08-04-2014, 10:21 PM
Here we go ....
next PZ lens test report: Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM
08-04-2014, 10:21 PM
Here we go ....
08-05-2014, 09:29 AM
Thanks Klaus, much appreciated.
I gather the new version is an internal focus lens (i.e. does not extend when focusing as the old version)? I wonder whether that has an impact on the bokeh characteristics as shown in your review - although from my experience the old version is probably very similar
Also this new version seems to come with a new lens hood (ET-63) in the good Canon tradition. Not sure if the old one ET-60 is compatible (it seems not?)
08-05-2014, 09:53 AM
Oh, I got mine without hood.
As far as the bokeh is concerned - difficult to tell.
08-07-2014, 04:14 AM
What a nice 3 lens setup on the budget! 18-55 STM, 55-250 STM and 10-18 STM. Add the 60 macro lens and I am done. If I am changing system, I would go for Canon. I do not quite like the bodies, but I simple love these Canon lenses - performance on the 'cheap'.
08-07-2014, 08:10 AM
Quote:Thanks Klaus, much appreciated.Like you say, the old lens did not have great bokeh. So it does not seem likely that the IF is to blame. And of course, other lenses with IF can show great bokeh. Like my 70-200mm f4 L USM. Which shows that IF and the so-so bokeh from this 55-250mm STM is unrelaed to being an IF lens...
About the hood, in the review it says it is included. But it actually is optional. Also, these are the twist on types, but the review (other reviewe too, like the old 55-250mm IS one) calls them snap on.
08-07-2014, 08:39 AM
Seems as if they realized that only superior quality can save their DSLR business.
The mirrorless gang is still thinking that underdesigned lenses are no problem. This will hurt them at some stage.
08-07-2014, 09:47 AM
Quote:About the hood, in the review it says it is included. But it actually is optional. Also, these are the twist on types, but the review (other reviewe too, like the old 55-250mm IS one) calls them snap on.
Agreed, and to note that on the old lens the twist hood is quite awkward to fit - as the barrel rotates you end up twisting the hood against the focus motor. In practice to fit the hood one needs to hold onto the focus ring, which makes it difficult to attach in a hurry or with the camera to the eye. With the new one this might be easier?
I mentioned this as I found in practice the hood is particularly useful for this lens - especially in windy conditions when spray/snow/dust/sand can very easily attach to the front element and drop IQ significantly.
I'm also concerned about storing the hood reversed on the lens. On the old version this is possible but I must admit I never do it because as it would stand in the bag it subjects the moving front element to a lot of sideways pressure which could throw it out of alignment on the long term... Can't see if the new lens/hood combination improves on this in any way.
08-07-2014, 07:48 PM
Quote:Seems as if they realized that only superior quality can save their DSLR business.Are they underdesigned? Or more like "differently optimised"?
This reminds me, I still haven't ordered the 10-18 yet...
<a class="bbc_url" href="http://snowporing.deviantart.com/">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.
08-10-2014, 12:15 PM
I'm not sure I understand this statement (can you expand) ? I mean I know that sony/panasonic have a few dogs they also have many good lenses; like wise for fuji. Seems only Sony is in this category of ignoring lenses.
Quote:Seems as if they realized that only superior quality can save their DSLR business.
Actually Sony does not underdesign lenses with the exception of the 16-50mm I think. Some of their lenses are just not good which doesn't help, of course. :-)
Fuji, Olympus, Panasonic and Samsung ARE underdesigning lenses since they are assume that at least distortion compensation is in place. You don't really want to use their wide lenses without digital correction. With the exception of CAs, these are all lossy procedures (distortion correction costs corner resolution, vignetting correction increases corner noise).
|Users browsing this thread:|