I decided to take a few shots out in out backyard to work out some issues with shooting in Aperture Priority Mode. I spotted this one potted plant my wife had resting on patio table and took a couple of snaps. I was impressed with how sharp this turned out given the fact that it was in as close as possible. I had been considering purchasing the Canon EF 70~200mm 2.8L IS II lens, but now I am not certain I need to shell out $1,200.00 for more gear. This image is S.O.C.C., no cropping, resizing or anything else. I feel the Canon EF-S 55~250mm, IS, STM lens is just fine sitting in my Canon 80d. Please let me know what you think about Image Quality. Thanks very much for viewing. ) TT Okay, on first attempt to upload, I had to resize the image because it was too big. This was handheld with IS on and sitting in a high back chair. 1/30s,F/5.6,ISO 100, No Fill Flash, Aperture Priority Mode, Focal Length 250mm With Multi-Segment Metering. Cheers.
I think you will find that this lens is a pretty darn good value, nice and sharp, minimal color fringing, and light fall off only really visible wide open. My only worry would be the plastic barrel and zoom design, eventually dust will work its way into the lens, but hey at a few hundred bucks what can you expect. I would only worry about upgrading if your lens dies or if you go up to full frame, well that or you really want to shoot at 2.8, don't get me wrong I love my 70-200 2.8L IS II and would not hesitate to repurchase it.
Hi johnsey, thanks very much for your feedback. I feel it is unfortunate that I had to resize the image in order to upload it here, thereby not being able to see the benefit of having 24.2MP. I purchased this lens off of ebay for approximately $84.00 plus a few bucks for shipping, so it turned out to be a better transaction than I thought possible. Regarding dust eventually finding its way into the lens, is that a real problem? What I like about this image is the sharpness revealed in the gouge at the top. Thanks again, Tony
I think that the only person that can make the judgement about your lenses is you. If you are happy with the images it produces, look no more. You have what you want. You can chase sharper lenses, but how far do you want to go before cost and weight start to become a negative factor. I have a 70-200mm f2.8 in K mount, it is nice and sharp. But it is large, heavy, and bulky. I could understand a new lens if you don't have a lens that enables you to take what images that you want. But other than that, if you are happy with this lens, keep it, and enjoy using it. Gary
I have this lens too, and also bought it second hand at a really good price, though not as good as yours! As a relative newbie, I made the (now obvious) mistake of also buying a new 70 - 300 IS, thinking that I might gain magically improved zoom, and quality from a new lens. I get that they are both in the "cheap" end of the lens spectrum, but that's inexperience and optimism for you I guess. But what I found was that the 55-250 is much, much lighter than the 300. The difference between good hand held photo's at full zoom, and not. As discussed in another thread, I probably need to use at least a monopod with the 300 to get steady images, or to brace against something. Younger/steadier folks may not see this issue, but I certainly do! I am far more likely to take this lens out with me for opportunistic sessions, such as when I am fishing/walking first, and at my level I find the quality of the images to be really good. I think your photo's speak for themselves. I wouldn't hesitate to get another one if something happened to my current lens.
Gary, you make excellent points as always. The problem isn't my gear, the problem is MMMEEEE!! I see images on this site and many others that far outshine mine. I study these other images and what makes them far superior to mine ( I finally realized) is that they were taken with higher end equipment. Let's face it, I find it difficult as to how anyone can make an argument against a serious upgrade. I mean, the images will look so much better and so much nicer in every way. I feel this is the problem with most shooters is that we are perfectionists or at least seek perfection. Lower ended gear will hold a shooter back, whether it is entering challenges for prize money, or just for cashless awards, or just for acknowledgement for good work. Good work is its own reward. I am also looking at and considering a Canon EF 80~200mm f/2.8L (known as the Magical Drainpipe) that I understand is quite a remarkable piece of equipment. There is one on ebay for approximately $400.00USD and for that price, it is very tempting. One issue I have with it, is it is a little more than three pounds and that for me would be something akin to a pack mule's load. I have a lot to think about. Well, many thanks for all the helpful hints, encouragement and suggestions. Cheers, Tony )
Paul, thanks for your response and excellent advice. So are you now happier with the 70~300mm IS? Thnx, Tony
I don't disagree with your thinking. As a suggestion Tony, if you are after sharper images. Have you considered a dedicated macro lens such as the Canon 100mm f2.8 L? I am not sure what the price of one of these goes for. They are meant to be pretty sharp. The reason for suggesting this lens is that most of your images that you post here are of flowers. So you don't need a long macro lens as the flower is not going to get spooked. The lens is not heavy or large, but it's a prime. Mind you, I haven't factored in any other styles of images that you may take where this lens would not be ideal. Just an idea I'm throwing out there for you. Gary
To be honest Tony, I don't see that much of an advantage in the larger lens, as it is really too close in size to the 55-250. Yes, obviously there is extra zoom range, but not really enough to justify the expense, and I was lucky in that the 55-250 was "as new" when I got it, so there is no noticable improvement in image quality either. To be fair, the only real disadvantage with the 300 is that it is a lot heavier than the 250, and for me personally, this does matter. As Gary mentions, I do have a very good 2.8 Sigma 105 macro lens that I like to use for still life shots. Again this is fairly heavy, but I can use it hand held at a pinch, but for better results I do use a tripod if I have it to hand.
Truthfully, I am not pursuing sharpness. What I am seeking are overall better images. When I do compare my images to the images of others, I see what appears to be lackluster results. The best way I can describe it, is that my images appear "DEAD". There is no life or spark to them when compared to others. I view images that were taken with a Canon 5D III and Canon EF 70~200mm F2.8L lens and I am literally blown away by the results. One option I have is to purchase the Canon EF 80~200mm F/2.8L off of ebay, try it for a few weeks. I will have 30 days from day of receipt to return it at the seller's expense for a full refund if I feel there is absolutely no improvement in my work. Sounds like a good deal to me. For those who may be interested, I will post on what transpires. Thanks again to everyone who contributed. Cheers. Tonytee
Well you can certainly try the lens, and see how things go. The 80-200 is a fantastic sharp lens, but to be honest it was discontinued in 1995 and the 70-200's replaced it, they are on their 3rd generation of some of those lenses. So they would be optically superior. I want to at least level set expectations here given that the "Magic Drainpipe" is about 25 years old. So I also want to open the conversation to why you feel some images are superior? Sure great lens will help give great results, but also to be considered is how the lens is used, and what effort is applied between camera and computer screen. And don't get me wrong I totally will support good glass, well ahead of a new camera. But each lens has its strengths and weaknesses and one should play to them. Then add on did the photographer use any filters? A couple of ND and grad filters go a long way in an image, and then how much post processing did the user do in PS or LR on that RAW image. There are so many pieces here. You can get stunning photos from a box camera with a pinhole or holga with a scratched plastic lens. Ok, I am rambling, just food for thought that more gear is not always going to solve things. I think any one of the 70-200s would be a better purchase than the 80-200 personally. My 2 cents.
It sounds as if it is technique that you are looking at. If you buy a different lens and not change your method, are you going to see the changes that you are looking for? Gary
Well, as someone on this thread stated that my photos speak for themselves. Of course, they have to since I lead the league in this Forum for Zero Replies. All kidding aside, if you go to Ken Rockwell's site, read what he has to say about the Canon EF 80~200 F/2.8 L lens as he gives it some very glowing comments. Thanks again. Tony
I still think that the only person that you should aiming to please with your images is you. Yes, it is nice to share your images, but you should be aiming to please yourself. If you feel as if you can do better, there is nothing wrong with trying to improve the quality that you are producing. There's nothing wrong with experimenting and trying new gear and techniques. Gary
ok having looked at the image as an image to me i see that the subject points of intreast that stick out are the damaged area to the flower pot and the leaf just above it that is 50% in focus, as much as critiquing this image i am also self critiquing my response to the image as presented, after all who am i to say what is or is not. i feel that if the leaf was fully in focus as ell as the damaged area of the pot the image works, on what level this works i'm not completely sure, but as photography is an art form surely this is left to the viewer to diecide if it works for them, and that there is a variable in itself. an improvement in composition would to be give more head room above the leaf in focus and a bit less of the lower pot imagery, keeping the damaged section.
Thank you all very much. I am now considering the Canon EF 70~300mm, Nano USM which I understand is quite a stellar performer for the price. I can purchase one directly from CanonUSA for $499.99 brand new with a one year warranty. Now immediately upon purchase, my credit card company will issue a credit to my account for exactly $200.00. I have done a lot research into this lens and I like the reviews and ratings presented by Mr. Dustin Abbott on UTube. He also informed me that for the money, Net $300.00, it would be a worthwhile upgrade from the Canon EF-S 55~250mm, IS, STM Lens. Many thanks for all the helpful responses. All the best and stay safe. Cheers. Tony
It's good to hear that you have narrowed down your choice to a lens that you are happy with. Let us know how you get on with it and what you think of it. Gary
All very interesting stuff here guys. I've read through all posts and enjoyed all the banter. Just my 2 bobs worth. Lenses are a personal choice and borrowing one from a friend or even hiring may be the best way to go to give it a good workout to get a feel for it and see first hand if it's for you or not. I borrowed a lens from a fellow tog and loved it so much that I bought the same one. Tamron 18-400. It is permanently on my 7Dii and I use it every day while I walk my dog around the parks and lakes nearby. There's something new to see every day and the zoom is unbelievable. Even sharp at 400mm! It's great fully zoomed at 400mm to take close ups and it focuses at 100mm from the subject. Watch a few reviews as well before you make up your mind. Let me know if you want a couple of sample shots. Cheers!
Yes, you are correct in that it is quite a spectacular performer. I have read many glowing reviews and viewed many images taken with that lens and they are amazingly superb. I would of course be very interested in viewing your work with that lens as well. Many thanks mate. Tony
Thanks for the reply Tony. I'll add a few to my PostImage account and then post a link here. In the meantime, here's a few on my website HERE
