Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS

ChuckS

ChuckS

Veteran
Has anyone used or using this lens?

I'm curious how effective the Image stabilization is?

I have the EF 17-85 f/4-5.6 IS and the Image stabilization makes this a very good lens for shooting video with the 7D.

I'd like to hear from peoples experiences with the EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS.

Thanks
 
Just bought one at B&H reconditioned for $195.

Very light weight. IS does work. Even at the new street price of $250 or so it is a worthwhile inexpensive piece of glass. It's not a piece of L glass, but definitely can be used effectively.
 
yeah i've been researching and giving huge thought to buying this lens,the visual results i've seen has made me choose to add this to my lens arsonal.I think that focal range will truly be useful for my video shooting.
 
I use it mostly as a gap lens between a Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC and Nikon 80-200 2.8, and as an extension of my stabilized handheld range. I rarely push in past about 100mm. Handheld, that's about as far as I think I can hold steady with IS. Any longer than that, I lock down with the Nikon.
 
Bear in mind that the iris will change when you're zooming, ruining the shot.

As long as you don't zoom during the shot, you're golden.
 
I general approach the use of this lens in two ways.

* Set aperture to 4.5 for all three lenses, making sure not to push in past about 100 on the 55-250. So I have constant aperture for all shots.

* I set aperture to 4 or 4.5, and set ISO to auto. If light is sufficient and consistent, even pushing in further will only change the ISO in 1/3 increments. While the moment of ISO change is not usable, all the footage is pretty even looking.

I use these approaches for run n gun doc shooting.

I also like this lens at 70mm 4.0 for interviews, as it keeps the camera at a distance from the subject that's not distracting or intimidating and gives a nice background blur. I do wish it opened up more for when light is low, but for the price, this is truly a workhorse.
 
ChuckS said:
Has anyone used or using this lens?

I'm curious how effective the Image stabilization is?

I have the EF 17-85 f/4-5.6 IS and the Image stabilization makes this a very good lens for shooting video with the 7D.

I'd like to hear from peoples experiences with the EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS.

Thanks
Click to expand...

This may not be an equal comparison because of the cost, but you should compare the sharpness of these low price lenses to better glass just so you know what you are getting.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...p=104&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLI=4&API=1

I don't agree with the theory that the HD video requires less quality glass. The sharper lenses with better contrast will look better. IS is good to take out some of the "micro jitters" but also adds to degrading the image. IS will not keep your camera level to the horizon, it only does so much. Micro jitters can also be overcome with better planning, a tripod, body mount, or small jib.
You have to weigh out what is important in your final image. Try and stick with sharper glass. Nikon manual lenses are also cheap, but sharper.
 
ROCKMORE said:
IS is good to take out some of the "micro jitters" but also adds to degrading the image. IS will not keep your camera level to the horizon, it only does so much. Micro jitters can also be overcome with better planning, a tripod, body mount, or small jib.
Click to expand...

This is a pretty good illustration of IS on a long lens: (scroll halfway down)
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=214662

I don't see any degradation in the image when he turns it on.
 
steventimothy said:
This is a pretty good illustration of IS on a long lens: (scroll halfway down)
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=214662

I don't see any degradation in the image when he turns it on.
Click to expand...

Nice boat.
Every lens is different and the Canon 70-200 2.8 is L is one of the best. I think you have to examine each lens in it's own class side by side.
I did notice the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 non VC in sharper in the side by side on digital image than it VC brother.
The truth is none of these rules are locked in stone so everyone really has to examine lenses themselves in each case to make the best choice.
 
55-250 is a great lens, lightweight and useful
70-200/2.8 is superior, but so is its weight and price
each lens has a different purpose.

To me the best thing about the 55-250 is that I can have it on me at all times and I don't notice it
as it is so light.

Just want to add something to earlier comments about zooming with a still lens. Plain and simple. Don't.
Doesn't matter what the quality or how much it cost, if its a still lens it will zoom like crap even with a fixed aperture. That's why cine lenses exist, or rent an EX1.
 
Last edited:
J Davis said:
55-250 is a great lens, lightweight and useful
70-200/2.8 is superior, but so is its weight and price
each lens has a different purpose.

To me the best thing about the 55-250 is that I can have it on me at all times and I don't notice it
as it is so light.

Just want to add something to earlier comments about zooming with a still lens. Plain and simple. Don't.
Doesn't matter what the quality or how much it cost, if its a still lens it will zoom like crap even with a fixed aperture. That's why cine lenses exist, or rent an EX1.
Click to expand...



I usually shoot close and rarely need a long lens, but I came into some extra money and I am thinking about buying the 55-250mm lens to compliment the kit lens 18-55.

I rarely if ever zoom during a shot and in dark situations I have a lighting kit that works great, so the kit lens is fine for me. I have the 50mm 1.8 which is great as well. I would really like to have a 20mm in the 1.8/2.0 range though. Now outside of the 20mm lens I would love to have I am really thinking about buying the 55-250mm lens.

So is it worth it?
 
From what I've seen the longer end starts to get very soft. Better look closely at one before buying. Probably can take you camera body around to some camera stores and run some of your own tests.
 
Cieloent said:
So is it worth it?
Click to expand...


I don't have this lens, but did mount one on my 550D in a camera shop. Stiff and cheap construction. I've read many complaints about soft images. Here is a side by side of 2 Canon long zooms which are both soft at 5.6. Blurry may be a better description.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...p=358&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLI=5&API=1

Some vintage zooms may be sharper for cheap. I have an 85-250 f5 Olympus Zuiko that is very sharp in that range. I saw one go on ebay last week for $100.

Look around at more lenses before you put your money down

Here is a not so equal comparison between 2 Canon zooms. The 70-200 f4 is 3 times the price and bigger to drag around, but you should know what kind of image quality you will be spending your time capturing and working with in post.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...p=104&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLI=4&API=0http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=2
 
Last edited:
ROCKMORE said:
I don't have this lens, but did mount one on my 550D in a camera shop. Stiff and cheap construction. I've read many complaints about soft images. Here is a side by side of 2 Canon long zooms which are both soft at 5.6. Blurry may be a better description.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...p=358&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLI=5&API=1

Some vintage zooms may be sharper for cheap. I have an 85-250 f5 Olympus Zuiko that is very sharp in that range. I saw one go on ebay last week for $100.

Look around at more lenses before you put your money down

Here is a not so equal comparison between 2 Canon zooms. The 70-200 f4 is 3 times the price and bigger to drag around, but you should know what kind of image quality you will be spending your time capturing and working with in post.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...p=104&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLI=4&API=0http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=2
Click to expand...



I understand that some older zooms can display a better picture on the long end, but those zooms do not have IS. I mostly shoot all of my footage handheld as it is a style I like and without IS I feel certain tricks I like to do with camera movements will just fall apart without this option.

I ONLY use tripod shots for super low shots at an angle and everything else handheld. If I were to get a zoom lens it would only be for capturing images very far which I could not reach. Personally I dont even really like telephoto shots anyways as it gives me the impression of tunnel vision, I love wide shots.

Just something extra to have really....
 
The IS on cheaper canon lenses is not as good as the more expensive ones. I remember comparing the IS on the cheap 18-55 and the $1000 17-55 and really noticing the difference.
If you are dependent on IS maybe the 55-250 may not be good enough.

I use manual lenses all the time but only for video. The cheaper canon zooms such as 18-55 and 55-20 I carry with me for family, travel, fun stuff, stills. They also come in use on a professional level
when I need to do a video storyboard, scout locations or record a casting. They are only great because they are both light weight and travel everywhere.
 
J Davis said:
If you are dependent on IS maybe the 55-250 may not be good enough.
Click to expand...

I'm not a fan of IS. If it's to long to get a steady shot hand held, then IS won't get me what I want. Anything up to 50mm I can get very steady hand held without IS. Since I started shooting HD video with a DSLR form camera, I found since I have to hold the camera out in front of me the the fat Canon strap around my neck acts as a good brace to push the camera against as I move around.
Anything longer I'd use a tripod. Personal taste, we all think and shoot different.
The one thing we all can agree on thought is sharper lenses is what we want. In this case the Canon 55-250mm zoom is not very sharp with or without a tripod or IS.
 
LOL. I think its pretty common knowledge I shoot manual nikons 90% of the time. This one being my goto lens for over 50mm LINK.
And I'm nearly always on sticks and rarely handheld.
All I'm saying is for its price bracket the 55-250 lens is pretty good, the next AF lens up from that being the 70-200 but that
won't cover the lengths between 55 and 70. In fact I've been searching for a lens better than the 55-250 that covers 55+ so that I can
pair it with the 17-55/2.8 but I haven't found one other than the 24-105/4. I really like the idea of the 50-150 but I wish canon made it not sigma.
 
Last edited:
J Davis said:
LOL.

All I'm saying is for its price bracket the 55-250 lens is pretty good
Click to expand...

No low price is worth a soft result. Your Nikon lenses are world class, sharp, fast and cheap.

"Nikon manual focus 75-150mm zoom, fixed aperture f3.5, super sharp."
Why would you want to replace this great Nikon lens with a poorly constructed, stiff, slow, blurry, low end Canon zoom? The extra range you want may not be worth it.
 
Last edited:
I think I was editing and adding to my last post when you wrote. Sorry!
But Rockmore I think we have similar views on glass.

Currently I'm selling my 75-150 manual nikon zoom because I picked up something better and that is the 50-135 AIS which I started that thread about. (see link in above post.) I use old nikon manuals for every shoot I care about including all my personal films. My setup tends to be 11-16 then AIS primes at 20, 24, 35, 50 then the 50-135 AIS zoom.

On paid corporate video shoots the 'grandfather lenses' attract unwanted attention and for these situations I've been renting the 17-55/2.8, 24-70/2.8 and 24-105/4. It puts clients and talent at ease quickly.

However there is a need for family stuff, vacation time, recording castings, video storyboards and location scouting etc and often you don't want to be weighed down by heavy L zooms. Especially if you already are carrying laptops etc. That's where the 55-250 comes in handy because a 70-200 is so freaking heavy I have to plan for its use.

Like I said in my post which I was editing while you typed. I wish there was something better than the 55-250 but not as high end and bulky as the 70-200. If canon made an EFS 50-150 fixed aperture with the same quality of the 17-55/2.8 it would be perfect.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top