What would you choose from these three lenses and why

What would you choose from these three lenses and why

*EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS II*
*EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
*EF 70-200mm f/4L USM

Thanks

Depends on whether size/weight mattered and how easily I could afford them... If neither mattered EF 70-200mm f/4L USM for the faster aperture and image quality.

What are you looking to shoot?

My first assumption is that you are just looking for a one lens to have in my bag solution that costs no more than $500, which none of these would fit.

All are based assuming for use on a crop camera.

For very light weight 55-250mm.

For better IQ 70-200mmf/4L.

I've heard the IQ on the 70-300 (compared to the 55-250) is not any better (many say it is worse) and it is more expensive - so would not be in the race (for me).

For what I did, the 55-250mm (reason above). For 95% of the time 70-200mm f/2.8L IS (MK1) for IQ and the f/2.8. (I guess that I don't often travel light.)

Thanks all
for travel and shooting in the zoo

moltengold wrote in post #14950187
Thanks all
for travel and shooting in the zoo

I would have no hesitation in choosing the 55-250.

The 70-300 is a lot more expensive but doesn't have faster focusing or better IQ than the 55-250 (I owned both for a while, and opted to sell the 70-300).

As for the 70-200 f4, it doesn't have IS and that's going to be a factor for you, given what you want to shoot. I used to own a lens in this range without IS (a 70-200 f2.8), and the lack of IS was a problem for static subjects. I get a much higher keeper rate, even in low light, with my IS lens.

In addition, for travel, the 55-250 is much lighter and more compact, therefore easier to carry (fits easily into a jacket pocket), and that extra 15 mm on the wide end is extremely useful.

I kept my 55-250 even after buying the 70-200 f4 IS. It's become my vacation and hiking lens, and is on my camera for 90% of the time during our family vacations at the beach. It never lets me down and has produced some of my favourite images over the years.

For the price, it's a real bargain.

Thanks a lot ceegee

For me IS is important and budget is a concern. So even though I love the quality, the 70-200 goes out of window.

Of the other two, best bang for buck is the 55-250. Though I did go with 70-300 IS USM (nonL). It was about twice the cost but for sports photography the USM helps. Note, it is definitely not as fast the the USM on the 70-200 but it is shade faster than 55-250.

EF 70-200mm f/4L USM because it was the first L lens I bought 7 years ago and it is still the one lens that I have no desire to sell or trade for anything else. It just does what it does so well there is no need to consider another lens.....

I would use it any day at a zoo or for outdoor shooting and I use it all the time for indoor studio lighting shooting. IS is not necessary for everyone.

I never bring my camera without the 70-200 F4L. I have used it in extremely low light because of IS. I have shot as low as 1/20 with sharp results. There have been times when I have missed the F2.8 a little but the weight and cost are a bit too much for a casual user like myself.

I would recommend saving up for it if you looking to have zoom. Otherwise, for a budget zoom you are perhaps better off looking at Tamron and Sigma. You will get way more bang for your buck and image quality is nearly as good as Canon if you get yourself a good copy.

If money doesn't matter, 70-200 f/4L. If money matters, 70-200 f/4L...

I used to use 55-250, it was one of my first lenses when I bought a 500D. Unfortunately, about a year ago I dropped the 55-250 during a lens change, breaking the mount. I got a 70-300 IS USM as a replacement. The focusing is very slow compared to the 55-250. If you're not that bothered about the extra 50mm then definitely go for the 55-250.

Obviously if you have a big budget, the 70-200 definitely. Used once, would definitely buy one if I had the $$$ (£££).

Thanks a lot

I owned the 70-300 IS quite a few years ago. I found the lens soft at 300mm, and the auto focus performance was mediocre. I sold it after upgrading to the 70-200 f/4 IS and was much happier.

Since you are shooting on a crop, I would opt to save some money and just go with the EFS 55-250 IS -- it should perform at least as well as the 70-300 IS. While the 70-200L non-IS would be tempting for the IQ and build, image stabilization can be very useful in a telephoto.

Tamron 70-300 VC is definitely worth a look. No too far off the 70-200L in the 70-200 range and better than the 70-300 at 300mm.