55-250 VS 70-200 L

vvhiteknight

Suspended / Banned
Messages
14
Edit My Images
No
I just bought the 70-200 L non IS and wanted to compare the results. I seem to be getting a better picture with the 55-250 lens.

I am using a tripod in the same position, with a remote to stop shake. Both lens are set to 5.6f stop.

Which pictures do you think looks better?

8453755611


8453754349
 
To me - 102 seems slightly softer than 105. There also seems to be a slight difference in terms of exposure.
 
The settings are slightly different (ISO 200/250, 200mm/208mm) but on the whole the images are pretty similar. I found the same when I had a 70-200 F/4 is and non-is so for my usage I sold them in favour of the 55-250. However, the 70-200 beats the 55-250 in focus speed, noise, accuracy (slightly) and wide open performance in real world usage so it depends on what you're shooting.

I only had the long lens for zoo trips etc so didn't need the L performance overall but the 55-250 is an excellent lens for its price.

Cheers
Steve
 
105 is the 70-200 and 102 is the 55-250. When I zoom in, you can see the individual pixels that make up the eye brows with the 55-250, where as the 70-200 its all blurred together. I know the L lens is quicker to focus etc, but I also expected better optics, but from the several tests ive done the 55-250 has better optics. Perhaps my L lens is faulty?
 
I wonder if it is just slightly missing focus. Looking at the larger files on your Flickr, the paint on the body (belt buckles and even the little scratch or fibre above, then the speckles on the left arm) all look sharper on the 105image.7

How were you focusing? Do you have filters on either of the lenses?
 
Last edited:
I used the 10x zoom to autofocus onto the face of the lego model. I didnt think about filters, but the 55-250 had a UV filter on it, the 70-200 has no filter.
 
OK, the 70-200 is SLIGHTLY SLIGHTLY better, but tbh the 55-250 seems like an excellent lens for the money. I am not sure if the L lens is worth the extra £££ for the faster focus etc. I am going to go take some pictures tomorrow so will do some real world tests and see how I feel about the L lens then.
 
You might find in your 'lab' testing conditions that the sharpness is the aspect of both lenses that are closest together. The problem with that is you can't really use this as a measure of total lens performance.

Out in the field however, the build quailty comprising of faster ultrasonic focus motor (USM), larger fixed aperture, less vignetting, complete camera compatibility in the EOS range (where the 55-250 is efs-crop only) and more robust build may prove its worth over the long term.

I've got the 55-250 which is a cracking lens for the money and sits comfortably alongside my 100mm L and 17-55mm for 1/5th of the cost. I do see a 70-200 on the horizon sometime soon however!
 
The 55-250 is a good lens, no doubt about it.

I'm not sure it'd manage this though, from my 70-200 f4, this is wide open at 200mm
100% crop or thereabouts;

IMG_6604-2_zps2eaf0ec1.jpg
 
Before you make any decisions about the 70-200, give it some time and get out and use it. All lenses take time to adjust to. We have both the 55-250 and the 70-200 in the house and on a good day (perfect conditions) the 55-250 can hold a candle to the 70-200 but in any other situation the white one wins every time!!
 
On initial inspection the 55-250 looks more contrasty but looking closer you can see the 70-200 is sharper and has more detail.

Also try backing the 70-200 off slightly from the 200mm setting, I've found using 194mm or similar can help when using zooms
 
Back
Top