File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
this is pretty awesome.

here are two pictures.

one is taken by the canon 70-200 f/4 L IS (fantastic lens)

and the other is taken by the very new 55-250 4-5.6 IS.

I'll upload both, and you see if you can tell the difference.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
At that size it's not a very fair comparison. Any PP?
>> Anonymous
>>96153

sadly I found this on a japanese website and this was pretty much all they had.

haha, I mean, sure, it's a shitty comparison in a ton of ways, but at the same time... this certainly doesn't say *bad* things about the 55-250 now does it?
>> Anonymous
ah, found the site it was from

http://www.dchome.net/viewthread.php?tid=434285&extra=&page=1

pretty interesting stuff I think.

you can check the pictures out even if you can't read everything...
>> Anonymous
>>96154

It doesn't say anything negative, but nothing really positive either. Inconclusive. I see jaggies on some of the clips too. They must have resized them badly.
>> Anonymous
>>96155

That looks more interesting, I'll have a peep at the pictures..
>> Anonymous
>>96156

well *I* think it says something positive!

*nyaa*
>> BlackAdder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
I looked at the link and it seems the L does come out better in the comparison, as expected. For a fairer judgement I'll wait for the reviews to see what kind of bang for the buck you get. That's more important to the average consumer, I'd imagine.

The price of the new lens is likely going to be very low and therefore a great lens for the price from the specs and few test pictures I've seen. Certainly a step up from the previous option for a budget zoom (the old 55-200).

Low price, image stabilising, UD element and a useful range. It'll be a favourite EF-S lens, that's for sure. If it's good enough, I'd be tempted by it.
>> Anonymous
>>96161

oh yeah, I mean, there's no way in HELL canon is going to make this lens better than the 70-200 f/4 L IS, I mean, fuck, it's like one of the best lenses in their lineup.

that being said, the fact it can hold up at *all* next to it is a very VERY big plus in my book.
>> BlackAdder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>96162

Yeah, even getting close to it would be good enough at the prices being mentioned. If you looked at the images of the lens itself you'll see it's got a focus and a zoom ring, so you're not having to grasp that thin front element ring like with the kit lens or the old 55-200. Much nicer for manual control.
>> Anonymous
>>96171

both the new 18-55 and the 55-250 have redesigned more sturdier (and much better looking in my opinion) bodies.

I think canon has realized that once people get sucked into the dslr world they tend to stay within that brand and start buying up into the more expensive lenses.

So canon is now making the cheap lenses have some pretty damn good optic... but keeping the bodies plastic so they won't last forever.

very smart business move.
>> Teus !QbSstcPD6U
>>96150
first one is obviously the better lens. check the reflections in the upper-right paperclip that are more clearly defined
>> Anonymous
>>96178

if you checked the link I gave you, then you would have seen that the first picture is the 55-200 IS.

soo... yeah.
>> Teus !QbSstcPD6U
>>96179
lol, okay. the second one has a lot more artifacting on the other hand, check aliased edges
>> Anonymous
>>96178
don't look at artifacting to tell that has nothing to do with the lens with the picture being resized so small

I can tell the second pic is the L just by looking at the highlights. Its subtle since the pics are resized so heavily but you can see chromatic abberation all over the highlights in the first picture which aren't present in the second one

and judging by the severe lack of anyone commenting on which one is the better one i'm assuming most of /p/ can't tell the difference -_-;
>> Anonymous
>>96214
it has nothing to do with it, but it sure messes up the "comparison" since you cant really say which is sharper etc when you have artifacty shit everywhere
>> Anonymous
WTF are you people creaming yourself for, ITS A PIC OF PAPER CLIPS

I know when I buy telephoto image stabilized lenses, I don't just take pics of Static objects at the minimum focus distance.

How about some applicable shots, ones that most people who buy these lenses are going to take, And How fast is the AF? how much does it weigh? Does the front lens rotate, How sharp are they wide open etc etc etc..
>> Anonymous
>>96235

well the reason that *I* am creaming myself is that the 55-250 is a very wide range, decently fast, IMAGE STABILIZED, light and compact, black painted canon lens with a VERY LOW PRICE.

There is simply NO WAY to get all of these features at under 400 dollars unless you go with this lens.

So, obviously, I am virtually PRAYING that it has high optical quality so that I can actually bring myself to buy it.
>> Anonymous
>>96288
Well just go stick your head in the sand till its released then, Or look at pictures that are actually applicable to your shooting style.
And I have a feeling it isn't paperclips
>> Anonymous
>>96318

>Well just go stick your head in the sand till its released then

WHAAAT!~?

The best part of getting something new is drooling over tiny insignificant pieces of information leading up to the total release!

also, maybe I *am* a professional clip photographer. Some one has to do it. Ever think of that mr. smart guy?