a different answer, they argue and do whatever they want anyways. Amazing.


----------



## brad-man (Mar 12, 2013)

tntwit said:


> Just curious, I had the 70-200 F4 non-IS on my future list. I currently have the 75-300 IS. I'm using a T3i. To prevent blur, I understand that I need 1/320 of a second. That's relatively fast in certain lighting conditions. Looking back at some of my photos and thinking about it, I'm not sure I want to go without IS. So I thought it was an interesting comment that this 70-200 F4 non-IS is "better in every way" than the 55-250 IS. No doubt they're in different leagues, but in certain, maybe many, low light situations, wouldn't the IS out perform? Yes, the L is a sharper lens, but not if it blurs, right?
> 
> I just bought the 15-85 at the Canon refurb sale, so I'm out of the market for a little while, but I noticed the 70-200 F4 IS was under $900, so that looks more appealing the next time a refurb sale comes around.
> 
> ...



I would suggest you have a look at the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS. It is the best "non L" telephoto that Canon makes other than their "DO" version which is quite a bit more expensive. If you have the money, the f/4L IS is a fantastic lens.


----------



## Dantana (Mar 12, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> Agreed. Sometimes I wonder why people even post questions on here. A lot of times they already know the answer and/or only want to hear the answer they want to hear, and if posters post a different answer, they argue and do whatever they want anyways. Amazing.



And yet I can't stop reading this thread. It's a mesmerizing train wreck in posting form (with little tidbits of good info thrown in).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 12, 2013)

CustomizedMacs.com said:


> Plus, it looks cooler.



Clearly, the most important criterion when choosing a lens hood...or any gear, for that matter. Can I interest you in the special Jackie Chan edition of the 550D? It's more expensive than the T2i, but it looks really cool!



CustomizedMacs.com said:


> However, I bought it as a recommendation from sites.



I ran across a site with recommendations on how to jump off the Golden Gate Bridge. I guess I'd better *not* post the link...


----------



## Dantana (Mar 12, 2013)

But does the Jackie Chan 550D come with a petal lens hood on its kit lens?


----------



## rs (Mar 12, 2013)

CustomizedMacs.com said:


> The petal hood has come in.


Please do take a video of your SLR focusing with that lens hood on, upload it to youtube, and post the link here


----------



## hendrik-sg (Mar 12, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> aroo said:
> 
> 
> > I bought my 55-250 for $199 on Amazon with an Xsi and 18-55 several years ago. The round (NOT petal) lens hood fits both lenses and causes a round solid vignette on the wide end of the kit lens.
> ...



Hi Neuro, 

I had a highlight reading your advice carefully, so i am now little less stupid than before, but serious, its one of the better sarcastic posts i read here 

But i have a copletely different problem, which is killing me. I urgently need to buy some lenses, but need advice which one would be best for my needs. I mostly shoot lenscaps and brickwalls, so i need the sharpest lens with best colour and contast and ultra fast AF. My problem i already have all L lenses, and the normal ones are not cool speaking about? so what else can i by to improve the artistic value of my photoraphy?


----------



## bdunbar79 (Mar 12, 2013)

Well, if you are doing a lot of lenscap work, then you obviously don't want a 5D Mark III for your camera.


----------



## brad-man (Mar 13, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> Well, if you are doing a lot of lenscap work, then you obviously don't want a 5D Mark III for your camera.



I hear the 6D is better for low light...


----------



## tntwit (Mar 13, 2013)

> I would suggest you have a look at the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS. It is the best "non L" telephoto that Canon makes other than their "DO" version which is quite a bit more expensive. If you have the money, the f/4L IS is a fantastic lens.



I'm aware of the 70-300 IS as well and have read good things about it. I didn't mention it because I thought I was throwing too many lenses out there.

I guess I wonder if the 70-300 IS would be enough of an upgrade over the 75-300 IS to make it worthwhile as opposed to living with it until I can get the L with IS. Would it be a better choice than the 70-200 w/o IS? I suppose it depends where and how you are going to use it. Better optics and faster focusing vs IS. 

Too often I find myself needing more light. I'm finding it better to push the ISO since I prefer noise to blur, but noise is not so great either. The real answer would be the 70-200 F2.8 IS and even better with FF, but that's more down the road. 

Like I said, I'll likely get the 85 1.8 first since it will offer good range and fast optics that will fill alot of my needs and function as good portrait lens as well.

I'm constantly learning how to pull more and more from my equipment as my skills grow, so it's all good. Even the best equipment has it's limitations. The challenge is how to make the most of it and have fun doing it!


----------



## brad-man (Mar 13, 2013)

tntwit said:


> > I would suggest you have a look at the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS. It is the best "non L" telephoto that Canon makes other than their "DO" version which is quite a bit more expensive. If you have the money, the f/4L IS is a fantastic lens.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I've never used the 75-300 personally. I have the 70-300IS on my "car camera" and it is a very good tele in "good light". Any of the Canon 70-200Ls will be noticeably better in every aspect. Whether or not you need the IS will depend on what you're shooting. I was mostly pointing out that switching from the 75-300 to the 55-250 would probably not be productive.


----------



## bseitz234 (Mar 13, 2013)

Dantana said:


> And yet I can't stop reading this thread. It's a mesmerizing train wreck in posting form (with little tidbits of good info thrown in).


+1...


rs said:


> CustomizedMacs.com said:
> 
> 
> > The petal hood has come in.
> ...


...and +1.



bdunbar79 said:


> Well, if you are doing a lot of lenscap work, then you obviously don't want a 5D Mark III for your camera.


^I read this as "landscape", not "lenscap", and I was very confused at what was wrong with the 5d3 for landscape... ;-)


----------



## bdunbar79 (Mar 13, 2013)

bseitz234 said:


> Dantana said:
> 
> 
> > And yet I can't stop reading this thread. It's a mesmerizing train wreck in posting form (with little tidbits of good info thrown in).
> ...


----------



## mrsfotografie (Mar 13, 2013)

I'm enjoying this topic! ;D between this and (Re: Why did you choose Canon?):



serendipidy said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > I live in redneck country..... When you say you are going out moose hunting with a Canon you get respect!
> ...



Canon Rumors is giving me good laughs, thank you all


----------



## NostraHistoria (Mar 13, 2013)

It is funny that you guys are fighting over an item that only costs a few dollars. I think I will buy the regular one too and see if there is a difference. 

Here are the videos. I do not see a difference. 

Canon T3i with 18-55mm
Canon T3i with 15-55mm and Petal Hood


----------



## sagittariansrock (Mar 13, 2013)

tntwit said:


> > I would suggest you have a look at the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS. It is the best "non L" telephoto that Canon makes other than their "DO" version which is quite a bit more expensive. If you have the money, the f/4L IS is a fantastic lens.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think the 55-250 is a worthwhile upgrade over the 75-300 for at least three reasons: IS, sharper and better images, and a newer design. I tried out a friend's 55-250, and I was surprised how good the cheap plastic toy was! The 70-300 is at best comparable to the 55-250 in the overlapping focal range, has a similiarly slow AF (its not true ring USM, and the micro motor of the 55-250 is acceptably fast for a non-USM) and similar rotating front element. To me, the advantage of a metal mount and additional 50mm in the long end (which, by the way, is the weakest aspect of the lens) isn't worth the more than double price. My personal experience notwithstanding, this is what TDP has to say about the comparison:



> The difference between the Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS Lens and the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens is not as clear. The 55-250 has less play in the barrel than the 70-300, but the 70-300 is more solidly built including a metal lens mount. The 70-300 is larger and heavier. The 55-250 has a more-matte finish. While the focus ring on both lenses turns during AF, the 70-300's focus ring does not manually turn in AF mode. This makes lens hoods and filters easier to install/remove, but makes parking the lens in the most compact size more difficult (though you are not supposed to turn the focus ring on the 55-250 in AF mode either). While the 70-300 has USM AF, it is Micro USM - not Ring USM - and is not greatly different from the 55-250 in AF speed. The 70-300 is compatible with all EOS bodies including full frame film and digital models. To the 55-250's advantage is that it retracts to a smaller size, weighs less and costs noticeably less.
> 
> In the image quality department, these two lenses are more similar than in the 70-200 L comparison. Wide open, both lenses are similar in sharpness at the center of the frame, but the 70-300 is generally sharper in the corners - which is not surprising as it is a full-frame compatible lens. Stopping down 1 stop makes a bigger difference in sharpness on the 70-300 than it does on the 55-250 - and this gives the 70-300 a bigger edge at these apertures. The 55-250 delivers better image sharpness at 250mm than the 70-300 does at 300mm. The 70-300 shows less vignetting wide open on a 1.6x body. The 70-300 has less distortion over most of its focal length range.



I'd mention the Tamron 70-300 which is much better than the 70-300 non-L and cheaper, but I think the 55-250 is still a better value for money. And will have better resale value (I am still struggling to sell my mint Tamron _with_ warranty, so go figure!)


----------



## NostraHistoria (Mar 13, 2013)

I just bought the regular hood that was recommended. It was less than 2 dollars. lol


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 13, 2013)

CustomizedMacs.com said:


> Here are the videos. I do not see a difference.



The point wasn't a video with the hood, but *OF* the hood. Don't bother, just enjoy your cool-looking (but less functional) petal hood.


----------



## tntwit (Mar 13, 2013)

> I think the 55-250 is a worthwhile upgrade over the 75-300 for at least three reasons: IS, sharper and better images, and a newer design. I



To be clear, my 75-300 has IS, but I believe the IS on the 55-250 is better as it is of a newer design.

So the advantage might also be how sharp it is by comparison. They are so cheap, it seems like a good hold over lens compared to living with what I have. I also wonder if the 55 might be a little nicer as the 75 is often too long.

I imagine the slow focus and focus hunting will be no better.

Does anyone know of any comparisons between these two in terms of sharpness? The 75-300 IS isn't on Photozone or the Digital Picture.

Thanks for the replies!


----------



## sagittariansrock (Mar 14, 2013)

tntwit said:


> > I think the 55-250 is a worthwhile upgrade over the 75-300 for at least three reasons: IS, sharper and better images, and a newer design. I
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I know that your 75-300 has IS but as you correctly guessed the 55-250 has third gen. IS, which is supposed to give a 4-stop advantage. On the other hand 75-300 is the first gen.
As I mentioned, the 55-250 is reasonably sharp (of course it would be silly to compare it to the 70-200 L lenses). It was similar to the 70-300 non-L I owned at the time, which is pretty good up to 200mm. 
Finally while the autofocus is slower than ring USM, I guarantee you will find huge improvement over the antique DC motor in the 75-300 IS. And the AF might be slower due to the slower motor but I didn't find any it to be inaccurate or any hunting in normal light. Of course, you wouldn't even use it in low light.
So, that's my 2 cents. I wholeheartedly recommend it to my APS-C user friends who are not looking for L-lenses and don't have the "won't buy EF-S because I will upgrade to FF soon" syndrome.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Mar 14, 2013)

sagittariansrock said:


> I know that your 75-300 has IS but as you correctly guessed the 55-250 has third gen. IS, which is supposed to give a 4-stop advantage. On the other hand 75-300 is the first gen.
> As I mentioned, the 55-250 is reasonably sharp (of course it would be silly to compare it to the 70-200 L lenses). It was similar to the 70-300 non-L I owned at the time, which is pretty good up to 200mm.
> Finally while the autofocus is slower than ring USM, I guarantee you will find huge improvement over the antique DC motor in the 75-300 IS. And the AF might be slower due to the slower motor but I didn't find any it to be inaccurate or any hunting in normal light. Of course, you wouldn't even use it in low light.
> So, that's my 2 cents. I wholeheartedly recommend it to my APS-C user friends who are not looking for L-lenses and don't have the "won't buy EF-S because I will upgrade to FF soon" syndrome.



I agree, the EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS (I or II) is not a bad lens at all. For a good kit on a tight budget I recommend this lens, and the matching 18-55 IS (I or II) plus possibly the 35 mm f/2 for low-licht stuff. All these lenses are best equipped with a good filter and the original hood to keep stray light and dirty fingers out of the front element and filter 

Don't buy the 18-55 IS second hand unless you're sure it's seen little mileage: the ribbon cable for the AF motor will fatigue with every zoom action and break eventually, making it a manual focus lens.


----------



## RGF (Mar 17, 2013)

WAIT!!! And in Sept WAIT till 1Q14 to see if an upgrade is available then and then wait until Sept 2014 to see if an upgrade is available then.

BTW while you are waiting can I borrow your camera? Atleast I will get some use of out it 

Unless their is something critically important, stop the waiting camera and go out and make pictures.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Mar 17, 2013)

CustomizedMacs.com said:


> It is funny that you guys are fighting over an item that only costs a few dollars. I think I will buy the regular one too and see if there is a difference.
> 
> Here are the videos. I do not see a difference.
> 
> ...



I'm only going to type this one more time and sorry if I'm in an irritated mood today, but:

IT'S THE WRONG HOOD!


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 18, 2013)

CustomizedMacs.com said:


> I just ordered a new one from eBay for $169.99. Now, I need a petal hood. Which is the best? I have a T3i with a 18-55mm.


.

http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/EW-60C-ET-60-Lens-Hood-Set-for-CANON-EF-18-55mm-55-250mm-/170835360158?pt=AU_Cameras_Photographic_Accessories&hash=item27c694b99e

here ya go a hood for the 18-55 and one for the 55-250 i wouldnt waste the money on genuine ones


----------



## NostraHistoria (Mar 18, 2013)

The regular hood came in today. I cannot take a pic right now but I will. My filter came in too.

Hoya 58mm HD Circular PL CIR-PL Filter High Definition C-PL CPL 58 mm


----------



## NostraHistoria (Mar 18, 2013)

I might as well say that the 55-250mm came in and it is for people looking for birds and stuff like that. From 55mm, you get a bad picture with the sides cut off. I am disappointed. I should have got the 18-135mm.


----------



## NostraHistoria (Mar 18, 2013)

Now, I see that the petal hood is bigger. Bigger is better? Not for cameras? The difference between the two is small. Unless you have your own opinion, which I want to hear. Convince me the regular one is better when the petal one is bigger and at the shortest sides is a few millimeters bigger.


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 19, 2013)

i thought this might be a joke thread but it looks like you are really serious.... :-\ ???


----------



## mrsfotografie (Mar 19, 2013)

wickidwombat said:


> i thought this might be a joke thread but it looks like you are really serious.... :-\ ???



+1 :'(


----------



## rs (Mar 19, 2013)

CustomizedMacs.com said:


> Now, I see that the petal hood is bigger. Bigger is better? Not for cameras? The difference between the two is small. Unless you have your own opinion, which I want to hear. Convince me the regular one is better when the petal one is bigger and at the shortest sides is a few millimeters bigger.


Even if you don't want to take a video of it, for your own understanding, please just fit the petal hood, make sure the lens is set to autofocus, and then half press the shutter to let the lens AF on different subjects. Try it without looking through the viewfinder, but looking at the camera - just as the people you're trying to impress will see it. If you find the rotation of the petal lens hood impressive, I'm pleased for you. 

Please note that the videos you posted were not only through the lens, but there was no focusing there - just zooming.

And as for the depth of the hood, it should be as deep as possible without introducing vignetting. Canon are pretty clued up when it comes to optics - I'd guess they're a bit better at it than you and people that make cheap rubbish to sell on eBay, so personally I'd go with the Canon design.


----------

