picturemom

I purchased a canon 80D and I am learning how to use it. I think I like it so far. I had a Canon 40D and did not learn how to use it, other than automatic. My question is this, what lens is better with the 80 D, the 55-250is stm lens or the new 70-300 is usm II lens? I had the older model 70-300 is usm lens and that did not produce the clear photos, even using automatic. I like to shoot the animals in my yard and on vacation I usually take my 15-85 EFS lens and want to take a long lens that results in clear pictures. The camera came with 15-55 stm and 55-250 stm lenses.
I am not into shooting videos at this point, I am more interested in a quality photo then a video. I do not want to spend money on an L lens at this time.
thanks for your help

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

Canon has the EF 70-300 IS II USM f/4-5.6 on sale for $499 with free 1 day shipping. This lens is the non L kid brother to the 70-300 L lens that sells for $1349. Optically the lenses are very similar and attached to an 80D you should get some pretty good photos. Your 15-85 is a really good lens so, if you get the 70-300 IS II USM, you will have those clear photos your looking for from wide angle to telephoto.
PS, I have both the L and non L versions of that lens and the non L version is well worth the $499 Canon is asking for!

picturemom

So I should sell the 55-250 is STM lens and buy the new 70-300 is USM II?

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

The EF-S 55-250 is not a bad lens. It is not as well made as the EF 70-300 IS II USM, it has a 7 blade aperture vs the 70-300's 9 blades, it has 3.5 stop IS vs the70-300's 4 stop IS. The 55-250's STM focus motor is good for video, the 70-300's silent high speed USM focus motor is better. Bottom line, the 55-250 is OK but the 70-300 is far better so, yes, sell the 55-250 and get the 70-300. Besides, the 15-85 is a darn good lens and it covers all your "standard" focal lengths making the 55-250 redundant.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

The 55-250 is a very good lens - but the 70-300 II is better - it is also full frame

http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/70-300mm-is-ii.htm

Sherry1222 Loc: Palm Coast, Florida

I still shoot with my 40D. Tell me what is different about the 80D. If video is the only difference I don't think that appeals to me. I only video things that short and family type situations, so I use my IPhone for that.

Sherry

abc1234 Loc: Elk Grove Village, Illinois

I went from a 60D to the 80D and love the new body. I do not know what is important to you but for me, the biggest difference is the greatly reduced noise. That alone is worth the money. Other pluses are the touch-screen for menu and previews, 49 focusing points and instant on. I suspect that the difference with 40D will be very much greater because your camera must be about 15 years old and technology does change, often for the better.

Good luck.

abc1234 Loc: Elk Grove Village, Illinois

Hi PictureMom. I think only you can answer your questions because we do not know your backyard, the animals you shoot, your skill level or your expectations. However, I can share my experience with you and perhaps that might help you. I shoot a lot of flowers and small birds (finches and sparrows). The feeders are about thirty feet from my perch in a second floor window. I tried several zoom lenses which had their longest focal lengths at 200, 300, 400, and 500 mm. None gave me the magnification or optical quality I wanted. I finally bought a Sigma 150-600 Contemporary which has served me admirably. It focuses as fast as I need and gives me the optical quality I like. That is not to say Canon or anyone else does not make better lenses but merely that the Sigma works well for me. I also shoot with a tripod. The point is that you have to experiment for yourself and arrive at your own solutions. Recommendations here are just that. Figure out for yourself what gear you need for the job.

With any of these telephotos, you might want a shorter lens for other kinds of work. Here, I opt for convenience over quality because I do not want to be juggling lenses or bodies all the time. I have both a Canon 18-200 and Sigma 18-300 and one day I will decide which one I want to keep. (I also have a Sigma 70-200, f/2.8, for interior sports photography.)

What is important to me is to fill the frame with the subject so I do not have to crop a lot and cropping means noise. If you have a lot of noise, then the quality of lens does not matter.

Good luck.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

I still have my 40D and I still use it for certain things. There is a world of difference between the 40D and the 80D. The 40D is 2007 technology while the 80D is 2016 technology. DIGIC 3 processor vs DIGIC 6 processor. 10 mpx vs 24 mpx image sensor. The 80D has far better dynamic range and standard ISO to 16,000, the 40D goes up to 1600. 9 AF points for the 40D, 45 for the 80D, all cross type. The 80D is f/8 AF capable, has 100% viewfinder coverage, has dual pixel AF, far, far superior exposure metering, HDR, anti flicker, built in intervalometer, a boat load of shooting modes, built in WIFI and NFC, an articulated touch screen and a whole bunch of other stuff and it weighs less.

I've been collecting Canon xxD cameras since the 10D was introduced in 2003; I have one of each and the only one that doesn't get used very often is the 10D. The only one that has any kind of problem is the 40D, the main dial sometimes slips if I turn it to fast.

With the exception of the 30D, each new model is a big step forward from the previous. You said you never really learned how to use your 40D other than in auto mode. The 80D has a whole bunch of auto modes and I highly recommend you pick up a good book on the 80D, read it and learn how to use as many of its features as possible. Compared to the 40D, which was a pretty darn good camera 10 years ago, the 80D is a marvelous piece of technology that is capable of rewarding you with amazing photos if you let it.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

Some advice to newbies:
Always upload jpg images
Check the box the says Store Originals so we can see the EXIF
Use the Quote Reply button when replying back to someone, that way they know what you are commenting back about.

Welcome to the Hog.

Oh, and ignore some of the more gruff comments here. You sometimes need some thick skin when people make rude comments.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Hi Sherry,

Lots more than just video!

80D versus 40D:

2016 vs 2007..... 9 years newer and quite a few things have changed or been significantly improved!
24MP vs 10MP.... more than twice the resolution.
45-point AF vs 9-point AF... far more advanced AF that covers more of the image area and allows more precise selection of individual AF points.
All Points/Auto, Single Point/Manual, Zone & Large Zone focus patterns vs All Points & Single Point... 80D has two additional focus patterns.
Micro Focus Adjustment vs no adjustment.... allows user to fine tune the focus accuracy of up to 40 specific lenses to their 80D.
f/8 capable AF (at 27 points) vs f/5.6 limited AF.... 80D can autofocus teleconverter and lens combos that the 40D can't.
-3EV to 18EV capable AF vs -0.5EV to 18EV range.... able to focus in much lower light conditions (-3EV is approx. "moonlight").
100% viewfinder vs 95% VF.... what you see is what you get, with 80D viewfinder.
ISO 100-25600 vs ISO 100-3200... 3-stop higher ISO makes possible shooting in considerably dimmer light conditions.
(You'll need to judge how high ISO is acceptable to you... I used 30D to 1600 and 50D to 3200... I now shoot with 7DII as high as ISO 16000!)
Auto ISO vs no Auto ISO... when used with M, gives a fourth form of AE. User can set ISO range limits. And, Exposure Compensation is usable, if needed.
63-zone TTL meter vs 35-zone... more accurate metering, probably most noticeable when using AE modes.
7 frames per second shooting vs 6.5 FPS... slightly faster continuous shooting rate.
Digic 6 processor vs Digic III... three generation newer CPU allows additional features and equal or better performance handling much larger image files.
24 RAW file buffer vs 20 RAW file buffer... slightly more shots can be taken continuously before camera needs to pause to clear memory.
HD Video versus no video.
Articulated 1 million pixel 3" LCD vs fixed 230K 3" pixel LCD... much brighter rear monitor is more usable in daylight conditions.
Touch screen vs no touch screen... faster access to settings and menu.
WiFi vs no WiFi... wireless connectivity with other devices.
13.2 stop dynamic range vs 11.3 stop DR... better highlight and shadow detail.
Up to 7 shot bracketing vs 3 shot bracketing.... more versatility in bracketing.
730 grams vs 822 grams... 80D is slightly lighter weight, but still has additional seals for weather resistance.
SD memory card versus Compact Flash.... smaller, cheaper type of memory.
LP-E6N batter versus BP511/511A battery.... the 80D uses lithium packs that don't have "memory effect" problem, along with more battery health/status info.
960 shots per charge (CIPA standard, no flash) vs 1100 shots per charge... 40D gets somewhat more shots per battery.

Personally I started with 10D, then 30D, 50D, original 7D and 5D Mark II. I now use a pair of 7D Mark II. Have only used 20D, 40D, 60D, 70D in passing... but can tell you that it's night and day, comparing image quality, features and performance improvements. 80D would be a very significant upgrade for you in most respects. One thing though.... the newer cameras "feel" well built, but use more plastic outer body panels, instead of the magnesium shells that were used up through the 50D. Controls are slightly different, too. After the 50D, Canon split the series in two: 60D and successors were a slight step down in a few respects, while the original 7D was a step up. That and the current 7D Mark II might feel more similar to your camera in control layout and materials. Even so, most 80D performance factors and capabilities are a big step up from 40D.

abc1234 Loc: Elk Grove Village, Illinois

Alan, thanks for reminding me. The articulated screen becomes another must have feature. I thought it was a gimmick but it is not. Very useful.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Hi Picturemon,

The EF-S 55-250mm STM that you got with your camera is actually a pretty good performer... optically. The 70-300mm IS USM II would give you 20% more reach, faster autofocus, a bit better build quality, but little or no improvement in image quality compared to the 55-250mm. They both are probably slightly sharper, especially at their longest focal lengths, than the older EF 70-300mm IS USM you've been using.

All these tele-zooms compromise image quality a bit at their longest telephoto settings. You can improve them by stopping down a little. Since they are already f/5.6 lenses, that usually means f/8 or f/11.

Also, if you have a "protective" filter on the lens... take it off! Try the lens without it. You might be very pleasantly surprised! Use a lens hood for protection of these lenses, instead. The hood might even further improve image quality, by keeping oblique light off the front lens element.

The main difference between the old 70-300mm IS USM and the new "II" version is a new autofocus drive system. This is the third lens on which Canon has implemented a new "Nano USM" drive. It's also found on the EF-S 18-135mm IS USM and the new EF 24-105mm f/4 IS USM II.

The main benefit of Nano USM is that it's a quiet and smooth operating focus drive system, making it better for video work than standard USM. In the past, STM lenses were the best choice for video. Standard USM was too noisy and wasn't smooth enough running for video. But STM (stepper motor) is slower focusing than USM (ultrasonic motor), so is less ideal for fast action/sports shooting. Nano USM solves the problem, by being both fast and quiet/smooth running. For example, Canon states the EF-S 18-135mm "Nano USM" is 2X to 4X faster focusing than the EF-S 18-135mm STM.

If you can possibly do so, hold out for the EF 70-300mm "L" IS USM. It's the best of the bunch in terms of image quality (but if using it for video, you'd probably want to turn off the USM AF and manually focus it). But the "L" also is bigger, heavier and more expensive. OTOH, it can optionally be fitted with at tripod mounting ring, is likely much more durable and is better sealed for weather/dust resistance.

Or, even better (though a lot bigger, heavier and more expensive), the EF 100-400mm L IS USM "II". It's the sharpest of the bunch, plus gives that nice, extra reach between 300mm and 400mm. The 100-400mm incorporates a fluorite element, which none of the other lenses mentioned above use. (All but one of the four Canon 70-200mm and most of the Canon "super telephotos" also use fluorite. It's what makes for those "ultra crisp" telephoto shots, mainly by keeping chromatic aberration to a minimum.)

Compare for yourself... most of the lenses have been reviewed and there are magnified test shots done with them at www.the-digital-picture.com. There you can do side-by-side comparison of any two lenses, at different focal length settings and different apertures. That website is a great resource when shopping for lenses. Bryan's reviews are pretty well written and comprehensive, too.

For example, I looked at 55-250mm STM side-by-side with the new 70-300mm IS USM II:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=856&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=1&LensComp=1077&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0

In the above comparison, to me it appears the 55-250mm is slightly sharper, with better contrast and a little less chromatic aberration.

Next I compared the 55-250mm STM with the EF 100-400mm II:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=856&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=1&LensComp=972&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=2

Now the 100-400mm II image looks a bit better to me, with clearer separation of the test target lines and no CA at all in the corners.

Finally I compared the 55-250mm STM with the EF 70-300mm "L":
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=856&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=0&LensComp=738&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=1

At 70mm the 55-250mm looks better... but at their respective longest 250mm and 300mm settings, the L-series lenses appears to be the better of the two.

You can choose various lenses to compare, including your older 70-300mm that you're familiar (and disappointed) with and might give you a good starting reference, looking for other "better" lenses. One thing though, while it doesn't matter very much what camera you choose there to compare, for the most relevant and valid comparisons do make sure it's the same or as nearly as possible the same camera for both lenses. Don't choose a full frame camera for one and an APS-C for the other, for example.

DJphoto Loc: SF Bay Area

I bought my 80D in December and I'm still learning how to use it. I highly recommend the book "The Canon EOS 80D for Dummies." I bought my 80D with the EF-S 18-135 IS USM. A couple of months ago I bought the new EF 70-300 IS II USM. I gave it a real workout at the vintage sports car races, shooting approximately 3,000 photos with it. I'm really happy with the 80D and both lenses. Realize the EF 70-300 is a full frame lens and is equivalent to a 112-480 on the 80D (it's also pretty compact for its reach). I have taken a fair amount of video and the results are great. I've found that holding the camera with the strap around my neck stretched tight helps steady the camera for those times when you can't use a tripod (which is most of the time for me).