python2000 wrote:
Because the 70-300IS is a pretty nice lens for only $600, and there are very high quality 70-200s out there, it seems unlikely that an EF-S 55-250 would be a big seller unless it distinguished itself in some major way, and was priced right. The two distinguishing features could be f/2.8 and compact size. Both of those features and priced around $1200 with extremely high quality like the 17-55 and 70-200 series.
But even then it seems that it would eat away or get eaten by other 70-200 or 70-300 offerings that already have IS.
I don't know enough about optics to calculate how compact a 250mm f/2.8 EF-S lens could be....Show more →
That lens would most likely be in 300/2,8 IS territory in terms of size, weight and price, even if it was EF-S. The shorter back-focus and smaller imaging circle has diminishing returns with longer focal lengths.
I should have been clearer: I'd like a 70-300mm II IS 4.5/5.6 (not DO) that has:
1. True USM ring focus (this shouldn't be that hard) - nikon does it in their new 70-300mm VR which costs $100 less, for god's sake even the old 28-105mm and 100-300mm EF lenses had ring USM
2. Fulltime manual over-ride on the focus
3. AND/OR a non-rotating front element - This is a huge problem with this lens otherwise fine lens
byteseller wrote:
I should have been clearer: I'd like a 70-300mm II IS 4.5/5.6 (not DO) that has:
1. True USM ring focus (this shouldn't be that hard) - nikon does it in their new 70-300mm VR which costs $100 less, for god's sake even the old 28-105mm and 100-300mm EF lenses had ring USM
2. Fulltime manual over-ride on the focus
3. AND/OR a non-rotating front element - This is a huge problem with this lens otherwise fine lens
Ring USM alone would address all three of those issues.
