Replace 55-250 & 50-135 2.8 with 70-200 F4is?

I've been toying with the idea of replacing my Canon 55-250 & Tokina 50-135 2.8 with a Canon 70-200 F4is (or even a Sigma 50-150 OS 2.8) and welcome some input. The Canon 70-200 2.8IS is beyond my possible budget. I've been going thru my pics from the last 6 months and find that in about 80% of my shots/keepers with both lenses, that I am living in the range above 75mm and below 200. In this range, my soon to be 3yr old is my main subject, but throw in some landscape and close up stuff as well. I shoot predominantly outdoors, but even indoors, and to my surprise, I found the same exif results. The kicker though, is that with the Tokina, I am shooting mostly 3.2 to 3.5. I've shot several times limiting myself to f4 to see what would happen, and was not unhappy with the results...but obviously 2.8 is quite nice to have.

Both lenses are excellent, very sharp, and free of any issues. I'm looking at this for the following reasons:
1. Consolidation as the 55-250 tends to be largely unused, but it's nice having the extra range and IS when I need it.
2. A gain in IQ in the range above 135
3. IS and USM across the range.
4. There are times 135 feels to short on the Tokina, the extra reach in a single package is appealing.

My main concern is loss of the 50-70 range and being limited to F4, but wondering (as a hobbyist) if one or both of these is truly a concern, and if there are other factors I may be overlooking. I'm not looking to collect lenses, just have the tools for what I need.

Do I sit on what I've got, make the change, or consider an alternative?

I'd say do it. The f4 IS is nothing but a stellar performer

If Sigma 50-150 had been smaller (and not as large and heavy as its FF 70-200 f2.8 siblings), I'd say go with that lens - you'd get more useful FL range for a crop, f2.8, and IS. But given how big it is, I'd go for the Canon 70-200 IS f4 in your situation.

Thanks for the responses. Yeah, the 50-150 is a pretty hefty lens. Although it's been out for some time, I've not seen anything from it that shows a distinct IQ advantage, whereas the 70-200 F4 is impressive to say the least.

I am always a fan of the 70-300L. Great focal range and compact.

Link to my Flickr set...

http://www.flickr.com …6/sets/72157631​450316608/

Keyan wrote in post #15123191
I am always a fan of the 70-300L. Great focal range and compact.

Link to my Flickr set...

http://www.flickr.com …6/sets/72157631​450316608/

+1

Aside from the obvious extra reach, what does the 70-300 have over the 200?

ct1co2 wrote in post #15123278
Aside from the obvious extra reach, what does the 70-300 have over the 200?

You also have slower aperture lol

Ok seriously you should also have a look at the Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS, lots of members here recommend it and it's a close second behind the greatest 70-200mkII

ct1co2 wrote in post #15123278
Aside from the obvious extra reach, what does the 70-300 have over the 200?

Its compact. But other then that, it's probably hard to say. My copy of the 70-300L is easily as sharp as the 70-200 f/2.8 II I used to own (and then sold). Since all of the 70-200's are pretty much the same in terms of IQ. The extra 100mm is great for FF (I came from a crop)

It depends what you are looking for. If you don't plan on using the long end most of the time (you said in your post that you tend to stick around 135) then maybe there is no point. I can't remember the price of the 70-200 f/4 IS but I believe it is a couple hundred less than the 70-300L.

If weight is something that concerns you, the 70-200 f/4 is probably lighter (but not positive on that). The 70-300L is compact for a white L lens but its not terribly light. It's not heavy either.

And the variable aperture is a difference between the two. I shoot in daylight, so this has never been a concern for me.

I shoot with a 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and a 70-200mm f/4L IS on a pair of 1.6x cameras.

I don't miss the 55-70mm gap and I certainly can live with the f/4 aperture of the 70-200mm lens because of the excellent IS.

RPCrowe wrote in post #15123356
I shoot with a 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and a 70-200mm f/4L IS on a pair of 1.6x cameras.

I don't miss the 55-70mm gap and I certainly can live with the f/4 aperture of the 70-200mm lens because of the excellent IS.

Hearing that being able to live with f4 is not an issue helps. It seems I hear quite a few folks that indicate the 17-55/15-85 & 70-200f4is are a very robust and versatile combination.

To kin2son, thanks for the suggestion on the Sigma 70-200 2.8, will have to give that a look.

kin2son wrote in post #15123295
You also have slower aperture lol

Ok seriously you should also have a look at the Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS, lots of members here recommend it and it's a close second behind the greatest 70-200mkII

From the review here:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …IS-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

It is less than a stop difference across the shared focal range. Color and sharpness are extremely good. Unless you are going to the 2.8, to me the difference between the 70-200 4 and the 70-300L in terms of background separation is minimal, and you have those extra 100mm when you need it. If that is of no interest to you then that's fine, it isn't the tool for your uses I use mine outdoors during the day, so if you want indoor lower light performance and more separation then it's not for you.

The 17-55 and it pair up very well together, like others I don't miss the 55-70 gap, regardless of which lens you go with.

Just a sample shot from it

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/61744772@N06/7​600805814/

I have the EF 70-20 f2.8. I spent the (considerable) extra dough for the shallow DOF the f2.8 affords me.

Truth to be told, the DOF is VERY shallow at 2.8. In most cases, the f4 will afford you the subject isolation you need. To give you an example, I was shooting at 75mm headshots of my son in the park. Focusing on the eyes the DOF was from the tip of his nose to the beginning of his ears at f8...

For most situations, I think the f4 is perfectly fine and it comes at significant cost savings

Here is a photo of a moth at f2.8.

The 70-200 f4 IS is an outstanding lens and for outdoor shooting I think you'd love it. It's light enough and small enough to carry everywhere. It's true that 70-200 is probably a less "generally useful" focal length than 50-135, but once you got used to it, I don't think you'd miss those 20 mm, especially as you have a 15-85. The benefits of the lens far outweight the drawbacks of the focal range, IMHO.

As for the 70-300, I, too, love this lens. I rented it for a week, to photograph a sports event, and was blown away by the results. However, I needed the extra length over the 70-200; it doesn't sound as though this is your case. The 70-300 is a bit heavier than the 70-200 f4, and you might want to consider this aspect too. I'm probably going to swap my 70-200 for the 70-300, but only because of the extra length. Otherwise, you would not be able to separate me from my 70-200 f4 IS.

I'm also looking into the 70-200 f4 IS and rented one for an an Airshow this weekend. I really liked how light and small it was when walking around on my small t2i camera. Its a very nice lens and the performance and build quality is something to be appreciated.

http://i915.photobucke​t.com …ejhc11/Misc/F22​Raptor.jpg