Would this be an upgrade?

I have been toying with an idea of selling my 55-250 IS and getting 70-200L F4 non-IS. I know the major advantage of the nifty-250 is the IS but seems like I cant snap a sharp photo hand-held at low shutter speeds wether IS is on or not. (that's pretty sad, I know ) so I have been using a tripod.
my biggest issue with the 55/250 is that it struggles to auto-focus in low light. would 70-200 be better. I would imagine USM is a better performer.
It will be used outside in bright conditions or with flash if indoors (portraits, etc.), for low light I am planning on getting 85mm 1.8.
I have about $750 coming in and if I get ~$200 for my lens I will be able to get both those lenses ($570 and $335 refurbed from Canon respectively).

Any folks here that have made that switch? hopefylly using T1i/500D body?

All your input will be greatly appreciated, as always.

I did the the same thing when i had my T2i, going from the 55-250 to the 70-200 f4. Its not really a low light lens, but amazing outside in some nice light. what are you planning on shooting with it?

I know that 55-250 can be amazing too. I look at the sample thread on here and it makes me drool and cry at the same time.
I am just getting into this hobby so I am shooting everything at this time. Mostly its family and a dog. I know I barely ever put my 18-55 on so I am always on the longer end.
I was wondering if the 70-200 being a higher quality glass it would be more "forgiving" to a noob like myself than my current one. is the auto-focus a lot faster?
I know that it's not a low light lens but currently the 55-250 isnt either (at least for me) despite the IS. I use it now in low light but either on a tripod or with a speedlite.

I think that would be an upgrade, I've seen good shots from both lenses, but I see more from the 70-200.

paddler4 wrote in post #12801177
Of course it is an upgrade in many respects. It costs more than three times as much. but you wrote:

and you wrote:

These are two different issues. Yes, the AF is better. But if a tripod helps, the issue is not AF. Not clear why a lens without IS would be better in that respect than a lens with it. Maybe worth working on techniques for stabilizing the camera when you shoot, before investing.

+1
As much as you can, you can try avoiding slow shutter speeds. NO matter how good your IS is, it can't prevent everything, there's a limit. The extra stop of light toward the long end of the 70-200 would help.

If possible, I would try to muster enough money to get the 70-200mm f/4L IS alone and forget about the 85mm for now.

I have the 70-200mm f/4L IS which replaced my non-IS model and I use the IS version 4-5x more often than I was ever able to use the non-IS model because I am no longer a slave to bright light when hand holding the lens.

I can easily shoot at 1/60 second and espect 100% sharp imagery at 200mm. With the rather decent ISO capabilities of today's DSLR cameras, 1/60 second @ f/4 can be shot hand-held in some fairly dim conditions.

the 70 will be sharper, but it wont guarantee better photos. if the lighting is right, the 55-250 can get some amazing shots. that being said, the 70-200 is a decent upgrade. if you really want an upgrade for IQ, get the 70-200 f4 IS. you will definitely notice a difference then!

I got the 70-200 f4 and I must tell you it really is great and here are some samples...

http://www.flickr.com …4/sets/72157626​947810492/

learning proper hand holding technique is the must for me no matter what lens I have but as is right now IS isnt much help for me. just have to keep practicing.

IS version of 70 costs twice as much. I guess I could save up especially if I was to skip 85mm.

Yes, it would definitely be an upgrade.

Something else to consider, though, is even if IS allows you to handhold for longer shutter speeds, your subjects have to sit still long enough for the photos to be sharp.

I owned the f/4 IS for a short time and it was very nice. Super sharp, fast/accurate AF, nice IS, good colors, etc. However, f/4 is always going to be a little slow indoors. Don't get me wrong, it can work, but I think you will be pushing its limits more frequently during indoor use.

If you're going to get one of the 70-200 f/4s, save for the IS. It is weather sealed and supposedly has better optics than the non IS version.

Ever consider primes?

tjbrock42 wrote in post #12802357
Ever consider primes?

absolutely. wanted to get the 85 1.8 and currently playing with my cousin's 50 1.8 MI.
what would you suggest brock?

It's not going to be an upgrade at all!

If you change lenses you will lose 25mm on the short end and 50mm on the long end, not to mention IS. Yes, you don't "need" IS, but if you look, you will realise that the majority of lenses without IS are super fast (f/2 and lower) or "tripod" lenses.

All you would gain is a stop on the long end - hardly anything spectacular. And I don't know about your 55-250, but my last one had an amazing IQ (although my first one was a dud).

I would go as far as saying - do not "upgrade" to 70-200 IS either. If you really want a good upgrade, save for the 70-200 f/2.8 IS or look into the 100-400 IS.

yes atlrus, I know 55-250 can be great. I have gone through the whole sample thread and many pics there are superb. I am beginning to wonder if I did get a crappy copy, because even with high shutter speeds I cant get "tack sharp" photo out of it (hand held of course).
again its very possible that its me thats defective and not the lens.

smyke wrote in post #12802496
yes atlrus, I know 55-250 can be great. I have gone through the whole sample thread and many pics there are superb. I am beginning to wonder if I did get a crappy copy, because even with high shutter speeds I cant get "tack sharp" photo out of it (hand held of course).
again its very possible that its me thats defective and not the lens.

It's also very possible that it's the lens My first one was far from sharp, so I returned it and bought the 70-300. A couple of months later, on advice in this forum I got another copy of the 55-250 and it was just spectacular. Unfortunately we parted ways when I moved to FF

If you still can - do an exchange. If not - send it to Canon for fixin...

Does it give you sharp pics when you are on a tripod?

I just read another thread about the crop version of the holy trinity on a budget... Canon 28 f/1.8, Canon 50 f/1.4, and 85 f/1.8 were the most commonly recommended and I would probably agree.

I loved my non-L Canon 100mm macro. The 100 mm f/2 is supposed to be very similar to 85mm f/1.8.

Longer than that the prime options seem to get quite a bit more expensive. I really like my 135L.

For UWA on crop I would probably give the Tokina 11-16 a try. Not a prime, but there aren't many great inexpensive wide prime options for crop.

Really just depends on what focal length you want.

You can see what I chose in my sig.

Maybe the non-L 70-300 USM would be a good alternative for you if you decide the 55-250 is not for you.