| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/09/2010 10:52:57 AM · #1 |
I have about 350$ and want to buy a new lens.I've been thinking about Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS but I want to know if there is a better choice.
One of my purposes is to be able to take macro shots. |
|
|
|
12/09/2010 11:07:49 AM · #2 |
Try really hard to find a beat up, but optically great, 100mm f/2.8 macro-- $350 should get you there with shipping..
If (and you really should try) you can spring for another $50-70, you can easily find a nice copy of the 100mm f/2.8 for $400-$420 shipped...
The 55-250 is, IMHO a bad compromise on everything, it isn't really optically good, it's not a real macro, it's not that long, and it's not very well built, actually, about the only thing it does well is cover an impressive range and stabilize your shakes... :)
Really, anything else would be a better choice, especially if you want to do macro work.. |
|
|
|
12/09/2010 11:14:44 AM · #3 |
The 55-250 is not a Macro lens, in fact, the closest it can focus is about 4 feet. However, at 250mm, that still gets you pretty darn close to things. It's a great value for the money. You can find them for about $200 US with a little shopping around. Not sure what you'd have to pay in your part of the world. The lens is nice and sharp even at full reach. Here are some examples of shots I've taken with it, some doing quite well in challenges.
    
The areas where Canon cut corners to keep the cost down on this lens are in the physical construction but not the optical quality. For instance, it has a plastic mount. For the weight of the lens and what it costs, I don't find it a problem at all.
|
|
|
|
12/09/2010 11:17:17 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by coryboehne:
The 55-250 is, IMHO a bad compromise on everything, it isn't really optically good, it's not a real macro, it's not that long, and it's not very well built, actually, about the only thing it does well is cover an impressive range and stabilize your shakes... :) |
Sorry, Cory, gotta disagree with you on that. But I will agree it's not a good choice for macro.
Message edited by author 2010-12-09 16:18:18.
|
|
|
|
12/09/2010 11:38:13 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
Originally posted by coryboehne:
The 55-250 is, IMHO a bad compromise on everything, it isn't really optically good, it's not a real macro, it's not that long, and it's not very well built, actually, about the only thing it does well is cover an impressive range and stabilize your shakes... :) |
Sorry, Cory, gotta disagree with you on that. But I will agree it's not a good choice for macro. |
Ok, fine, the IS sucks too ;)
To be fair, you're really quite a good photographer, and pretty much any equipment in the right hands will produce good images (except it would seem, that 500mm lens, I haven't seen you post anything with it ;)..)
When I say it's not optically excellent, I'm basing that on the performance of prime lenses such as the 100mm Macro - but to be fair, the MTF charts do show good/great performance on all but the finest details.
But, then again, I'm even a little displeased with the build quality of the 15-85, which is pretty tight overall...
ETA: Anything with that much zoom is pretty much guaranteed to have compromised IQ - even my 100-400L, which is, now that I've got the focusing issues sorted out, quite an excellent overall piece of glass..
Message edited by author 2010-12-09 16:46:45. |
|
|
|
12/09/2010 11:58:48 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by coryboehne:
(except it would seem, that 500mm lens, I haven't seen you post anything with it ;)..) |
Haven't taken it out for a spin yet. I thought about taking it to the alliance airshow, but didn't want to carry a lot of extra stuff with me all day. Might give it a try this weekend. Ellen is making noise about going to Dallas Saturday.
Originally posted by coryboehne:
When I say it's not optically excellent, I'm basing that on the performance of prime lenses such as the 100mm Macro - but to be fair, the MTF charts do show good/great performance on all but the finest details.
But, then again, I'm even a little displeased with the build quality of the 15-85, which is pretty tight overall... |
It's an apples to kumquats comparison, I think. Also, I'm not as picky as you are. Perhaps that's just because I don't have any L glass, so I don't know any better. I'll give that the benefit of the doubt, since I may never own a piece of L glass.
|
|
|
|
12/09/2010 12:02:27 PM · #7 |
Now that we've made our cases for/against the 55-250, I'm sure the OP will be able to make an educated and informed choice. Or, he's totally confused and won't be able to make any choice. :-}
|
|
|
|
12/09/2010 12:21:36 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
Also, I'm not as picky as you are. Perhaps that's just because I don't have any L glass, so I don't know any better. I'll give that the benefit of the doubt, since I may never own a piece of L glass. |
Nah, you're just much smarter.. I'm the idiot who looks at pixels that are 1/4 across when I've zoomed in enough..
Funny enough, I was just recently noticing that my 28-135IS isn't really all that bad if you stay between 40 and 115mm... |
|
|
|
12/09/2010 12:49:02 PM · #9 |
Thank you so much.
I think 100mm f/2.8 macro is a great choice for macro and studio shots but it's a bit expensive for me(it's 620$ in tehran) . If I can provide the money I'll buy it.If you have any other choices please tell. Thanks again
Message edited by author 2010-12-09 20:04:45. |
|
|
|
12/09/2010 12:58:00 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by Samoza:
Thank you so much.
I think 100mm f/2.8 macro is a great choice for macro and studio shots but it's a bit expensive for me(it's 500$ in tehran) . If I can provide the money I'll buy it.If you have any other choices please tell. Thanks again |
Can you buy used there? Used lenses are GREAT!
ETA: You're really creative, if you can buy the good glass - you deserve it...
Message edited by author 2010-12-09 18:00:17. |
|
|
|
12/09/2010 03:07:49 PM · #11 |
| Thanks. I think I can find a used one or I should wait to get enough money |
|
|
|
12/09/2010 04:01:14 PM · #12 |
i own the 55-250 and i'd spend your money elsewhere, unless you are look for a low cost long range lens. i got mine cheap in a package deal. its very cheaply built, and you can break if you accidentally manually turn the focus ring with the AF on.
its the one lens i rarely use unless im very far away.
i'f you have decent cash to spend, spend it elsewhere. |
|
|
|
12/09/2010 05:20:28 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by coryboehne:
ETA: You're really creative, if you can buy the good glass - you deserve it... |
I just had a look at his profile as well. Only 3 challenge entries, but they are all very strong ones. If he sticks around, I'm sure we'll see a few ribbons on his page. And at 17!
|
|
|
|
12/09/2010 05:37:40 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
Originally posted by coryboehne:
ETA: You're really creative, if you can buy the good glass - you deserve it... |
I just had a look at his profile as well. Only 3 challenge entries, but they are all very strong ones. If he sticks around, I'm sure we'll see a few ribbons on his page. And at 17! |
Exactly my thoughts, this one might fly far and fast... |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/07/2025 03:04:32 PM EDT.
