Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 11, 2004, 6:17 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1
Default EF 55-200

I am thinking of purchasing a Canon EF 55-200 F4.5 - 5.6 II USM lens . I want this to go on a Canon EOS 300D

Has anyone bought one of these lenses and can let me know if it matches up to the press claims or does anybody know of any reviews done on this lens ?
aki1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jan 13, 2004, 8:40 AM   #2
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 24
Default

http://www.wakecomeaboard.com/Photo/...ild%20Life.htm

I have this lens and think it takes pretty good pictures. All of the wildlife pictures about were taken with the lens except the last one. The lens focus seems to be very fast, but I have nothing to compare it to at this time. I just ordered a 70-200 4L to replace the 55-200 if I get better resaults with the L.
sandow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 13, 2004, 11:45 PM   #3
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 71
Default

let me know how the new L lens compares when you get it, will you?
shoelessone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 14, 2004, 9:43 AM   #4
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 24
Default

Sure will, It should be in Thursday, the only bad thing is it is supposed to rain all weekend. I will still try to get some shots to compare to the 55-200. I want to see if it was worth the $500.
sandow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 14, 2004, 10:13 AM   #5
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 71
Default

thanks much, im trying to figure out if its worth me saving for another million years to buy the 70-200L lens (500 bucks or whatever) or if i should buy one of the cheaper zooms.

thanks
shoelessone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 15, 2004, 6:43 PM   #6
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 24
Default

http://www.wakecomeaboard.com/d300/d300.htm

THESE ARE FULL IMAGES:

I got the 70-200 4L today. I didn't have time for any outdoor shots but got these 2 indoors to compare it to the 55-200. At F8 I think they look pretty close. I focused right above the "N" on "New" on the second set and in the middle of the white house bottle on the first. Looks like at F4 on the first shot there is a noticeable sharpness difference with the 70-200L. The second shot is hard for me to tell. Let me know what you think.

First set is ISO 400
Second Set ISO 100
sandow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 15, 2004, 9:05 PM   #7
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 71
Default

Yes, i would agree with you 100%. The second set look just about the same to me, while the first set is deffinetly not as sharp with the 55-200. I am currios, Did you have both of those at full zoom?

Thanks very much for that, after seeing those I think I will be happy for now with the (much) cheaper lens
shoelessone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 16, 2004, 9:37 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

One of the differences between cheap and expensive lenses is the fstop that they are good at. All lenses get better (sharper) when when you reduce the aperture (raise the f-stop number, or "stop them down" is the term.) At F8, most lenses (unless they are really, really bad) should produce a fairly sharp picture. F8 is considered the "best" aperture for any lens (not always true, but a good general rule.) So I'm not too surprised that they are very similar.

Another difference is edge sharpness. Better lenses are sharper across the entire picture, cheaper ones get softer near the edges.

So it fits that when shot "wide open" (a term meaning using the aperture, or smallest fstop) the L lens will be better. That is what the extra money should get you.

As too the pictures.... I agree the L lens is clearly noticably better at f4 than the other at f5.6 (I assume you couldn't shoot at F4, so you didn't?) Personally, I can see the difference between the two at F8. It's much closer, and photoshop could probably make them the same, but the L is still sharper around the edges of the jar.

There also seems to be some form of blooming in the L lens. That is disturbing, because it's the expensive lens. Notice just to the left of the jar by the label. There is a hint of color (the same as the label) but it's not on the jar. It's like a little fuzzy halo. It is there in the other lens, but much less of it.

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 16, 2004, 10:17 AM   #9
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 24
Default

Both were at 200mm - the 55-200 lens will only do F5.6 at full zoom. Like Eric said, I guess you pay to get the better quality at a higher aperture and the ability to have that aperture at the full range of the zoom.

You can definitely feel the deference in build quality on the L. It is much heavier and feels more durable being metal. Canít wait this weekend to see how it does outside if the rain holds off.
sandow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 16, 2004, 3:19 PM   #10
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 30
Default 55-200

I have the 55-200 as well as a 24-70 L. Within the common range of 55-70, the 55-200 consistently beats my 24-70 on landscape shots. I don't think you can beat the 55-200 for its value. In addition to photo quality, it's light. The "L" lenses are a pain to carry a round. Also, even if the 55-200 isn't built as well and won't last as long, who cares you can always by another one for that price.
fsm2i is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 4:27 AM.