Well, following on from my previous post I’ve now had a second session with the new lens, this time stretching it to full zoom on quite a few of the shots.
Tried various settings and have to say that overall I’m quite satisfied.
Still got to have a session sans the UV filter of course, but at the moment I’m beginning to suspect that the completely disastrous (photo-wise) day in London was probably due more to my own innate fumble-fingered incompetence than any shortcomings of the lens itself.
Oh well.
See the complete set of pics from this second test session here.
Generally I had a pretty good session… apart from one minor mishap. Somehow seem to have got a lump of crud on the lens that showed up on the last 20 pics or so. All of which I promptly scrapped.
Dammit… does anything ever go without a hitch?
I’m curious to know if you ever came to any conclusion as to what was wrong with the London demo pics? I don’t recall if you stated what f-stop or f-stop range is the lens, but I seem to recall having read here and there that large aperture openings can sometimes leave the camera hunting to focus. If the lens is a 2.8 or lower, maybe this ‘issue’ was at play (if it exists at all)?
Ah, its the Canon EFS 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS
I’ve been in the habit recently (having finally taken the plunge of getting out of Auto mode with the Canon – encouraged by the fact that my other cam doesn’t even have any scene/auto modes) of using AV Priority and that’s what I was using in London (far as I can recollect) with most of the time aiming for the lower end of the range (f/4-4.5). The reason most of the shots were rubbish is that that they were quite simply either out of focus or blurred due to camera shake (the IS is good but unsurprisingly it has its limitations).
And in fairness (I can now say with the wisdom of hindsight) it was a bit of a fraught day. What shots I did take I was trying to get far too quickly (for reasons of “discretion”) and also not concentrating sufficiently upon what I was doing, or thinking through the particular requirements of each shot.
So I’d really put the unfortunate experience all down to user error, a.k.a. “a learning experience”! I’ve had so many of those you’d think by now I’d be able to instantly recognise them
I must also add that more recent experiences with the lens (the most recent being yesterday) have persuaded me that its proving to be all that I hoped of it.
I see. Yes, I think a telephoto lens such as yours, even with IS, isn’t really meant for photography on the go if you catch my meaning. Camera shake is always more prevalent with telephoto lens so you were at something of a disadvantage from the start. I think under those circumstances a lens like the Canon 24-105 f/4 USM IS L may have been a better choice and you may have experienced better results shooting closer to the wide-angle end and then cropping and zooming for the purpose of printing, etc.
But hey…..I’m the damned ametuer here so don’t listen to me. I’m just guessing based upon what I’ve read over the past 24-months while trying to determine which camera to purchase.
Gotta agree with that, and for “overview” shots “telling the story” as it were I use an 18-55 lens attached to the other cam I lug around.
But in some situations a telephoto is almost essential if I want to zoom in on something where circumstances don’t allow me to get closer to the subject. Check out my other blog (dammit, I seem to have so many of them) at http://fitwatch.tiltingatwindmills.org.uk for a clue re the sort of thing I mean
On the other hand I can see how a 24-105 might have potential, sitting sort of half-way between the two. Have to think about that a bit more.