is the 70-200 a must have

your two telephoto lenses aren't the greatest...i think any 70-200mm would be an improvement...especial​ly if you're shooting sports

if you're shooting sports/action in relatively low light, there are 70-200s with constant f/2.8 apertures that would serve you well. if you're not having any problems with motion blur currently, then you may not need that. 70-200 is a great portrait lens and is convenient for sports, depending on how far you are from the action.

so not necessarily a must have, because everyone must decide for themselves. i would say the main advantage is the availability of f/2.8 throughout the zoom range that can be had in certain 70-200s.

70-200 f/2.8 II By far, my favorite lens I've ever used.

Nikkorz wrote in post #15085608
trying to decide between the 70-200 and 135 for wedding photography

Both would be great wouldn't they? Tough call. I thought about the same 2 also. Still on a ledge but tempting to go after the 70-200 myself.

For me it is a MUST HAVE. I carry a 70-200mm f/4L IS lens along with a 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens on a pair of 1.6x cameras.

Any of the 70-200mm L siblings will provide better performance than your 70-300mm lens and will also not rotate the front element when focusing which is a + when shooting with a CPL filter.

Actually, my combination of 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and 70-200mm f/4L IS lenses don't cost as much as the 28-300mm and the weight of the two lenses (even with my extra 40D camera) is well in line with the 28-300mm.

Of course, I can't use the 17-55mm lens on a full frame camera but, I am perfectly happy with my 7D and 40D combination...

ksjp2008 wrote in post #15073114
i was just afraid of overlapping

You are already.

My approach, less mediocre in IQ lenses, but one good one.
This is why I have 70-200f4L.

RPCrowe wrote in post #15086834
Actually, my combination of 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and 70-200mm f/4L IS lenses don't cost as much as the 28-300mm and the weight of the two lenses (even with my extra 40D camera) is well in line with the 28-300mm.
..

According to OP signature it is Tamron 28-300. Which is compact, light lens.
http://www.tamronlensr​eview.com/tamron28300v​creview

Nikkorz wrote in post #15085608
trying to decide between the 70-200 and 135 for wedding photography

I love my 135, but its not really a wedding lens. Its great for portraits, and it might work for altar shots, or it might not depending on the distance you can work.

I have always wanted the 70-200, and can finally afford the non-is version.

I have the 55-250is already.

I also shoot my sons sports and the 55-250is does a great job.

Does the IQ of the F4 non-IS blow the 55-250is out of the water?

Thanks!

Parm

If you are shooting sports in the evening under stadium lighting, then I would have to say that the 70-200 f2.8 is a MUST HAVE.

Unless you are willing to go beyond ISO 6400, you'll be challenged with anything short of f2.8.

After owning a 70-200 f/4 L IS for the past year I believe it is a must own lens. If I were to upgrade to the f/2.8 at some point I might think that one is more must own than the f/4, but I am very satisfied with the one I have now.

Yes. At least for me.

No I do not believe it's a "Must-own" lens. It depends on your budget and your needs. Sometimes a 55-250 will do if your on a low budget or 70-300 (Canon or Tamron). But for a first L telephoto lens, I would say it's close to a must-have lens depending on your needs for a telephoto. Sometimes 100-400 might be a better choice.

Reasons to choose the 70-200L over a 55-250, 75-300, and 70-300 nonL is weather sealing, constant aperture, internal focus, non rotating focus ring, and full time manual focus.

Parmcat wrote in post #15089331
I have always wanted the 70-200, and can finally afford the non-is version.

I have the 55-250is already.

I also shoot my sons sports and the 55-250is does a great job.

Does the IQ of the F4 non-IS blow the 55-250is out of the water?

I have both the 55-250 and the 70-200 f4 IS. The obvious main difference is in focusing speed, which is a whole lot faster on the f4. Colour and contrast are also better. But "blow it out of the water" in terms of IQ? I would say: not really. The 55-250 is surprisingly good for a lens in that price range. You have to consider that you're giving up image stabilization and range in order to get the 70-200 non-IS.

When I decided to upgrade, I bought a non-IS version of the 70-200 (the f2.8), but the lack of IS was a problem for me. I ended up selling it and buying the f4 IS instead. Having tried the experience, I would not now buy another lens in that focal range without IS. IS makes the lens much more versatile.

I kept my 55-250 even after buying the 70-200 and still use it for vacations, hiking and other times when I don't want to carry the heavier/more expensive lens. It's never let me down and continues to produce great images.

The main difference for sports/action photography would be in the number of keepers. My keeper rate for sports photos went way up, thanks to the faster focusing speed of the 70-200. I'd suggest using your 55-250 for a few days with the IS turned off, to see how you like the experience of a non-stabilized lens. If it's not a problem for you, then you'll probably enjoy the 70-200.

For me it is a yes. I did not have one for ages, but once I had it I don't know how I did without it.