08-31-2011, 06:01 AM
[quote name='bestremera' timestamp='1314737279' post='11177']
So then, according to your tests, the EF-S 55-250 will indeed provide comparable resolution and print quality to the 70-200 f4 USM L? This is interesting that the $250 lens provides the same quality as the $650 L series glass. Thanks, Bob
[/quote]
The L lens received about ~1 school mark higher results at 135mm f/5.6. and 200mm f/5.6 and it shows less vignetting. It has probably also a better contrast (punch) compared to the 55-250 IS at max. aperture.
This will be visible to some degree. They are just not worlds apart. The f/4 aperture of the L lens has a higher creative potential though because you can achieve a shallower depth-of-field. The better build quality and the faster USM AF comes on top. So all in all there're reasons to pay more for the L lens.
The 55-250 IS is a dedicated APS-C designs. Such lenses tend to have a slight (relative) advantage on APS-C DSLRs over full format lenses. The 70-200/4L is also quite old - basically a film era lens.
cheers
Klaus
So then, according to your tests, the EF-S 55-250 will indeed provide comparable resolution and print quality to the 70-200 f4 USM L? This is interesting that the $250 lens provides the same quality as the $650 L series glass. Thanks, Bob
[/quote]
The L lens received about ~1 school mark higher results at 135mm f/5.6. and 200mm f/5.6 and it shows less vignetting. It has probably also a better contrast (punch) compared to the 55-250 IS at max. aperture.
This will be visible to some degree. They are just not worlds apart. The f/4 aperture of the L lens has a higher creative potential though because you can achieve a shallower depth-of-field. The better build quality and the faster USM AF comes on top. So all in all there're reasons to pay more for the L lens.
The 55-250 IS is a dedicated APS-C designs. Such lenses tend to have a slight (relative) advantage on APS-C DSLRs over full format lenses. The 70-200/4L is also quite old - basically a film era lens.
cheers
Klaus