Benefits of the 70-200 f4 (non IS)

With the introduction of the 55-250 STM and the Tamron 70-300 VC in the last few years are there any benefits to getting the 70-200 f4 (non IS)? Is it sharper throughout the range compared to the other two? What type of photography is it best suited for?

I've been going back and forth between the 3 of them for quite a while now but unsure which to go with.

I have the IS version. The biggest benefit to me is that it works on full frame. At the long end, it is a stop faster than the 55-250 flavors.

The main benefits to the 70-200mm f/4L are that it is sharper, has more contrast, and is faster at 200mm than the 55-250mm STM. A great lens for reach and action in bright light, or as a portrait lens in the studio.

The IS though on the 55-250mm STM enables things that the other lens allows less easily.

For example a steady shot of a faraway scene that is not moving quickly.

I have never been able to get a really good lunar foto handheld with the 70-200mm f/4L due to the need for a faster shutterspeed for the focal length -- camera and lens shake dominate, allow less time for light-gathering.

But the rather inexpensive "Nifty Two Fifty" nails it every single time.

Similarly, in other applications where the far-end subject is not moving quicky, IS really helps with shake compensation, as well as keeping the viewfinder from being jumbly if you are panning or tracking.

shane_c wrote in post #17563331
With the introduction of the 55-250 STM and the Tamron 70-300 VC in the last few years are there any benefits to getting the 70-200 f4 (non IS)? Is it sharper throughout the range compared to the other two? What type of photography is it best suited for?

I've been going back and forth between the 3 of them for quite a while now but unsure which to go with.

Heya,

It's a good old lens. Fairly sharp wide open. But it's old. I bought one ($400) and compared it to the 55-250 and eventually just sold the 70-200 F4L for what I paid for it. Kept the 55-250. Why? 1 stop of light difference and IS. It was as sharp basically. But you choose to have F4, or you choose to have IS. Frankly, the 55-250 is the better deal for an APS-C user these days.

The only thing I would say is apparently different in an obvious way is the F4 as an option, and the speed of focus. The 70-200 F4L is fast to focus, and F4. So to me, that's important for action and especially action under less than ideal light conditions. If that's not what you need it for, the 55-250 STM simply does the job for less cost. The image quality is pretty much the same to me. But again, you're comparing a really old (good) lens to a new lens that is outstanding for it's cost.

Very best,

I have the old L lens, and it is sharp as all get out. The first few shots I took brought a smile to my face.
That said, I never use it and it just sits on the shelf. I prefer smaller and lighter lenses.
It would be great for sports photography, and anywhere you can get high shutter speeds in plenty of good light.

Save a little longer and get the 70-200/4 IS or even longer and get the 2.8 IS II. They are worth it.