I have a 55-250, the pictures of the deer are super blurry. Had you turned off IS and too long a shutter speed? I have received much sharper images than you managed. So it is obvious that you did not have the right settings, or the tested lens is wrong. Because it really is not so blurry. Check out the Christoffer Frost lens test. He has tested over 200 lenses. He clearly shows that the lens is far much sharper than your test shows. Do again do right
I agree, I try not to be mean on the internet but those photos were awful and the testing parameters for comparison completely arbitrary. Taking photos at different times of day, in different areas, under different lighting circumstances, of different subjects, from random distances, blowing up results far outside of the cheap lens's reach and pretending like this is not a waste of the viewer's time. This is super amateur stuff. Of course a $2400 lens is going to bet fantastic, but this video doesn't show that to me. Put the camera on a tripod and take an image of the same subject progressively moved further and further away, all during the relatively same time of day and *then* compare. It would show exactly how much detail and reach is gained with the $2100 more invested.
He missed focus on the first deer. It focused on the grass. That's why they were so blurry. 3:44 shows the capability of the 55-250. It has adequate detail when shooting at closer distances. You cannot heavily crop a cheap 250mm lens to 400mm and expect to be in any way comparable to a pro grade 400mm at 400mm. He should have taken pictures of the same subject back to back with the two different lenses. This review is rather pointless in my opinion....
I'm also hard considering, but 280€ is still a big pill to swallow for my broke student ass. Recently swapped my 18-55 is2 for an stm, with almost no loss and am super happy with that decision. Almost makes my 50mm stm useless
@@Daniel-dj7fhhow would that make your 50mm useless? I guess its the f1.8 and it completely different than a 18-55 in terms of image quality not to mention it let in way more light and better bokeh
@@Daniel-dj7fh its about the same focal length for both lenses but I encourage you to try both on the same subject and you will clearly see some differences. The 50mm 1.8 will have much smoother background blur and will be sharper from my personal experience. Try it out and have some fun !
I would like to say that this video was presented very well. I really like the format and you were easy to listen to. That said, I just wanted to point out that this is not an image quality comparison. All you have done here is compared images taken in mediocre light, of far away subjects, with a cheap 55-250mm lens that were then heavily cropped to show a 400mm equivalent to images taken of up close subjects with an expensive 100-400mm lens at 400mm. I agree that it is worth while to show the benefit of the added reach of the 400mm lens, but that is not a comparison of image quality. That 55-250 set at 200mm f/8 is indistinguishable from the 100-400 at 200mm in terms of sharpness. I started out with the 55-250 for wildlife photography and upgraded to the 100-400 IS ii. The 100-400 is worth every penny in my opinion and is sharper especially when shooting wide open. But the biggest benefit is the reach. The 55-250 can be very sharp at the proper settings but its reach limits it as a wildlife lens. Again, very good video, just need to rethink the testing procedure.
Your 55-250 shots were out of focus. You may need to adjust the microfocus. I've used the II and STM versions and they are incredibly sharp. Lens quality will not make an image at the same distance blurry like that, misfocus will.
I think there must be something wrong with your 55-250 stm. I've used two copies of this lens, both were extremely sharp. The weak point is focusing. Both copies had a tendency to hunt occasionally for no obvious reason. I would still score it a 10 for value.
He missed focus on the first deer, that's why they were so blurry. The focus was on the grass. Then in the rest of his images the subjects were a long way away and he cropped in heavily. At 3:44 he showed what the 55-250 is capable of. He said that image was heavily edited... okay, but you cannot add a bunch of sharpening in post to a very soft picture and make it sharp. That was a good example of what the 55-250 is designed to do. Good detail when you get close to the subject.
My copy of 55-250mm IS STM is SHARP but has an issue with the zoom moving if the lens is not horizontal hence making the focusing go out. Without opening up the lens to tighten some screws, I just use a broad rubberband at the seam to hold the zoom ring from moving from the mount. 55-250mm IS STM is then ALWAYS pin sharp. A cheap Vivitar 2.2X 58mm teleconverter lens mounted in front converts the zoom to a 121-500mm Zoom for further reach (but loses 1-2 fstops).
i strongly feel your shutter speed was not high enough with 55-250 mm lens and the the same goes for 100-400 mm, you should learn more and will be surprised what 55-250 mm can deliver at that price point
Hate to chime in on what's already been said, but I think you should try this test again with better controls. The 55-250 stm produces MUCH sharper images than your samples. It looks like you might have used a tripod with IS turned on or maybe you shot handheld with IS off and too slow of a shutter. Many of these look to suffer from possible missed focus as well as definite motion blur. It would be really interesting to see a good side by side of the 55-250 STM on a cropped camera vs a 100-400 on full frame so that you have a better sense of how well an entry-level kit holds up against a professional kit with the same effective field of view. But again, watch that motion blur. Incorrect IS settings can totally mess you up.
I'm sorry but i disagree with everything you said in this video about the 55-250mm "budget" lens, , I have taken plenty of very sharp images 5 miles away using this lens, maybe you had a bad copy who knows? this is a cracking lens, I always use manual focus and zoom in on the view finder set my focus I have never had a problem using it and won 7 awards with a photo that I took using this lens
I still use the 55-250 and I have never regretted buying it. Yes, I'm am a hobby nature and wildlife photographer, but the majority of my shots where decent to very sharp. Of course a much more expensive lens is going to produce better immages, but I don't think the price to performance difference is that huge. With enogh experience you can work yourselfe arround the flaws of this lens and get exceptionally good immages. I myself am very pleased with this lens!
Great video. As you said one is an amateur lens and the other is professional. When I started in Wildlife photography and didn’t even know if I would enjoy it the amateur lenses were perfect. When I found I did enjoy it I moved up. Giving my beginner kit to a young person so they could learn to love wildlife photography as much as we do.
This is old but.. it makes one wonder are all Canon 55-250 created the same? Well I just bought a new one $144..yeah great deal. Man its so much sharper then this guys. I just read a post below saying "I think somethings wrong with your 55-250 stm ". I have a Tamron 28-300 that I thought was great but.. man this 55-250 blows that away. SO happy I got this one.
Were your comparison images both taken at the same range, As in 250 mm that is the limit of the cheaper lens? I definitely agree that the 55-250 doesnt give enough reach for wildlife though. I have this lens and its good for what it can do.
@@bodinian He should've set the 55-250 at 200mm f/8 and compared it to the 100-400 at the same settings. I guarantee you wouldn't see a $2,100 difference, you actually can't tell the difference at all.
You are not comparing like against like. It's not always price that dictates a good lens, just think of the nifty-fifty, but in this instance it's obvious which lens would produce the better images. Also I would question where you focused in the three deer image.
I just rented the Canon 100-400 lens for a trip to Uganda coming up. I am excited to see what this lens can do and if it truly impresses me, I will consider buying my own. Thank you for this excellent comparison. Very good stuff!
Old vid, but it would be interesting if he was shooting the 55-250mm, using only the AF? Because my experience with the cheaper zoom lenses, especially on a ACSP camera, at long distances just to get a decent sharp focus, You ave to use Manual focus, also the peaking feature, in the camera. Remember you have the 1.5crop, and you can get further with little loss of quality using the Clear Image Zoom feature at. x1.4. The x2. there's a slight drop in quality. The lens becomes a 210- 525mm ay x1.4 and a 300-750mm at x2😊
I'm not debating that the 100-400 is better than the 55-250 but I disagree with your assessment of the 55-250. I'm an amateur with a T7. I understand that setup means a lot for a shot, it took a lot of practice. I've been using the 55-250 for some time now. I've taken similar shots of still deer, with the right settings and managed better picture quality than what was shown. I don't feel that you did the 55-250 justice. If I were a beginner just pointing and shooting, I'd probably agree.
I don't have deers where I live and I'm thinking of doing wildlife photography. I have a T7 as well (reconditioned but it works great). The country I live in have deers but there's none that can be found close to me so I mainly have racoons, bats, birds and rarely snakes and domestic cats. I don't plan on taking bats in photos though. I mainly have birds around me. I also have musk rats since I live near water. I don't think the 250 mm can do bird photography.
I appreciate your effort. I disagree with your method and the results. Minimally, you should let us know which camera you are using and you should use both lenses at the same time/place. Otherwise, you cannot control variation in lighting, distance, and other factors. My 55-250mm IS STM produces crisp, vibrant pictures comparable to my first gen Canon 100-400mm L (yes, I understand your 100-400 is the second gen). Additionally, both lenses on my SL3 (24mp) allows for photos to be heavily cropped without undue loss of quality.
Thanks for the video. There are a few parameters missing in able to judge your tests and evaluate Your conclusions like shutter-speeds etc. I still want to see a side by side comparison with the same light-conditions, contrast and shutter-speeds shot on the same subjects. I have both lenses and in my experience I dont find the differences in image-quality that convincing in my photos. CHEERS ! Per
IMHO, you've missed something when you used 55-250 for those shots. Compared to my level, I have achieved wonders with my 55-250, even though I'm not a pro.
I know this is old but.. I just bought a used 55-250 Canon and.. mine are so sharp.. something is really wrong with your lens.. camera to look that bad zoomed in. I seem to no be the only one.
I have the 55-250 lens, and Canon M-50, I’ve been getting descent images, I want to upgrade the lens, but my budget is only $1,200. Is any other one that you could recommend?
Focus on the shot with the 3 deer seems to be on the grass and flowers in front of the deer and shutter speed is too slow as there motion blur on the deer
Exactly. I don't like raining on people's parades but this video was quite pointless. Of coarse heavily cropped pics taken in poor lighting with a cheap 250mm lens will look like garbage compared to a 100-400 is ii shot at 400mm. He should have done a test of the same subjects at the same time of day with both lenses. Compare the 55-250 at 200mm f/8 next to the canon at 200mm and the difference in quality will be far less noticeable. Then show the 100-400 at 400mm compared to the 55-250 cropped to 400mm to show how important the extra reach is. I have both lenses and an 80D and the 55-250 is not as bad as it was portrayed in this video.
i have the canon 80d and i want some good lens for that camera i was told to get the 24-70 and the 16-35 but they're for full frame cameras but i have a crop sensor but they seem to take great pictures i want to get better but i'll buy lenses that will work with my 80d i don't want to be buying the wrong camera lenses. i only want a few lenses. i have 2 full frame lenses and no crop sensor lens but i'm trying to see what happens. i do this as a hobby So i'm not rich like that i paid 500 for the 80d camera body with no lenses and then i bought the 16-35 and the 50mm i took some nice pictures but i want to take sharp pictures everytime that's why i'm learning all of the camera modes to see which one i'm going to like. so can you tell me about the 17-55mm 24mm 10-18mm 55-250mm and the 18-135mm which one do i need to buy for the 80d
Good comparison but id say that your probably shot both lenses fully open The thing is, the 55-250 is alot sharper at f/8 vs fully open 5.6 but the downside is light quality and quantity is crucial Its insane how 15min during a sunrise affects IQ with the 55-250mm at f/8 during my bird photography All this might explain why you have blurry deers and i have sharp humming birds pictures with that lens 🤷♂️
2:42 - That's *camera-motion* -- not poor lens performance ...or even subject motion. Unless you exposed this photo for longer than 1/8 sec, it may be that IS is dead on your copy of the 55-250mm. Overall, my copy of the 55-250mm performs *much much* better and hardly requires even gentle post-processing.
3:47 what software did you use to process the image and sharpen it? And just in case you didn’t know, the 55-250 is sharper at f8, so you could get more detail. Hopefully you already knew this :)
I used Topaz Denoise AI.. should’ve mentioned that in the video, I apologize for that. And yeah I knew the 55-250 was sharper at f/8 and for that reason I debated whether to include f/5.6 or f/8 images, but I wanted a comparison in which the settings between the 2 cameras where as close to the same as possible, so I chose to go with images shot at 5.6, which clearly shows how much better the 100-400 is at 5.6. Thanks for watching! :)
@@wattswildlifephoto thank you. I want to know what mode you use in denoise ai (denoise, low light or ai clear). Also I think using the 55-250 at f5.6 makes it a fair comparison because you used both lenses at their widest aperture.
Sorry, misunderstood your question. I used Denoise. AI Clear and low light seem to soften the images a bit too much every time I try to use them, but I haven’t done much research on them yet so I may just be doing it wrong. Hope this helps.
Yeah I have the 55-250 and its a fantastic lens, I’ve even taken pictures of fighter jets with crispy sharp results. The only technical difference between these lenses is one stop of light. I can tell you for sure, going one stop up in iso isn’t worth 2 grand if you’re not a professional making money out of the lens.. Yes obviously the 100-400 is a fantastic lens, and is better at resolving than the 55-250, but not 700% more resolving power. And either your lens is faulty or you’ve lowered your shutter speed one stop instead of increasing your ISO one stop.
Have the 55-250 on my FUJI (adapted), the quality of picture on my X-H1 is night and day. The 55-250 shines on my Fuji since it doesn't have AA filter. That AA filter in old cameras are reality degrading the quality of the image.
Nope, all camera equipment bought and payed for by me. Yes, I am a 20 year old college student living in a dorm so I still live with my parents like most people my age do.
I’ve heard bad things about the USM I from basically everyone I know who has used it. The USM II on the other hand is one of the most beloved lenses Canon has ever produced. You generally get what you pay for with lenses. If it’s relatively cheap, it probably is not a good lens unfortunately.
When I saw the information about your photos, you are shooting at a shutter speed of 1/200 that is a very slow speed, there is no way you are looking for sharpness in the photo when you are shooting at such a low speed. When shooting animals you should shoot at a faster shutter speed to eliminate hand shake and animal movement. :)
I've got a 38-inch monitor. I got into Wildlife photography a few years ago and I'm shooting the 45 megapixel Canon R5. With the EF 100-400 version 2 because it's one of the sharpest lenses for that camera. Now, I can take any lens like my wife's rf100 400 and the image quality is not even close. I also have the Tamron 18-400 and that was $650! That lens is so soft. There's literally no detail when you blow up the image to 200% on my monitor especially compared to the Canon lens
Good information! Nicely done comparison and relaxing. I do have the Canon 55-250mm STM and use it as a landscape lens. I use Sigma 150-600mm C for wildlife. I think you did not mention if you used the same camera body with these lenses. I think you once mention the Canon 80D.
Thank you, glad you enjoyed it! And yes that’s a good point, I should’ve noted the camera body used more clearly. I use the Canon 80D with both lenses.
@@wattswildlifephoto Thanks! I did use the 80D for wildlife for a little bit, but couldn't get sharper images. Then I switched to the Sony a6100 with the Sigma lens and I get much sharper images. Now the 80D has become my landscape camera. I would love if you make a video on how to take sharp images using the 80D. I love everything about that camera except the image quality while shooting wildlife :). For landscape, it's doing fine.
That’s interesting, I’ve actually never had any sharpness issues with the 80D. In certain scenarios, it does tend to search for focus a bit too much and ends up losing focus after having already achieved it once, but when it locks focus its sharp for me.
@@nphotodotorg2690 Sharpness has to do with the lens not with the camera. I have an 80d and the 100-400 is ii and get tack sharp images with it, borderline prime lens sharp images. One thing you need to do is microfocus adjustments for each lens. My 100-400 needed quite a bit of adjustment at full zoom. Put the 80d on a tripod and set a delayed timer for taking the pic. Set the 55-250 in manual focus and adjust it manually. Take a picture. Then stop down the aperture to f8 or f11 and take another pic. Most cheap lenses do not do so well at wide open apertures. Then instead of shooting at 250mm back it down to 200mm and take another pic. Make sure to do all of this in good light and you will see the best that camera/lens combination is capable of. if you are satisfied with the result then you getting sharp images in the field will come from being in good light, using a fast enough shutter speed, and stopping down a little and/or backing off of 250mm a tad bit.
Good job on the video, you certainly show potential as a content creator. Just my thought, I don’t think the lens has much to do with the image becoming blurring as you heavy crop to get tighter shot, it is the camera’s sensor megapixel count. So if your shoot with 20mp camera you can only slight crop, any more and you lose 4K quality/ clarity, hence cameras with 33mp like song a7iv will allow much more crop while still retain high IQ, and then wildlife camera like Sony a7r range with super high mp count so can further crop a telephoto image in post without any IQ loss. Agree with some of the comments, looks like motion blur in your soft images as this lens tested very sharp. Keep up the content, u really have a natural talent for it.
Yes you pay for what you get in lenses, especially Canon lenses that are considered the best even by other camera manufacturers that offer adapters to mount them on their cameras. I have the 100-400 is USM vs ii I use on my R6 and am amazed at the detail in my birding captures. You did a good job of comparing these two lenses and am now subscribed to your channel. Thanks!
Thanks for subscribing, glad you enjoyed the video! Yes, “you pay for what you get” is a great way of putting it. The 55-250 might have decent range but it’s just not there in terms of sharpness. The 100-400 on the other hand is a phenomenal lens and worth what you pay for the sharpness and AF speed you get out of it.
@@wattswildlifephoto Your summary seems backwards to me. The 55-250 has decent SHARPNESS but it is lacking in RANGE, not the other way around. The 100-400 has great sharpness and good range.
youre talking a load of crap, its not the 55-250 thats bad, its just that you cant use it properly . use f/8 , higher shutter speeds (the deer were moving) do bettter.
You were compering a risen to a grape, only one animal you took and showed with the 400 was small, the rest were bigger then what you took with the 250, the bigger animals showed more detail with the 450 because that simply has more lenses to fight gravity distortion, the 250 had not at that range, you proved that by taking pics of the deer at 15y that had the exact same detail then the 400, I'm not gonna wack out the 2k just cos you think its better
0:33 But there is no massive quality difference. I was surprised how 55-250 STM was underrated in your video. So, I made a review after I saw this video to compare those 2 lenses. Please feel free to take a look at this: "Canon 55-250 (STM) vs Canon 100-400 (II), Kenko x1.4 Teleconverter for FF camera. Real life samples." review. th-cam.com/video/knHz7cZVBtU/w-d-xo.html You'll be surprised how 55-250 STM is on par with 100-400 (II) and how to fit 55-250 STM to make it work with 5D Mark III/IV 55-250 STM version is a razor sharp lens.
i’m telling y’all now the soft images he is talking about is op error if u take the time to learn this lens it’s not hard to get sharp photos at all don’t let his errors keep u from buying this lens
This video made a great point .... when he said "National Geographic Photographers" ... that means they'll get their money's worth in selling pictures... the average Joe would be fine with a cheaper ok/so so lens
This is bogus review. The 55 250 lens is as capable as the 100-400 to make 'sharp' pictures. Your own photo technique is pretty bad. I can make a bad photo with the expensive lens and compare that with a good one with the cheap one and turn this review upside down.
Very inaccurate review. F.i. a 250mm on a 1.6 x crop sensor is 400mm so the same as the expensive lens. Also the photos from the cheap lens were out of focus, not the lenses fault. With some skill you could get very simular photos from the 2 lenses. The difference is in the build quality and durability in the field. Drop the cheap lens and it is game over.
I can get MUCH sharper images on my original 55-250 drunk than you got with this STM. Why are you eve keeping this up? It should be removed from TH-cam for disseminating false information what may guide people away from what is probably the greatest telephoto bargain in the Canon world. Unreal.
If you want sharp crisp images you need to spend some money on glass. Cheap lenses will never produce images as good as expensive glass thats a fact. It makes me laugh when people try to use their silly camera phones or ipads to take photos, the images from these things are horrid, im sorry but if you need to dig deep into your pockets if you want excellent image quality
Thank you so very much for your input Jose. You are so kind and thoughtful I don’t know what I’d do without your input. You wasted another 15 seconds typing that useless comment.
I have a 55-250, the pictures of the deer are super blurry. Had you turned off IS and too long a shutter speed? I have received much sharper images than you managed. So it is obvious that you did not have the right settings, or the tested lens is wrong. Because it really is not so blurry. Check out the Christoffer Frost lens test. He has tested over 200 lenses. He clearly shows that the lens is far much sharper than your test shows. Do again do right
I agree, I try not to be mean on the internet but those photos were awful and the testing parameters for comparison completely arbitrary. Taking photos at different times of day, in different areas, under different lighting circumstances, of different subjects, from random distances, blowing up results far outside of the cheap lens's reach and pretending like this is not a waste of the viewer's time. This is super amateur stuff. Of course a $2400 lens is going to bet fantastic, but this video doesn't show that to me. Put the camera on a tripod and take an image of the same subject progressively moved further and further away, all during the relatively same time of day and *then* compare. It would show exactly how much detail and reach is gained with the $2100 more invested.
He missed focus on the first deer. It focused on the grass. That's why they were so blurry. 3:44 shows the capability of the 55-250. It has adequate detail when shooting at closer distances. You cannot heavily crop a cheap 250mm lens to 400mm and expect to be in any way comparable to a pro grade 400mm at 400mm. He should have taken pictures of the same subject back to back with the two different lenses. This review is rather pointless in my opinion....
I have 55-250, the image quality is superb.. i think the picture of deer taken in a bias, trying to show expensive lens do better..
that's correct, 55-250mm is a good lens which gives blur background as is useful for wildlife,movement objects
Yea im on a 200d/sl2 and even with the camera being as old as the lens i still get great photos out of it.
I have the 55-250 almost 95% of the pictures are awesome well focused and impressive sharp.
I'm also hard considering, but 280€ is still a big pill to swallow for my broke student ass.
Recently swapped my 18-55 is2 for an stm, with almost no loss and am super happy with that decision. Almost makes my 50mm stm useless
@@Daniel-dj7fhhow would that make your 50mm useless? I guess its the f1.8 and it completely different than a 18-55 in terms of image quality not to mention it let in way more light and better bokeh
@@felixnadeau doesn't the 50mm and the 55mm from the 55-250 do about the same thing? the f stop is a completely different thing tho
@@Daniel-dj7fh its about the same focal length for both lenses but I encourage you to try both on the same subject and you will clearly see some differences. The 50mm 1.8 will have much smoother background blur and will be sharper from my personal experience. Try it out and have some fun !
You are a good photographer
Sorry mate, try with higher shutter speeds and an aperture of f/8.0. You are bound to get good images with the 55-250. I have tonnes.
I would like to say that this video was presented very well. I really like the format and you were easy to listen to. That said, I just wanted to point out that this is not an image quality comparison. All you have done here is compared images taken in mediocre light, of far away subjects, with a cheap 55-250mm lens that were then heavily cropped to show a 400mm equivalent to images taken of up close subjects with an expensive 100-400mm lens at 400mm. I agree that it is worth while to show the benefit of the added reach of the 400mm lens, but that is not a comparison of image quality. That 55-250 set at 200mm f/8 is indistinguishable from the 100-400 at 200mm in terms of sharpness. I started out with the 55-250 for wildlife photography and upgraded to the 100-400 IS ii. The 100-400 is worth every penny in my opinion and is sharper especially when shooting wide open. But the biggest benefit is the reach. The 55-250 can be very sharp at the proper settings but its reach limits it as a wildlife lens. Again, very good video, just need to rethink the testing procedure.
Your 55-250 shots were out of focus. You may need to adjust the microfocus. I've used the II and STM versions and they are incredibly sharp. Lens quality will not make an image at the same distance blurry like that, misfocus will.
I think there must be something wrong with your 55-250 stm. I've used two copies of this lens, both were extremely sharp. The weak point is focusing. Both copies had a tendency to hunt occasionally for no obvious reason. I would still score it a 10 for value.
He missed focus on the first deer, that's why they were so blurry. The focus was on the grass. Then in the rest of his images the subjects were a long way away and he cropped in heavily. At 3:44 he showed what the 55-250 is capable of. He said that image was heavily edited... okay, but you cannot add a bunch of sharpening in post to a very soft picture and make it sharp. That was a good example of what the 55-250 is designed to do. Good detail when you get close to the subject.
My copy of 55-250mm IS STM is SHARP but has an issue with the zoom moving if the lens is not horizontal hence making the focusing go out. Without opening up the lens to tighten some screws, I just use a broad rubberband at the seam to hold the zoom ring from moving from the mount.
55-250mm IS STM is then ALWAYS pin sharp.
A cheap Vivitar 2.2X 58mm teleconverter lens mounted in front converts the zoom to a 121-500mm Zoom for further reach (but loses 1-2 fstops).
i strongly feel your shutter speed was not high enough with 55-250 mm lens and the
the
same goes for 100-400 mm, you should learn more and will be surprised what 55-250 mm can deliver at that price point
Yes... I agree with you .. he was little biased
55-250 STM can take very sharp images. I agree that the shots he posted are not a true representation of what the lens is capable of.
@@philcupper yeah that's why we should be careful who's advice we are buying :)
Hate to chime in on what's already been said, but I think you should try this test again with better controls. The 55-250 stm produces MUCH sharper images than your samples. It looks like you might have used a tripod with IS turned on or maybe you shot handheld with IS off and too slow of a shutter. Many of these look to suffer from possible missed focus as well as definite motion blur.
It would be really interesting to see a good side by side of the 55-250 STM on a cropped camera vs a 100-400 on full frame so that you have a better sense of how well an entry-level kit holds up against a professional kit with the same effective field of view.
But again, watch that motion blur. Incorrect IS settings can totally mess you up.
I'm sorry but i disagree with everything you said in this video about the 55-250mm "budget" lens, , I have taken plenty of very sharp images 5 miles away using this lens, maybe you had a bad copy who knows? this is a cracking lens, I always use manual focus and zoom in on the view finder set my focus I have never had a problem using it and won 7 awards with a photo that I took using this lens
I'm not sure you've taken this 55-250mm pictures correctly.
I have the 55-250 that I use with a M50. How will the 400 mm work on a crop sensor in your opinion?
I still use the 55-250 and I have never regretted buying it. Yes, I'm am a hobby nature and wildlife photographer, but the majority of my shots where decent to very sharp. Of course a much more expensive lens is going to produce better immages, but I don't think the price to performance difference is that huge. With enogh experience you can work yourselfe arround the flaws of this lens and get exceptionally good immages. I myself am very pleased with this lens!
Great video. As you said one is an amateur lens and the other is professional. When I started in Wildlife photography and didn’t even know if I would enjoy it the amateur lenses were perfect. When I found I did enjoy it I moved up. Giving my beginner kit to a young person so they could learn to love wildlife photography as much as we do.
Have this lens 55-250, it’s much better than this video shows,… maybe a camera / lens / settings issue?
This is old but.. it makes one wonder are all Canon 55-250 created the same? Well I just bought a new one $144..yeah great deal. Man its so much sharper then this guys. I just read a post below saying "I think somethings wrong with your 55-250 stm ". I have a Tamron 28-300 that I thought was great but.. man this 55-250 blows that away. SO happy I got this one.
Were your comparison images both taken at the same range, As in 250 mm that is the limit of the cheaper lens? I definitely agree that the 55-250 doesnt give enough reach for wildlife though. I have this lens and its good for what it can do.
No I didn’t limit it to 250, I wanted to compare both at their maximum capability to better account for the price difference.
@@wattswildlifephoto I would test both for scientific purposes. I know the expensive one would win based on the tests of others though
@@bodinian He should've set the 55-250 at 200mm f/8 and compared it to the 100-400 at the same settings. I guarantee you wouldn't see a $2,100 difference, you actually can't tell the difference at all.
You are not comparing like against like. It's not always price that dictates a good lens, just think of the nifty-fifty, but in this instance it's obvious which lens would produce the better images. Also I would question where you focused in the three deer image.
I just rented the Canon 100-400 lens for a trip to Uganda coming up. I am excited to see what this lens can do and if it truly impresses me, I will consider buying my own. Thank you for this excellent comparison. Very good stuff!
Thank you, glad you enjoyed it! I think you will be very impressed by the 100-400, it is a great lens. Have fun in Uganda!
The 70-300mm use MK2 is also very affordable- especially used and is better in every measurable way
Old vid, but it would be interesting if he was shooting the 55-250mm, using only the AF? Because my experience with the cheaper zoom lenses, especially on a ACSP camera, at long distances just to get a decent sharp focus, You ave to use Manual focus, also the peaking feature, in the camera. Remember you have the 1.5crop, and you can get further with little loss of quality using the Clear Image Zoom feature at. x1.4. The x2. there's a slight drop in quality. The lens becomes a 210- 525mm ay x1.4 and a 300-750mm at x2😊
I'm not debating that the 100-400 is better than the 55-250 but I disagree with your assessment of the 55-250. I'm an amateur with a T7. I understand that setup means a lot for a shot, it took a lot of practice. I've been using the 55-250 for some time now. I've taken similar shots of still deer, with the right settings and managed better picture quality than what was shown. I don't feel that you did the 55-250 justice. If I were a beginner just pointing and shooting, I'd probably agree.
I don't have deers where I live and I'm thinking of doing wildlife photography. I have a T7 as well (reconditioned but it works great). The country I live in have deers but there's none that can be found close to me so I mainly have racoons, bats, birds and rarely snakes and domestic cats. I don't plan on taking bats in photos though. I mainly have birds around me. I also have musk rats since I live near water. I don't think the 250 mm can do bird photography.
I appreciate your effort. I disagree with your method and the results. Minimally, you should let us know which camera you are using and you should use both lenses at the same time/place. Otherwise, you cannot control variation in lighting, distance, and other factors. My 55-250mm IS STM produces crisp, vibrant pictures comparable to my first gen Canon 100-400mm L (yes, I understand your 100-400 is the second gen). Additionally, both lenses on my SL3 (24mp) allows for photos to be heavily cropped without undue loss of quality.
My 55-250mm is way more sharper than mine 100-400mm , hope they are comparing at same lighting conditions in your video
Is it actually because the 100-400 is that much sharper or is it because it's got 150mm more reach than the 250mm?
Check your shutter speed on the first two photos. What you're seeing there is not a lens issue.
Thanks for the video.
There are a few parameters missing in able to judge your tests and evaluate Your conclusions like shutter-speeds etc.
I still want to see a side by side comparison with the same light-conditions, contrast and shutter-speeds shot on the same subjects.
I have both lenses and in my experience I dont find the differences in image-quality that convincing in my photos.
CHEERS !
Per
IMHO, you've missed something when you used 55-250 for those shots. Compared to my level, I have achieved wonders with my 55-250, even though I'm not a pro.
What body are you using?
I used my uncles 55-250 and it was really sharp, even after zooming in on my phone. Maybe there is something wrong with your lens.
I know this is old but.. I just bought a used 55-250 Canon and.. mine are so sharp.. something is really wrong with your lens.. camera to look that bad zoomed in. I seem to no be the only one.
I rented the 100-400 is ii for our Montana trip. And all my pictures came out awesome. Very sharp pictures. But it’s a heavy lens
I saw a video where they say that the ii one is heavier than the i one.
Were the pictures taken on a tripod or hands free?
And what camera did you use?
I have the 55-250 lens, and Canon M-50, I’ve been getting descent images, I want to upgrade the lens, but my budget is only $1,200.
Is any other one that you could recommend?
maybe consider an ef-m lense (i think they're called that) instead of an ef-s for your m50
Should be Aps-c body + 55-250mm vs FF body + 100-400mm.
Focus on the shot with the 3 deer seems to be on the grass and flowers in front of the deer and shutter speed is too slow as there motion blur on the deer
Exactly. I don't like raining on people's parades but this video was quite pointless. Of coarse heavily cropped pics taken in poor lighting with a cheap 250mm lens will look like garbage compared to a 100-400 is ii shot at 400mm. He should have done a test of the same subjects at the same time of day with both lenses. Compare the 55-250 at 200mm f/8 next to the canon at 200mm and the difference in quality will be far less noticeable. Then show the 100-400 at 400mm compared to the 55-250 cropped to 400mm to show how important the extra reach is. I have both lenses and an 80D and the 55-250 is not as bad as it was portrayed in this video.
i have the canon 80d and i want some good lens for that camera i was told to get the 24-70 and the 16-35 but they're for full frame cameras but i have a crop sensor but they seem to take great pictures i want to get better but i'll buy lenses that will work with my 80d i don't want to be buying the wrong camera lenses. i only want a few lenses. i have 2 full frame lenses and no crop sensor lens but i'm trying to see what happens. i do this as a hobby So i'm not rich like that i paid 500 for the 80d camera body with no lenses and then i bought the 16-35 and the 50mm i took some nice pictures but i want to take sharp pictures everytime that's why i'm learning all of the camera modes to see which one i'm going to like. so can you tell me about the 17-55mm 24mm 10-18mm 55-250mm and the 18-135mm which one do i need to buy for the 80d
Good comparison but id say that your probably shot both lenses fully open
The thing is, the 55-250 is alot sharper at f/8 vs fully open 5.6 but the downside is light quality and quantity is crucial
Its insane how 15min during a sunrise affects IQ with the 55-250mm at f/8 during my bird photography
All this might explain why you have blurry deers and i have sharp humming birds pictures with that lens 🤷♂️
2:42 - That's *camera-motion* -- not poor lens performance ...or even subject motion. Unless you exposed this photo for longer than 1/8 sec, it may be that IS is dead on your copy of the 55-250mm. Overall, my copy of the 55-250mm performs *much much* better and hardly requires even gentle post-processing.
3:47 what software did you use to process the image and sharpen it? And just in case you didn’t know, the 55-250 is sharper at f8, so you could get more detail. Hopefully you already knew this :)
I used Topaz Denoise AI.. should’ve mentioned that in the video, I apologize for that. And yeah I knew the 55-250 was sharper at f/8 and for that reason I debated whether to include f/5.6 or f/8 images, but I wanted a comparison in which the settings between the 2 cameras where as close to the same as possible, so I chose to go with images shot at 5.6, which clearly shows how much better the 100-400 is at 5.6. Thanks for watching! :)
@@wattswildlifephoto thank you. I want to know what mode you use in denoise ai (denoise, low light or ai clear). Also I think using the 55-250 at f5.6 makes it a fair comparison because you used both lenses at their widest aperture.
Sorry, misunderstood your question. I used Denoise. AI Clear and low light seem to soften the images a bit too much every time I try to use them, but I haven’t done much research on them yet so I may just be doing it wrong. Hope this helps.
If you want go a bit budget I would go for reach over image quality, going with a sigma 150-600mm. That's jsut me however.
For comparison Should use live Focus , not from view finder, canon body use view finder focus always have problems.
Yeah I have the 55-250 and its a fantastic lens, I’ve even taken pictures of fighter jets with crispy sharp results. The only technical difference between these lenses is one stop of light. I can tell you for sure, going one stop up in iso isn’t worth 2 grand if you’re not a professional making money out of the lens..
Yes obviously the 100-400 is a fantastic lens, and is better at resolving than the 55-250, but not 700% more resolving power.
And either your lens is faulty or you’ve lowered your shutter speed one stop instead of increasing your ISO one stop.
Have the 55-250 on my FUJI (adapted), the quality of picture on my X-H1 is night and day. The 55-250 shines on my Fuji since it doesn't have AA filter. That AA filter in old cameras are reality degrading the quality of the image.
"my house"
"my L series lens"
"my Canon R5"
lel, thanks dad
Nope, all camera equipment bought and payed for by me.
Yes, I am a 20 year old college student living in a dorm so I still live with my parents like most people my age do.
bro you shot JPG??
What about the USM I vs the USM II? The USM I is like $800 even saw one for $400.
I’ve heard bad things about the USM I from basically everyone I know who has used it. The USM II on the other hand is one of the most beloved lenses Canon has ever produced. You generally get what you pay for with lenses. If it’s relatively cheap, it probably is not a good lens unfortunately.
When I saw the information about your photos, you are shooting at a shutter speed of 1/200 that is a very slow speed, there is no way you are looking for sharpness in the photo when you are shooting at such a low speed. When shooting animals you should shoot at a faster shutter speed to eliminate hand shake and animal movement. :)
55-250 IS is an older version. IS STM is very sharp
The better lens pictures are "processed" cheaper lens pictures are not. Does not seam a to be a good comparison
I've got a 38-inch monitor. I got into Wildlife photography a few years ago and I'm shooting the 45 megapixel Canon R5. With the EF 100-400 version 2 because it's one of the sharpest lenses for that camera. Now, I can take any lens like my wife's rf100 400 and the image quality is not even close. I also have the Tamron 18-400 and that was $650! That lens is so soft. There's literally no detail when you blow up the image to 200% on my monitor especially compared to the Canon lens
Good information! Nicely done comparison and relaxing. I do have the Canon 55-250mm STM and use it as a landscape lens. I use Sigma 150-600mm C for wildlife. I think you did not mention if you used the same camera body with these lenses. I think you once mention the Canon 80D.
Thank you, glad you enjoyed it! And yes that’s a good point, I should’ve noted the camera body used more clearly. I use the Canon 80D with both lenses.
@@wattswildlifephoto Thanks! I did use the 80D for wildlife for a little bit, but couldn't get sharper images. Then I switched to the Sony a6100 with the Sigma lens and I get much sharper images. Now the 80D has become my landscape camera. I would love if you make a video on how to take sharp images using the 80D. I love everything about that camera except the image quality while shooting wildlife :). For landscape, it's doing fine.
That’s interesting, I’ve actually never had any sharpness issues with the 80D. In certain scenarios, it does tend to search for focus a bit too much and ends up losing focus after having already achieved it once, but when it locks focus its sharp for me.
@@nphotodotorg2690 Sharpness has to do with the lens not with the camera. I have an 80d and the 100-400 is ii and get tack sharp images with it, borderline prime lens sharp images. One thing you need to do is microfocus adjustments for each lens. My 100-400 needed quite a bit of adjustment at full zoom. Put the 80d on a tripod and set a delayed timer for taking the pic. Set the 55-250 in manual focus and adjust it manually. Take a picture. Then stop down the aperture to f8 or f11 and take another pic. Most cheap lenses do not do so well at wide open apertures. Then instead of shooting at 250mm back it down to 200mm and take another pic. Make sure to do all of this in good light and you will see the best that camera/lens combination is capable of. if you are satisfied with the result then you getting sharp images in the field will come from being in good light, using a fast enough shutter speed, and stopping down a little and/or backing off of 250mm a tad bit.
Good job on the video, you certainly show potential as a content creator. Just my thought, I don’t think the lens has much to do with the image becoming blurring as you heavy crop to get tighter shot, it is the camera’s sensor megapixel count. So if your shoot with 20mp camera you can only slight crop, any more and you lose 4K quality/ clarity, hence cameras with 33mp like song a7iv will allow much more crop while still retain high IQ, and then wildlife camera like Sony a7r range with super high mp count so can further crop a telephoto image in post without any IQ loss. Agree with some of the comments, looks like motion blur in your soft images as this lens tested very sharp. Keep up the content, u really have a natural talent for it.
You missed the focus.... I own 55-250 and it's sharper than your 100-400 images.... So probably user error.
Yes you pay for what you get in lenses, especially Canon lenses that are considered the best even by other camera manufacturers that offer adapters to mount them on their cameras. I have the 100-400 is USM vs ii I use on my R6 and am amazed at the detail in my birding captures. You did a good job of comparing these two lenses and am now subscribed to your channel. Thanks!
Thanks for subscribing, glad you enjoyed the video! Yes, “you pay for what you get” is a great way of putting it. The 55-250 might have decent range but it’s just not there in terms of sharpness. The 100-400 on the other hand is a phenomenal lens and worth what you pay for the sharpness and AF speed you get out of it.
@@wattswildlifephoto Your summary seems backwards to me. The 55-250 has decent SHARPNESS but it is lacking in RANGE, not the other way around. The 100-400 has great sharpness and good range.
Even in those sample shots, the 100-400mm isn't 8x better, lol.
i wish i can afford these canon white lenses!
in my country this 55-250mm lens costs about $30 lol
An 8x difference in price is a an increase of 700%, not 800%.
Are you joking.?
youre talking a load of crap, its not the 55-250 thats bad, its just that you cant use it properly . use f/8 , higher shutter speeds (the deer were moving) do bettter.
good job on this video , well done
Thank you 🙏
You were compering a risen to a grape, only one animal you took and showed with the 400 was small, the rest were bigger then what you took with the 250, the bigger animals showed more detail with the 450 because that simply has more lenses to fight gravity distortion, the 250 had not at that range, you proved that by taking pics of the deer at 15y that had the exact same detail then the 400, I'm not gonna wack out the 2k just cos you think its better
bro the blurred images are tottaly you're fault not the lenses
0:33 But there is no massive quality difference. I was surprised how 55-250 STM was underrated in your video. So, I made a review after I saw this video to compare those 2 lenses. Please feel free to take a look at this:
"Canon 55-250 (STM) vs Canon 100-400 (II), Kenko x1.4 Teleconverter for FF camera. Real life samples." review.
th-cam.com/video/knHz7cZVBtU/w-d-xo.html
You'll be surprised how 55-250 STM is on par with 100-400 (II) and how to fit 55-250 STM to make it work with 5D Mark III/IV
55-250 STM version is a razor sharp lens.
Pretty bad comparison
i’m telling y’all now the soft images he is talking about is op error if u take the time to learn this lens it’s not hard to get sharp photos at all don’t let his errors keep u from buying this lens
This video made a great point .... when he said "National Geographic Photographers" ... that means they'll get their money's worth in selling pictures... the average Joe would be fine with a cheaper ok/so so lens
This is bogus review. The 55 250 lens is as capable as the 100-400 to make 'sharp' pictures. Your own photo technique is pretty bad. I can make a bad photo with the expensive lens and compare that with a good one with the cheap one and turn this review upside down.
Interesting but not a realistic comparison.
Very inaccurate review. F.i. a 250mm on a 1.6 x crop sensor is 400mm so the same as the expensive lens. Also the photos from the cheap lens were out of focus, not the lenses fault. With some skill you could get very simular photos from the 2 lenses. The difference is in the build quality and durability in the field. Drop the cheap lens and it is game over.
Just when you think spending near 1.5 k in camera and gear takes you to a pro level.. and you barely posteable
I can get MUCH sharper images on my original 55-250 drunk than you got with this STM. Why are you eve keeping this up? It should be removed from TH-cam for disseminating false information what may guide people away from what is probably the greatest telephoto bargain in the Canon world. Unreal.
If you want sharp crisp images you need to spend some money on glass. Cheap lenses will never produce images as good as expensive glass thats a fact. It makes me laugh when people try to use their silly camera phones or ipads to take photos, the images from these things are horrid, im sorry but if you need to dig deep into your pockets if you want excellent image quality
Your IS must be broken, those images are wack
Bro you are comparing a honda civic to a race car? I just wasted so much time listening to you talk 😂 make better content
Thank you so very much for your input Jose. You are so kind and thoughtful I don’t know what I’d do without your input. You wasted another 15 seconds typing that useless comment.